Genetically Modified Organisms
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1875, in the name of Andy Kerr, on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee, on that committee's report on genetically modified organisms.
It is a great pleasure to bring the Transport and the Environment Committee's report to the attention of Parliament. A strength of the committee is that we come to issues without carrying baggage and preconceptions about the matters that we choose to investigate. We listen to the witnesses, read the evidence that is submitted to us and make a judgment based on what we have heard and read. The report that we are discussing today contains substantive elements of that evidence.
There is perhaps less interest in the report than there might have been. When a committee agrees that something is okay and that it is satisfied with the adequacy of the control mechanisms that are available under the current system, that does not grab the headlines. Nonetheless, I think that our report covers a number of important points.
The petition that initiated our report asked the Scottish Parliament to exercise its powers not to permit the release of genetically modified crops into the environment by way of trials or commercial planting and to establish in Scotland a body or mechanism to address concerns about the impact on the environment and on human health of such releases, by way of an inquiry, independent commission or advisory body. No one would argue that the issues at stake are not complex or substantial. We certainly acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed in the public debate about genetically modified organisms and the possible risk associated with them. However, in debating the use of GMOs, as in debating many issues, a careful balance needs to be struck.
We focused our approach on those bodies and individuals that we felt were most appropriate to give us up-to-date information. They included: Friends of the Earth Scotland, the organisation that wrote the petition and brought the debate to the fore; RSPB Scotland; Dr Ulrich Loening, a retired director of the Centre for Human Ecology; the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which analyses the risk of GMOs; and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which goes beyond the question of risk from individual plantings and crops and considers more strategic advice on ethical and social implications. The committee is grateful to the bodies that participated in our inquiry.
Many of our discussions centred on legality and European regulations. The legal advice that we received from the parliamentary solicitor was clear. It suggested that neither the Parliament nor Scottish ministers has the power to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops, as was proposed in the petition from Friends of the Earth Scotland. I understand that that view is shared by the Scottish Executive rural affairs department. It stems from the provisions of European directive 90/220/EEC, which requires that member states should not unnecessarily restrict the release of GM crops if the release is safe for human health and for the environment. That explains to those who argue against GM plantings why there is a clear case for not imposing a ban. Through our discussions with the organisations involved in the debate, we came to the view that a blanket ban would not work. The current arrangements could be tested in the courts, but the majority view of the committee was that any court case would be difficult to defend and probably unsuccessful.
The committee—with the exception of Robin Harper, Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod—therefore recommended that, in the context of the current European legal framework, it was not able to support the petitioners' request that the Parliament should use its powers to ban the release of GM crops into the environment.
We also considered the various possible risks of GMOs. We erred on the side of the precautionary principle, which suggests that we should consider that there may be such risks. Laboratory testing is done at the start of any process if there is a desire to release a specific product. No one, including Friends of the Earth Scotland, has raised any objections to laboratory testing. However, laboratory testing can go only so far, so there is a need, as has been identified, for farm-scale trials and further releases into the environment.
Again, with the exception of Robin Harper, Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod, the committee agreed that it supports the precautionary approach to GM releases. Consequently, the majority of members considered that, in the context of the European legal framework, there is a role for farm-scale trials in a rightly cautious but not unnecessarily restrictive approach to GM development. Again, we view the issue as one on which we must take evidence and consider the existing control mechanisms. We came to the view that farm-scale trials, within the context of the current controls, are appropriate.
ACRE is the organisation that considers the science. It deals with the precautionary mechanisms and investigations prior to planting—there are years of investigations before any planting in the environment. Its evidence to the committee was strong and we did not receive any further evidence that led us to doubt our confidence in its scientific advice. We recognise that there is no consensus in Scottish society on GMOs, but we examined the control mechanisms that ACRE has adopted—that is its role—and we were satisfied with them.
The fact that GM contaminated seed was issued in error suggests that the control mechanisms are lax. Perhaps ACRE has been able to deal with only the specific issue of trials and not more general matters. How would Mr Kerr reassure the public and farmers—especially organic farmers—who might want stricter quality controls over the seeds that are being planted?
I am not sure whether Brian Adam is referring to the Advanta incident. If so, the committee report refers to that and I will cover it later.
ACRE's job is to consider an individual bid for a seed to be placed into the environment, to carry out the laboratory testing that is required and to assess the risk to the environment from a proposed field-scale trial. From the evidence that the committee received, and from ACRE's answers to the questions that it was asked, we have confidence in its approach. The mechanisms are in place; proper application is important in every case. Clear lessons are to be learned from the Advanta incident.
We recognised that there are specific Scottish interests in the advisory framework on GMOs. Some aspects of the rural economy, such as crofting, are largely peculiar to Scotland. The branding of Scottish products is also important. Brian Adam mentioned organic farming, which is another important issue.
Two members of ACRE are from Scotland, albeit that they are on the committee because of their scientific ability, not because they are Scottish. All AEBC appointments are made in consultation with the devolved Administrations—ministers from devolved Administrations appointed two members. Representatives from the AEBC told the committee that they recognised that there are issues unique to Scotland, which they take into account when considering these matters. Indeed, the AEBC is required to do so in its terms of reference.
The committee, with the exception of Robin Harper, Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod, did not agree with Friends of the Earth Scotland that the AEBC would not be able or willing to represent Scottish interests. We were satisfied that a separate Scottish body was unnecessary and expressed confidence in the work of the AEBC.
We feel that there is much greater scope for transparency, publicity and involvement of local communities to ensure that the public are properly advised about farm-scale trials of GM crops. We have requested that the Executive and the other bodies involved produce a plan to inform local communities of trials and discuss and agree minimum information that is required of companies if trials are to take place. The committee is keen that that should not involve any additional expenditure by public bodies—the companies should meet the cost. The recommendation of the committee was to support the general principle that the costs of seeking approval for GM releases should be met by the applicant. The committee encourages the Scottish Executive to work within that principle when possible.
Will the minister give way?
Yes. Thank you for the promotion.
I am sure that it is well deserved.
Will the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continue to be the main source of information to the Scottish Parliament on GM plantings and harvests? Members will recall that in May last year MAFF failed for almost four weeks to inform Scottish ministers of GM seed plantings that spring. The minister subsequently failed to tell us until I found out a week later that there had been a GM harvest from the same sites in 1999. Will we still use MAFF, which farmers do not trust?
Dorothy-Grace Elder has made some wild generalisations. I do not think that her portrayal of what happened reflects the role of MAFF at that time.
The committee agreed unanimously that the Advanta incident was not handled properly. Major players in the game heard about the Advanta release on Radio Scotland—that was not good enough. We are critical of the fact that no control mechanisms or management systems were in place to deal with and give information on the incident. As someone with a background in quality management procedures and control mechanisms, I found it astonishing that no procedure was in place to deal with the incident. However, the Scottish Executive has recognised the problem and has produced draft guidelines for dealing with such an incident, should one happen again. An important point to have emerged from the report is that, with the Advanta incident, which was unacceptable in many ways and did not reflect well on the organisations involved in GMO development, we have identified the problem, which should mean that it will not happen again. I assure Dorothy-Grace Elder that we have identified the problems and asked the Executive to resolve them—the Executive has now drafted guidelines on the issue.
In closing—I am sure that the Presiding Officer will be happy about that—I say that, although there are great public concerns about GMOs, great benefits can be sought from them if we make progress. The reason for farm-scale trials is to see whether we can make progress. The settled will of the committee is for the precautionary approach. We have said that research on GMOs must continue to ensure that public confidence is maintained. I commend the report to the chamber.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 1st Report, 2001 of the Transport and the Environment Committee, Report on petition PE51 from Friends of the Earth Scotland on genetically modified organisms (SP Paper 253).
I want to take the five minutes that I have in this debate to explain why the SNP dissented from only three of the 79 recommendations in the report. As Andy Kerr outlined, the committee was as one on a vast majority of the issues.
Given the brevity of the time that is available, I will deal with recommendations 25 and 35, which the SNP dissented from. They are about this Parliament's power to deal with GM crop field trials under the EC directive 90/220/EEC, which Andy Kerr mentioned. My colleague Bruce Crawford will deal with recommendation 63, which is about a separate Scottish advisory body.
As Andy Kerr said, GM crop trials are of huge interest to the public. That is primarily because genetic modification is a new science, which has not only the potential to produce enormous benefits for agriculture in this country, but the potential to endanger human and environmental health. That is why the public is interested in GM crops and has concerns about them. The committee's report is timely and its recommendations should be accepted by the Government. The Parliament should be aware of people's concerns and should accept the recommendations of the committee to show the Scottish people that we understand their concerns.
Recommendations 25 and 35 rest upon the interpretation of the EC directive. The Scottish Executive has said that it cannot restrict GM crop field trials, because the directive requires that Governments should
"not unnecessarily restrict the release of GM crops if the release was safe for human health and the environment."
The key point is whether at this time GM crop releases are
"safe for human health and the environment."
Andy Kerr alluded to the fact that there is not a consensus view on the safety of GM crops within the committee, society in general or the scientific community. A quick scan of the enormous amount of literature on the safety of GM crops will back up that view. For example, the Royal Society of Canada's expert panel examined this issue—Canada is the third largest GM crop-planting nation on the planet—and concluded that there was no full evidence that GM crops did not cause harm. Dr Ulrich Loening told the committee that there has been insufficient research on the long-term effects of GM crops. Furthermore, a British Medical Association report entitled "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", which was published in 1999, contained 19 recommendations, including a moratorium on GM commercial planting and the statement that there should be no releases of GM material into the environment.
It is therefore important to point out that, instead of ensuring the safety of GM releases, the Scottish Executive is looking for a supposed lack of evidence of harm. Any approach should be the other way around; safety should come first.
I will turn from the consideration of the scientific arguments to a further investigation of the EC directive. Article 4 of the directive states that Governments must
"ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release … of GMOs"
which can be interpreted to mean that safety must come first.
The SNP believes that article 4 enables the Parliament to prevent GM crop field trials. Indeed, we are not alone in holding that view: Friends of the Earth Scotland gave such evidence to the committee.
In response to that very point, Sarah Boyack said that any such prevention
"would be illegal unless based upon sound scientific evidence of harm."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 27 September 2000; c 998.]
Where is that evidence?
Mr Kerr knows as well as I do that the committee was aware of the lack of consensus on the issue, and that there is still no such consensus within the scientific community. That is the issue that we must examine.
I want to return to article 4 of the EC directive, which the SNP and Friends of the Earth Scotland believe would allow the Parliament to prevent GM crop field trials. Just last month, the Friends of the Earth Cymru received legal opinion on the matter to the effect that the article permits individual Governments to prevent such trials. In June 2000, the Welsh Assembly voted for a moratorium on those trials—and Wales is still a GM-free country. There are other European Union—
Will the member give way?
I am terribly short of time.
There is enough time.
Okay.
Fiona McLeod is absolutely right—like this Parliament, the Welsh Assembly has had an agonising debate about the subject. However, does she concede that, in the past 10 days, even the minister in charge has had to accept the legal advice, which he will tender to the Assembly, that it is not in a position to impose a blanket ban under EC directive 90/220/EEC?
As I understand it, the legal advice that the Friends of the Earth Cymru has received says the exact opposite. As a result, the matter is still up for debate in Wales. Other EU countries bound by the same EC directive have actually done something under article 4. Austria, Luxembourg, Greece and France have implemented controls over GM crop trials.
The committee itself accepted that the directive is open to interpretation. That question is not yet closed, and perhaps it is up to the European Committee to pursue further this specific issue in the report. That would be an example of a devolved Parliament and its committees working for Scotland.
Apart from three recommendations, the SNP signs up to this report. I hope that members will not think that I am finishing on a sour note if I say that, given the three recommendations on which the committee failed to agree, we need an independent Scottish voice in Europe to argue for Scotland's return to a GM-free, quality-food nation.
The Friends of the Earth Scotland petition, on which the Transport and the Environment Committee has based its report, asked us to do two things: to stop the release of GMOs and to establish separate Scottish monitoring bodies. As those requests form the report's core issues, it is a bit of a cop-out to agree with everything apart from the two points that stimulated the whole debate in the first place. Furthermore, it is extraordinary that, in her opening statement, the SNP member told us that the party's views on separate Scottish monitoring organisations would be established by a later speaker instead of doing so in that speech.
I assume that the SNP will hold with the reservation that it made at committee, which was based on the fact that the two members had not taken part in the process and could not realistically have been expected to sign up to the full recommendations. At the time, the committee showed flexibility and agreed at that stage to respect those views. However, many months have passed, and one would have thought that, in the intervening period, some of the evidence would at least have influenced the SNP line in this debate. The evidence gathered by the committee goes to the heart of what we are all about. If we are asked to examine an issue and then gather evidence, we are beholden to reflect upon that evidence in order to come to some conclusions. We would be an anti-Parliament—or a non-Parliament—if we simply gathered evidence and then disregarded it.
Does Mr Tosh accept that, on two of the report's recommendations that the SNP was not happy to sign up to, the committee report makes it clear that there is no consensus view on scientific safety and that there are differing interpretations of the EC directive?
Although I accept that there is no consensus, we must proceed on the basis of the best legal advice that we have received. Already this morning, we have had an indication—not least from Ross Finnie's intervention—that the Scottish Executive believes that the Parliament does not have the power to stop the release of GMOs. Furthermore, it is extremely unclear whether the Executive has such a power. Whatever my reservations about the Executive, I would much rather it operated on legal advice that suggests that it does not have such a power than on the advice obtained by Friends of the Earth in Wales.
Although our investigation established that the Parliament does not have the powers, the exercise was useful in making us go through the whole issue and helped the committee to clarify whether we should or should not have GM trials. It is clear from the evidence that there should be trials. I accept that there is no consensus about the criteria for the regulations and that there is legitimate concern about when any commercial exploitation of the new technologies should take place. However, if we do not allow laboratory tests and field trials at some stage, we will never be able to test or establish the commercial and humanitarian opportunities that might arise from producing much more substantial and beneficial crops, which is of course what GMOs are designed to achieve.
It is therefore important that—in some way, in some form and at some stage—trials take place and that we operate on a proper precautionary basis. Although I accept that there is disagreement about that matter, it is wrong in principle to say that GM technology should not be used. There must be properly controlled and sensible experimentation.
As for the question whether we should establish a Scottish ACRE and AEBC, it was very clear from the evidence that such bodies were quite unnecessary. I suppose that, in an independent Scotland that lacked those regulatory organisations, they would have to be set up and, as a result, it is not intellectually inconsistent for the SNP to hold such a view. However, continuing to maintain that in our current devolved context there is a need—and a justification—for wasting resources to monitor, control and regulate this activity is simply nonsensical and shows the infantile face of Scottish nationalism that says that we must have a Scottish equivalent of absolutely everything.
We highlighted flaws in the procedures and specifically requested—indeed demanded—that what happened with Advanta would not happen again. I believe that the Scottish Executive subscribes fully to that approach and was justifiably concerned about the relationship between MAFF and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency at that point. However, the operation of ACRE and the other regulatory bodies is not a problem: they are perfectly adequate to safeguard Scotland's interests as well as the wider UK interests.
The petition was wrong, and the committee's report is correct. It is a matter of great regret that, having had ample time to consider the evidence, committee members cannot accept the integrity of the process and the good sense of the recommendations, and that, in the context of a devolved Scotland, it is appropriate to accept the existing monitoring arrangements. I support the committee report and I regret the position that is being taken by the SNP on this matter.
The preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution commits us to safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment and to harnessing technological change for human advantage. In approaching the difficult questions that are raised by technology that enables genetic modification, we should recognise that those objectives, although competing, are equally valid.
Other well-established and relevant Liberal Democrat principles include ensuring openness and accountability in Government decision making and upholding the right of the individual to make informed choices.
A further consideration is the need for our agriculture industry to be able to compete internationally without unnecessary burdens that would compromise its competitiveness. As paragraph 6 of the report states, the
"issues concerning the development and release of GMOs are substantial and complex."
However, risks are inherent in any process of creating or introducing novel products, and some non-genetic developments—such as the introduction of non-native species and the move to growing winter wheat—have had serious adverse effects on biodiversity of the kind that critics of genetic modification fear.
There are significant commercial, health and environmental benefits to be achieved through the responsible application of techniques of genetic modification. There is also a great deal of public concern about the potential risks that are associated with genetic modification. It is, therefore, essential to have a robust public policy framework in place before commercialisation begins, to ensure that when or if commercialisation goes ahead, the technology is used responsibly.
Much of the policy framework for GMOs is dictated by Europe, where the precautionary principle is the basis of environmental policy, manifested in the step-by-step approach of the European directive on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. Under the directive, the containment of GMOs is reduced and the scale of release increased gradually, step by step, only if evaluation of the earlier steps indicates that the next step can be taken without harming human health or the environment.
The Transport and the Environment Committee considered where and from whom the Government and the Scottish Executive obtained advice on GMO matters. The plethora of acronyms in paragraph 16 of the report indicates that there is no shortage of advisory bodies. We are told that there are no fewer than 14 specialist scientific committees in the UK Government's advisory framework for GM technology. The two main bodies are ACRE and the relatively new AEBC, the remit of which is also to consider the wider implications of the use of GM technology. As Andy Kerr said, that remit was commended by committee members, who felt that it is important for the wider issues to be considered. The committee agreed that Scottish access to those bodies is satisfactory.
There has been much public concern over the lack of consultation on the GM farm-scale trials in Scotland. Clarification is needed of the difference between consultation and the giving of information. Consultation implies that responses can materially influence, change or stop whatever is being consulted on. In the context of the current set of farm-scale trials, we are talking about providing information, not consulting. As both the Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee concluded, under EC regulations, the Scottish Executive cannot prohibit the trials. However, it is extremely important to make as much information as possible about the trials available to the public, detailing how they are to be conducted, what precautions are being taken and what safeguards are in place.
The first farm-scale trial in Scotland last year was conducted in Daviot, which is in my constituency and only a few miles from my home. As a good example of consultation, I cite the meeting that was organised for the people of Daviot through the auspices of the local community council. At that meeting, a representative from Aventis, the company that was supplying the seed and organising the trial, a representative from the Scottish Crop Research Institute, which is undertaking the scientific monitoring of the trial, and two representatives from SERAD each gave presentations about the aspects of the trial for which they were responsible and were open to questions afterwards. There was a good turnout of local people and a fairly long and probing question session. Those who were present found the meeting informative, useful and reassuring. Therefore, I endorse the committee's recommendation that standards should be set for companies that undertake such trials, concerning the information that they give to the public and the way in which it is provided.
I also endorse the report's recommendation on producing and publicising guidelines for dealing with the sort of accidental release of GMOs that occurred last year in the Advanta seed contamination incident. I wonder whether one loose end, in connection with that incident, has been tied up through the committee's evidence taking. At our meeting on 27 September, we were told that SERAD was awaiting a report from the Canadian authorities on the circumstances that led to the seed contamination. I wonder whether that report has been received and what it says.
In conclusion, I welcome the report, which is thorough and workmanlike. It contains many sound conclusions and recommendations, and I hope that the public will find it reassuring.
I found Murray Tosh's speech interesting, although it lacked the intellectual rigour that we normally expect from him. He suggested that everyone would have to arrive at the same conclusion on the basis of the evidence that was received. It was rather unfair of him to suggest that, because SNP members arrived at a different conclusion from that which was reached by him and other committee members, they were in some way wrong. Evidence should influence our decisions, but not everyone will arrive at the same conclusion on every occasion.
I understand that a body of evidence that is received by a committee might permit different interpretations. My point was that we did not hear any coherent argument for setting up a Scottish ACRE and a Scottish AEBC. No good case for that was put forward; neither did the SNP members of the committee produce any evidence to support that proposal.
Bruce Crawford will address that matter in his speech. However, the implication of Mr Tosh's earlier remarks was clearly that a unanimous opinion should have been arrived at on all areas of the GMO issue, not just on that specific point.
Like my colleagues, I believe that the GM farm-scale trials do not yet have a role to play—and I emphasise the word "yet". I would be much happier if the Scottish Parliament followed the lead that has been taken by the Welsh Assembly, in spite of what the Minister for Environment and Rural Development said in his intervention. I would prefer Scotland to be a GM-free zone. Many people in the north-east believe that our region is being used as a guinea pig. The Daviot and Tillycorthie areas account for 10 of the 18 GM trials that have been authorised in Scotland, and a large section of the public are extremely concerned about that.
When the first Daviot trial was announced, I went to well-attended meetings in Daviot and Inverurie. I attended the meeting to which Nora Radcliffe referred. Although I agree that it was well attended, that information was provided and that there was a significant question-and-answer session, I did not arrive at Nora Radcliffe's conclusion that people were reassured by it. It was also a ticket-only meeting. On the face of it, it was organised by the community councils, but we heard only one side—
The meeting was organised at the request of the chairman of the community council, which undertook to let local people know about the meeting. The council was concerned that the meeting should be, as Mr Adam said, an information-giving meeting. There were also concerns that the meeting might be taken over by people with another agenda.
We heard only one side of the argument, which was put forward by those who had an interest in the matter. The meeting was well attended and conducted, but we will have to agree to differ on the interpretation of the outcome.
The general point that Nora Radcliffe made about providing information and having meaningful consultation is important. The process that we are talking about, however, does not reflect well on the Executive as no meaningful consultation is taking place. People are simply being informed that they will have trials on their doorstep; they cannot influence whether the trials take place.
The meeting that I attended in Inverurie, which other members, including Alex Fergusson, also attended, was of a slightly different nature. The vast majority of participants expressed their concerns about the trial. Some have suggested that that meeting was hijacked by others, but I do not accept that. As far as I could see, most people who attended were local, had an interest and had significant concerns. Their views reflected accurately the views of the vast bulk of the residents of the area who were against the farm-scale trials and still are. On 18 March, The Herald carried quotations of a number of near neighbours of the New Craig farm that express their concerns. Speaking of the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Professor Steve Bruce of Aberdeen University, who lives with his wife and three children just yards from New Craig farm, said:
"I do think she should have told us rather than leave us to learn from the media".
Mac Mackie, the managing director of the family-run dairy and farming business, Mackie's, close to the farm, said:
"I would have liked to have been told so we could check if there was anything we should be concerned about".
Roderick Nutten, from Loanhead of Pitninnan, which is also close to the farm, said:
"We were not even asked or consulted about this. I don't really know anything about genetically modified crops so I don't know if I should be concerned or not but I think someone should have explained to us what this all means."
People in the area felt that they had not been properly informed or consulted. All that has happened up to now is that information has been provided and the trials have gone ahead.
I am a scientist by training and I know that the scientific community is divided about the threat of cross-contamination of species. Recently, Michael Meacher, the UK Minister for the Environment, admitted that cross-contamination was a possibility. That is a significant change of heart on the part of the Government and that ought to be taken into account.
I am concerned about bees: there is evidence from Jena University in Germany that the guts of bees that have been feeding on GM crops have been altered. That alteration is bound to have an effect on the important role that bees play in pollination. I need not mention the significant amount of money that is involved in the honey industry.
I want to emphasise my agreement with much of the report that was prepared by the Transport and the Environment Committee, on which I serve. However, I am informed by a deep sense of frustration at the feeling that the Executive is overly complacent about the safety of farm-scale trials. There is a feeling that the Executive believes that the arguments on GMOs are done and dusted. Farm-scale trials are commercially motivated and are more an exercise in public sedation than they are genuine scientific endeavours.
The three fundamental differences of opinion I have with the report echo those that the SNP has already mentioned. On the safety of GM trials, I disagree entirely with the conclusion that releasing the novel organisms into the environment to test them can be considered a precautionary approach. We heard evidence that there are serious concerns about the impact on the environment; for example, there has been little or no research into the effects on subsoil and soil bacteria.
The UK Government believes that the risks are minimal and are worth taking in order to speed the development of the technology. However, the committee heard evidence that there were serious concerns about testing the safety of GM crops in that way, particularly in regard to the possibility of horizontal gene flow. Murray Tosh said that we did not hear enough evidence about the dangers, but that is because the research has not yet been done. More research is needed.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time.
The committee said that it could not decide whether the Scottish Parliament has any powers to ban GM crops and said that it is not the job of the committee to decide that. It is up to national Governments to interpret EU law and take action. I echo what has already been said on that matter by the SNP. The courts have to decide matters only in relation to disputes over sovereign action. As has been mentioned, several European countries have clearly concluded that they have powers to ban GM crops and have done so.
To say that we do not know what powers we have and cannot therefore do anything is to avoid the issue. If there is confusion about the law, we need an independent examination of exactly what powers the Scottish Parliament has to restrict GM crops. The committee concluded that the European Committee could be asked to pursue that question. I would like to echo what the SNP has said on that matter and call for that committee to do so.
The report disagrees with me on the need for a Scottish body to oversee GM crop developments. Murray Tosh said that the suggestion that there should be such a body was infantile and that the body would be a waste of time and money. Surely, however, having such a commission in Scotland would stimulate public debate on this important issue within Scotland, rather than having to—
Will the member give way?
I will try to finish my speech within the time limit and see how much time I have left in which to take points from other members.
Most of my committee colleagues were of the opinion that a committee based in London with only one Scottish representative—I believe that the committee now has two Scottish representatives—should decide the future of GM crops in Scotland. However, agriculture is devolved to Scotland and GM crops, which are an important aspect of agriculture policy, should not be, as it were, devolved back to a UK body. We saw how Ross Finnie was kept in the dark about the Advanta GM contamination incident. I argue that the Scottish Parliament must be allowed to decide for itself about GM technology.
The petition from Friends of the Earth Scotland called on the Scottish Parliament to exercise its powers not to permit the release of GM crops into the environment by way of trials or commercial planting and to establish a mechanism in Scotland that will address the concerns about the impact of such releases on the environment and human health. I do not believe that the report has adequately addressed the petition. There is clearly a need for further investigation. I believe that we should suspend GM field trials at least until that investigation has been carried out.
I have half a minute in which to answer questions from other members.
Does Robin Harper accept that ACRE is not an English, Irish or Welsh body but a UK body to which we send Scottish representatives? Does he accept that the Scottish Executive negotiated a moratorium with the industry on the issue of the commercial release of genetically modified foods? Does he also accept that, during Britain's presidency of the EU, we pushed for labelling of all genetically modified food products? Finally, does he accept that no GM foodstuffs have been licensed under Labour?
I am happy to accept all those points. I will take an intervention from Andy Kerr.
Thank you. This is a unique method of dealing with interventions.
How this can be done within 30 seconds remains to be seen.
What is important is that the best representatives of the scientific community should serve on bodies such as ACRE, not whether they live north or south of the border.
All right, Mr Harper. You have one minute, and that is it.
I take Mr Kerr's point.
He has finished.
Any more interventions?
If not, that leaves up to four minutes for Dorothy-Grace Elder.
I will not apologise to Andy Kerr for promoting him earlier—it might be just a matter of time.
I agree with Robin Harper that much more investigation is needed, and I believe that we do not have good cause, historically, to trust any UK body in relation to agricultural matters. Britain has a long and dishonourable history of adulterated food and interference with the food chain, which took place before we knew what we were doing.
On the subject of food, I come from a long history of handling with tongs absolutely anything that I hear from any Government. Heavy money is involved, fellow parliamentarians, in the whole GM-motivated industry, as are very heavy politics. We need think of only one case—that of Lord Sainsbury and his links with the Labour Government. Lord Sainsbury is one of the greatest defenders of the GM movement.
Genetic modification is unlike any other experiment, because it tinkers with the very basis of plant and crop life. That leads me to handle with lead-lined gloves all Government reassurances about GM, even from the best of people, who themselves might believe what they say.
We have no reason to trust UK bodies such as MAFF, which is heavily involved in GM. The people in MAFF contributed to the BSE disaster by refusing, over many months, to tell farmers precisely what was in feed, because of what they described as reasons of commercial confidentiality relating to the feed industry: and so, the BSE disaster became catastrophic.
MAFF is in many ways under suspicion over its handling of the current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I have no hesitation in itemising what happened in this Parliament with regard to MAFF in May last year, when we were meeting in Glasgow. At that time, Mr Finnie admitted that MAFF had delayed for almost one month passing on information that it had received from Advanta via Canada, to the effect that a rogue seeding had been carried out in Scotland in spring 2000. Mr Finnie ordered that the fields concerned should be ripped up immediately.
What Mr Finnie did not inform us at the time was that in 1999, the previous year, there had been not only a planting, but a harvest, and that the GM material had entered the human and animal food chains. It is still there. However, both MAFF and Advanta in Canada had been informed. Mr Finnie chose not to inform Parliament, until I dragged the information out of him with tongs a week later. He chose not to inform us then; what are we not being informed about now?
Members have spoken rather wimpishly today about the Parliament not having the relevant powers, as if we should merely accept that, just like children. If GM seeds are in our fields, that gives us a moral right to the powers, and seizure of those powers to protect our farmers, our population and our future generations, because we do not know how GM will work out in the long term. I urge the Parliament to put some steel in its spine: it should get those powers.
We come to wind-up speeches. We are on schedule, so I will allow three minutes for each party representative, starting with Des McNulty for the Labour party.
The Transport and the Environment Committee has produced a very good report. The committee has a record of carrying out serious work, and has produced a series of good reports, of which its report on GMOs is a positive example.
We are indebted to Friends of the Earth Scotland for focusing attention on the issue, which is obviously of public concern. We should also be grateful to all those who gave evidence to the committee, which made a number of important recommendations that have not been entirely covered in speeches.
It is, perhaps, not relevant simply to focus on what happened in the past; much of the debate should have focused on what might happen in the future, if the recommendations that are being made by the Transport and the Environment Committee are taken up. It is regrettable that SNP members who listened to the evidence are not here to participate in the debate, and that we have had to content ourselves with contributions from members who did not hear the evidence, and who do not appear to have read the committee's report.
The arguments on the matter should not focus on our positions on constitutional matters, but on our position on the scientific evidence.
Will Des McNulty give way?
I will not, Bruce—I am sorry.
Can I continue? I have only three minutes.
The member is not giving way.
It is important that we reassure ourselves that the current advisory bodies, ACRE and the AEBC, will effectively conduct the work that they are required to do. The AEBC was created after petition PE51 was lodged. In its evidence, Friends of the Earth Scotland made it clear that the creation of the AEBC and its proposed mode of operation were satisfactory in relation to some of the issues that it had raised. The Transport and the Environment Committee calls for the AEBC to operate within mechanisms that will deal effectively with the specific Scottish context. It is not that we need to produce a specifically Scottish science, but that we need to ensure that the recommendations deal with the specific Scottish context.
The committee made important points in recommendations 45 and 46: that the research that is required—I agree with Robin Harper on this—must focus not only on biotechnology and biodiversity, but on a range of issues on agricultural management and on the socioeconomic implications of proceeding with the science. We need to use proper scientific advice, and we must ensure that that is properly fed into decision making. Dorothy-Grace Elder mentioned BSE. I spent about half a day during the Easter recess reading through the BSE report, which contains evidence that, in the past, Westminster did not always take adequate account of scientific evidence. We are calling for scientific evidence to be properly built into decision making.
The precautionary approach that we are advocating should involve a default no, not a default yes, to applications to carry out trials. We ought to be satisfied that trials will be properly conducted and that they will properly build scientific knowledge. We are not in the process of simply allowing companies to rent land to carry out trials that will have no wider benefit. The report includes important recommendations about public information, particularly in relation to the minimum information standard, which will give greater transparency and more information on decision making.
One particularly important issue is that the public should not at any point pay for the costs of taking the GM agenda forward. The costs of approvals of GM releases and trials should be met by the companies that are involved—that recommendation should be built into the mechanism.
The report gives a positive approach and maps the way forward. It should be considered positively, and I look forward to hearing the minister's responses to my points.
I start by declaring my interest as a farmer. I also note the Executive's pragmatic approach to the matter.
I support Murray Tosh's view that we do not need a Scottish ACRE, and I look forward to Bruce Crawford outlining the SNP's policy position in his closing speech.
Will John Scott give way?
No, thank you.
I accept the need for a cautious step-by-step approach, as outlined in the Transport and the Environment Committee report, which I welcome.
We must be realistic, because we will have to deal with some harsh realities in the near future. The sooner we get rid of the froth on the subject and look at the bigger picture, the better. The population of the world is rising dramatically. The current world population of 6 billion is set to increase by 50 per cent in the next 50 years and, in the meantime, we must find a safe way in which to feed everybody in future. The Malthusian cliff looms large and unless we address the issues now and develop safe GM foods and organisms, this generation will have failed our children and our children's children.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Each successive generation has had to cope with the population explosion of its time and GM foods offer our generation the scientific solution that we so desperately seek. We also have to bear in mind the advent of global warming—a subject that is close to Robin Harper's heart. As global warming gathers pace, two main things will happen. First, low-lying, fertile, food-producing, coastal land will be flooded by rising sea levels. Secondly, the equatorial desert strips that band the world—the barren deserts of the world—will increase in size and width. That, too, will reduce the world's food-producing ability. Therefore, we are contemplating two driving issues, which are that our ability to produce food using existing science and technology in a reducing land mass is about to diminish, and that our population is set to rise. We must move forward quickly and safely.
The debate is no longer about whether we go down the road of scientific advance and whether we have field trials; the question is how we do so safely. That is why we must show leadership, shoulder our responsibilities and start getting our act together. We must stop driving scientists and bioscientists out of the country by accepting the sterile and sometimes selfish arguments of those who stand against progress as, on today's showing, Robin Harper would have us do.
We must have an intelligent and nimble Executive. MAFF's track record on this matter—and others to which Dorothy-Grace Elder alluded—calls into question MAFF's very existence. I agree with Charles Kennedy's call for the disbanding of MAFF because of its appalling record over the years. We cannot afford any more blunders like the Advanta crisis that was foisted on us last year, to which Brian Adam referred.
GMO is a reserved matter and so it should remain, but we must accept our responsibilities to the Scottish people and to the wider world. Scottish Conservatives are committed to the cautious development of GM organisms. The time for talking is over. We must recognise the potential benefits of the technology, but we must proceed with caution. We must recognise genuine public concerns and we must proceed on the basis of science alone. We should introduce clear and unambiguous labelling.
We must get on with it. With 700 million people starving in the world at the moment, we have no time to lose.
I thank John Scott for concentrating so much on the committee's report—that was very useful. Andy Kerr, however, reflected well the Transport and the Environment Committee's findings. He did a good job, as did the committee in taking evidence. It carried out a very robust process on the Friends of the Earth petition.
For a Tory, Murray Tosh shows a remarkable ability to roll over to what the Executive says. The committee report is full of evidence of contradictions and problems, particularly concerning the EU directive. The report states:
"The Committee accepts that the EC Directive is open to differing interpretations."
Fiona McLeod properly gave our interpretation of the directive. No malice was intended and, had Murray Tosh had a little patience, he will hear me note that Fiona McLeod and I entered the process of examining the petition at a late date and could not have full individual ownership of everything that happened.
Mr Tosh indicated disagreement.
Murray Tosh may not have meant that, but that was the intent that I understood in what he said.
If Bruce Crawford reads the Official Report, he will see that I acknowledged that he and Fiona McLeod came late to the debate. It was accepted that they could hardly be expected to sign up to evidence that they had not heard. My criticism today is that, having reviewed that evidence, Bruce Crawford has shown little sign of accepting any of it.
I will come to that. I have already mentioned what paragraph 24 of the report says about the European directive.
Murray Tosh also said that the SNP should have made its position clear in its opening speech. We did not, because I intend to deal with it in summing up—we are given only so much time in the chamber.
It is obvious that we cannot take individual ownership of the whole process. There is much to applaud in the report, but it would be wrong to pretend that we accept the direction that has been taken by the committee in all its recommendations. We have had time to reflect on the report, and our position is strengthened by that period of reflection.
Fiona McLeod dealt with one area and I will deal with another. We support the view of Friends of the Earth that a separate Scottish GM advisory body is required. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development might deal with science that is similar to that which his UK Government counterpart deals with, but there can be no question that there are distinct economic and social circumstances in Scotland. More important, there is a distinct natural and agricultural background. Andy Kerr referred in particular to the crofting communities of Scotland. In the light of those differences, it is important to ensure that any advisory body acts properly and appropriately in advising ministers. That could be more efficiently achieved if a separate Scottish GM advisory body were established. There are separate bodies all over the place that advise ministers, so the nonsense from Murray Tosh about setting up another body is a red herring. There should be a body that is closer to ministers and that has a greater understanding of Scottish circumstances, rather than a body that is distant from ministers and which does not focus fully on Scottish requirements. Executive ministers have many advisory bodies.
Murray Tosh should look at the evidence. In column 1019 of the Official Report of the Transport and the Environment Committee meeting on 27 September 2000, it can be seen that Kenny MacAskill tried three times to get information from the minister on what would happen if a Scottish representative in the current process was unable to persuade his or her colleagues not to proceed. On three separate occasions, Kenny MacAskill did not receive an answer from the minister. We want to protect and enshrine the Scottish position by having a separate advisory body. The evidence is all there.
I state at the outset that the Scottish Executive's overall policy is that we are neither for nor against GM. Our priority is to protect human health and to safeguard the environment. We are pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-consumer choice.
I welcome the basic thrust of the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. I welcome the recognition by a majority of the committee that, under current legislation, Parliament does not have the power to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops. That does not mean that we consider that such releases should be subject to anything less than the most stringent controls, which is what the present system provides for. I share Murray Tosh's view that, if the committee received advice to the effect that that is a correct interpretation of directive 90/220/EEC—it is the Scottish Executive's interpretation—proceeding on an ultra vires basis is not the correct way in which to protect our interests.
I also welcome the view of the majority of the committee that there is a role for farm-scale trials. It is wrong to suggest that simply because Luxembourg, Germany and France have decided not to hold trials, they have the power to ban the commercialisation of GM crops. The interposition of additional trials is an extra precautionary principle that has been introduced in this country, along with a three-year moratorium on the commercialisation of trials. Given that the other countries in the EU do not have powers to unreasonably prevent commercialisation, that will take place without those countries having the additional knowledge of the effects on biodiversity that is gained from trials.
I also welcome the committee's majority recommendation that it is not necessary to establish a separate Scottish GM advisory body. Like Murray Tosh, I understand the SNP's intellectual argument, but I do not think that it holds true for a devolved institution. I believe that ACRE and the AEBC serve us well
I will speak about the committee's recommendations for changes to our current system. The essential issue is the involvement of local communities. Many members made that point well. The committee recommended that companies that undertake trials should be required to set out how they propose to inform local communities. The committee also recommended that the Scottish Executive, ACRE and other stakeholders should discuss and agree the minimum information standards that are required.
As I said, I am concerned about that matter—about which Brian Adam said that we had done nothing. I say to him that the essential problem is that the framework under directive 90/220/EEC, or under part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is silent on that matter. However, I recognise that communities can feel justified in believing that they have not been given enough notice of trials—
Will the minister give way?
I will finish this point.
Better public information and consultation are being considered, as Brian Adam knows from the evidence that was given by the AEBC. Those aspects will also be covered in the AEBC's forthcoming report on farm-scale trials and I assure him that the Executive will wish to act on the AEBC's recommendations.
If the directive is silent on informing local communities, does not that give the minister discretion to act and to accept the precautionary principle that the driver ought to be to say no, unless a product is proved to be okay? Why has he chosen not to use that interpretation?
I did not say that the directive was silent on how the Executive should reach decisions. I said that it was silent on how proper consultation on the process should be conducted, which suggests that we should fall back on a system of holding public information meetings only. People want to go further than that.
Under article 9 of the recently promulgated directive 2001/18/EC, member states must consult the public when appropriate and will be required to lay down arrangements, including a reasonable time period, for that consultation, in order to give the public or groups the opportunity to express opinions.
Will the minister give way?
Let me finish this point.
We are giving urgent consideration to how that requirement should be given effect in Scotland. I say to John Scott that GM regulation is not a reserved matter, and we will be able to implement that directive through Scottish regulations. As I said, although GM regulation is not reserved, according to schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, it is controlled by an EU directive, and as Brian Adam knows, under section 57(2) of that act, we must implement all EU directives.
The minister said that he would give urgent consideration to directive 2001/18/EC. Is he able to say when he hopes to introduce guidelines on public consultation? As my colleague Brian Adam made clear, there was great consternation locally when folk heard—in the press the following day—about the 17 March decision on New Craig farm.
I am not able to give a specific date. If Fiona McLeod has read directive 2001/18/EC, she will recognise it as a rather familiar, but not short, European directive that contains about 38 articles. It will be necessary for the Executive to consider how best to implement the directive. That might be done through the provisions of part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, although it might be neater to deal with it through the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972. It is crucial that the directive is implemented through Scottish regulations, and many issues will have to be considered when the regulations are drafted. I regret that I am unable to give Fiona McLeod a specific date. However, I am anxious that public consultation should be incorporated in the Scottish regulations.
Can the minister assure members by setting a target, rather than giving a date, to introduce the guidelines before next year's planting?
I am reluctant to give a precise date, given the requirement to introduce secondary legislation—which, I suspect, will require considerable scrutiny by the Parliament. I am able to say only that I am deeply concerned about consultation, and that I am anxious that directive 2001/18/EC is translated into Scottish regulations as soon as is humanly possible, although a number of issues must be dealt with in that process.
I note the committee's view that the move towards greater transparency in the GM release process should not involve additional expenditure by public bodies. The committee also took the view that, in general, the applicant should meet the costs of seeking approval. We accept that recommendation and we are putting in place a revised scheme of fees and charges to cover the administrative costs of running the regulatory process. We published a revised fees and charges scheme that came into effect on 18 April.
We also accept the Transport and the Environment Committee's recommendation that new guidelines should be introduced on how to handle any future accidental releases. For that purpose, we published draft guidance that reflects the general approach to emergency procedures for other circumstances in which such procedures may be necessary.
That allows me to move neatly on to the point that was raised by Nora Radcliffe on the Advanta seed contamination incident. I regret to say that the Canadian authorities have found their investigation to be an extraordinarily difficult task. Although they have complied with our requests for information about the investigation, we are in their hands. I understand that the investigation is nearly complete—the most recent estimate of when we might receive a report of the investigation is towards the end of May.
I will deal quickly with one or two other points that were made during the debate. It is all very well for Dorothy-Grace Elder to campaign against MAFF, but I concern myself only with the integrity of the people who serve on ACRE, and the integrity and professionalism of those who serve on the Food Standards Agency and the AEBC, because it is from those bodies that I seek advice when I discharge my responsibilities. Despite Dorothy-Grace Elder's prejudices and feelings about MAFF—which may be understandable—I say to her that not one piece of evidence has been adduced to me that suggests that I should do anything other than accept the integrity and professionalism of those bodies. That is important, because the Executive seeks advice from them.
I have touched on the issue of meaningful consultation, and I also mentioned commercialisation, which was raised by Murray Tosh.
I am sorry if Robin Harper feels that the Executive is being over-complacent in relation to GMOs. I do not believe that that is the case, because we are very much concerned about the issue. Our approach is not driven by other considerations and our concerns are genuine. I had hoped that he would share our concern that, before we get pressed into having to give approvals to commercial crops, we should have trials that seek to test the effect on biodiversity and on the different farming practices that will be necessary for the crops. I also thought that he would recognise that approach as a sign that the Government is concerned about knowing the whole story before granting approvals for commercial crops. If we wait for the after-effects, it will be too late.
I thank the Transport and the Environment Committee for its well-considered and balanced report. As I said, we are pursuing a number of the issues that the report identified. We are in touch not only with MAFF, but with our colleagues in other UK Administrations—the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly—and we are always actively considering the development of policy in this area.
In the meantime, I am grateful for the views that have been expressed during the debate and I commend the approach that has been taken by the Transport and the Environment Committee.
I call John Farqhuar Munro to wind up the debate on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee.
As the Presiding Officer intimated, my task is to wind up on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee, of which I am deputy convener.
As members heard Andy Kerr say, the committee accepts that issues around the development and release of GMOs are substantial and complex. The committee also recognises the concerns that have been expressed by large sections of the public about the possible risks that are associated with the release of GMOs, and it has suggested that a careful balance must be struck between the ongoing development of GM technology and minimising potential associated risks. We have heard some of those concerns expressed this morning. Robin Harper suggested that the precautionary approach was not acceptable or sufficient. I believe that that term also causes confusion.
The committee understands the public concerns over GM crops and believes that there is still a need for a wide-ranging and rational debate on future GM crops trials. The overall need for the technology, where GM fits in with agriculture and whether there are sufficient benefits to justify the risks of further developing and exploiting that technology should be considered. I suggest that many of the current problems have arisen because that debate did not take place earlier with local communities. The opportunity must be taken to promote a wide-ranging debate on GMOs and associated crop trials. The number of people who came to give evidence to the committee is proof of that.
The Transport and the Environment Committee is concerned that, despite many reassurances, there is still public concern about the risks that are associated with GM releases. As part of the approval process for farm-scale trials, the committee recommended that companies that undertake such trials should be required to set out how they propose to inform local communities of the trials. The committee also recommended that the Scottish Executive and other stakeholders should discuss and agree the minimum information standards that are required from those companies.
It might not surprise members that the committee suggested strongly that greater transparency is required in the process of ministerial decision making and in how ministers arrive at conclusions.
I want to suggest respectfully to the Executive that any GM crop trials should, in future, be subject to the democratic planning process in the local authority areas in which such trials are proposed. That is reasonable.
Will John Farquhar Munro say where in the committee report that particular element is referred to? I thought that he was summing up on behalf of the committee.
The suggestion that the democratic process should be applied is my own. I said that I respectfully suggest that. Bruce Crawford obviously did not hear me.
In conclusion, I thank the committee for the diligence in its meetings. I also thank those who gave evidence and the clerks, who worked diligently to ensure that the committee's democratic process was appropriate and successful. I sincerely thank the convener and members of the committee for concluding the report. As I intimated, the issues are varied and complex and we must continue to exercise the utmost caution.