Agriculture
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-560, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the future of Scottish agriculture, and three amendments to that motion. Timing will have to be a bit more precise in this debate, because we are a minute or two behind the clock.
When I was thinking about the motion for this debate, I found no better form of words than that put forward by the Scottish National Party's sister party, Plaid Cymru, last month in the National Assembly for Wales. That motion was passed unanimously by the Assembly—the Tory party supported it, the Liberal Democrats supported it and the Labour party supported it. Many of the issues—in fact, all of them—regarding genetic modification in Wales are the same issues that we face in Scotland.
In many ways, the motion that I lodged defends the Executive's document "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture" and the partnership agreement. Under the heading "The Vision", on page 1, "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture" states:
"We want a prosperous farming industry, one of Scotland's success stories, which benefits all the people of Scotland. It should … be focused on producing food and other products that the customer wants".
The Executive is pushing for market-led agriculture—I have heard the minister reiterate that many times—but where is the market for genetically modified foods? We have just had a "GM Nation?" public debate, which did not show much public support for GM. Several surveys on the subject have been carried out over the past five years in Scotland. In a MORI poll in April 1999, 69 per cent of people agreed that the Scottish Parliament should ban the production and sale of food containing GM crops. Another MORI poll in April 2003 showed that only 14 per cent of people support GM food. Perhaps the most remarkable poll over the past five years was the ICM Research poll in October 2000, in which 56 per cent of people thought that public protests involving the destruction of GM crops were acceptable. The majority of the public in this country not only does not want GM, but agrees with unlawful activity to remove GM crops from fields. It is clear that there is no market for GM.
The problem that we face is that, if commercialisation goes ahead, Scottish farmers will be unable to supply GM-free produce to the market because of contamination. Yesterday, the Parliament received a visit from two Canadian farmers who spoke about the problems not only of the effectiveness of GM crops but of market loss through contamination of GM-free produce. One of them was an organic farmer but the other was a conventional farmer and a representative of the Canadian National Farmers Union. Those farmers simply want to grow food to meet market demand, but they are unable to do so because of contamination. We know that, between 1999 and 2001, contamination in the United States has cost the American economy $12 billion through economic loss and lawsuits.
According to the partnership agreement, the Executive wants to develop an organic action plan to help to grow the infrastructure to meet market demand. That is a laudable aspiration, for which we lobbied hard during the first session of the Parliament, but how can the Executive be serious about that aspiration when it does not seek to rule out the commercialisation of GM crops? We heard yesterday that organic farmers in Saskatchewan are mounting a class action against Monsanto and Aventis because farmers there cannot grow GM-free oil-seed rape due to contamination. That market is gone—it is gone for ever—but that is the reality of GM commercialisation. I ask members in the chamber whether that is the reality that they want for Scotland.
Let me quote a Labour party minister. I will be interested to hear what our Labour party minister says later, but this is what Michael Meacher said:
"The issue … is that if it is impossible to separate off organic oilseed rape in the vast spaces of the Canada prairies, it is inconceivable that it can be kept separate in the very much smaller land area of Britain where farms exist cheek by jowl together."
The reality is that we will see a collapse in the Scottish market for organic and GM-free produce if we commercialise GM crops in Scotland. All the science and field trials can never tell us about that economic reality.
The partnership agreement states that the precautionary principle will be applied for GM crops. However, the notion that it is safe to test whether something is safe to release into the environment by releasing it into the environment must be questioned, as we have done all along. The field trials were never looking for wider environmental impacts beyond the biodiversity within the little plots in which the testing was carried out. The trials were never looking for contamination, despite the fact that we knew that contamination occurred, as The Sunday Times showed when it investigated the Tayport beekeeper David Rolfe and found GM contamination of his honey. We know that contamination occurred, but the trials did not test for it, so we do not have that as part of the results. The field trials give us the narrowest of views, which only hint at the environmental impact that could occur as a result of the commercialisation of GM.
I want to mention briefly the call for a GM-free Scotland, which we have always supported and will continue to support. For the past four years, the Executive has had, under part B of European Union directive 2001/18/EC, powers over the field trials. For the commercial growing of GM crops, which comes under part C of the directive, the United Kingdom has to consult the Executive and other devolved Administrations. The National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh minister are exercising their power and responsibility by making the case for a GM-free Wales to the Westminster Government, so that Westminster can, in turn, make the case to the EU for a GM-free Wales and a GM-free UK. What line is the Scottish Executive taking with Elliot Morley? We know the line that Wales is taking; we want the Executive to take the same line for Scotland.
Regardless of whether we achieve a GM-free Scotland and a GM-free zone within Europe, we know that contamination has already occurred. Contamination could occur even if we had a GM-free Scotland. We have already seen how farm supplies have been contaminated before we have even considered commercialisation. That is why we need to shore up the law in Scotland and use our full powers to introduce a GM liability bill. I invite all parties in the Parliament to submit their responses to my consultation.
To conclude, GM technology does not contribute to the aims of the partnership agreement, just as it does not contribute to the objectives of Welsh policy. I urge all members to secure the future of Scottish agriculture by voting for the motion to send a consistent line on GM from all the devolved Administrations.
I move,
That the Parliament calls upon the Scottish Executive to apply the precautionary principle and adopt the most legally restrictive policy, regardless of Her Majesty's Government's position, in relation to GM crops in recognition of the significant danger that they pose to GM-free conventional and organic farming and the potential risks to human health, animal health and the environment.
I call Allan Wilson to speak to and move amendment S2M-560.2. You have a very tight five minutes.
Fair enough—I will do my best.
Today's debate, which is headlined as being on the sustainable future of Scottish agriculture, should identify important issues that the Parliament needs to address. Indeed, the forward strategy for Scottish agriculture has as a key aim—I am grateful to Mr Ruskell for referring to it—which is the protection and enhancement of our common environment.
However, as we have heard, the Green party has chosen today to single out GM crops for special consideration and to suggest that the Parliament should—I quote from the motion—
"adopt the most legally restrictive policy, regardless of Her Majesty's Government's position, in relation to GM crops".
I was pleased to hear Mr Ruskell's explanation of where that text came from, because it is not consistent with either what he said or what the Greens have said about the creation of GM-free zones.
Let us be clear on one point: GM crops, whether they are in Scotland, the rest of the UK—including Wales—or Europe, are restricted. They are subject to a strict regulatory regime that is specifically designed to protect human health, animal health and the environment. They cannot be grown in Scotland or elsewhere in Europe—including Wales—without prior approval. That approval will be secured only where we are entirely satisfied, on the basis of our expert scientific advice, that growing the crop is safe.
We are neither for nor against GM as such, but we are committed to safeguarding human health, animal health and the environment. We are committed to a precautionary and evidence-based approach to policy making. We are committed to transparent and proportionate regulation and to legislation where that is necessary. We are committed to consumer choice. Those principles have guided our policy on GM organisms to date and I recommend that they should continue to do so.
Ministers are very much aware of, and sensitive to, the real and understandable concerns that, as Mr Ruskell mentioned, the wider public have about GM. That is why we have made a commitment to move forward on a precautionary basis. We will act cautiously but, equally, we will not turn our back on progress where that can be supported by sound science.
The most important question is whether a GM crop will pose any more of a threat to human health or the environment than a conventional crop will. That question is considered in depth each time an application to release a GM variety is made. During the past few months, I have considered six such applications, all of which I have sent back for further information without approving a release. No individual crop can be authorised for cultivation unless it has satisfied a rigorous assessment of potential impacts on human health and the environment.
Does the minister accept that such assessments can only ever produce a result that says that a specific threat has not yet been identified? Does he agree that the assessments cannot give an assurance that a specific crop poses no threat to human health or the environment?
No science can do what Mr Harvie demands of it. It was interesting that, throughout Mr Ruskell's speech, no reference was made to the scientific advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment or its statutory function in that regard.
Because we are a responsible Government that is involved in a responsible decision-making process, our decisions will be based on advice from the statutory body ACRE on the implications of the farm-scale evaluation trials. Our establishment of those extensive trials and the open and deliberative consideration of the results underscore our commitment to the environment.
The results will inform the position of the Executive and the UK Government and will be forwarded to all other EU member states and the European Commission, which, too, will want to consider carefully the results of what has been the most extensive study of its kind. It is clear that the results also raise a number of wider questions about modern intensive agriculture and its impact on farm land wildlife and wider biodiversity.
The Executive will continue to work within the strict EU regulatory framework for GM crops and consider each application on a case-by-case basis. The blanket ban that appears to have been suggested—or a blanket approval, for that matter—would not be compatible with EU law.
Members will be aware that several European regions have attempted to declare GM-free zones. However, the legal advice that I have received is quite clear. It would be contrary to the directive's single-market objective to adopt a blanket policy of the type that the Green party's motion calls for or to seek to impose conditions that cannot be justified on the ground of protection of human health or the environment in order to make Scotland or any part of Scotland GM free.
I move amendment S2M-560.2, to leave out from "calls" to end and insert:
"notes that in accordance with A Partnership for a Better Scotland the Scottish Executive will apply the precautionary principle in relation to the planting of GM crops; notes that no decision has been taken on the possible commercialisation of GM crops; recognises that it would be premature to do so before the results of the farm scale trials and the GM dialogue have been fully evaluated, and notes the Executive's continuing commitment to protecting human health, animal health and the environment."
Notwithstanding today's debate, the minister's remarks about the European Union exemplify the serious issues about democracy in the EU that have to be addressed.
I can add to Mark Ruskell's opinion poll evidence about the public's attitude towards GM. He missed out the Consumers Association research in May 2002, which showed that less than one third of those who were surveyed found the idea of food that was produced from a genetically modified plant acceptable. We know that the public are not happy.
Why? There is a huge leap in cause and effect from selective breeding to the sort of genetic modification that is being done in laboratories today and which has resulted in field tests at various sites throughout Scotland. The public do not believe that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure the future safety of our seed stocks and food supply. For example, few will have been surprised by the Scottish Executive's recent revelation that an investigation of the GM seed used in farm-scale trials has uncovered further evidence of the use of unauthorised GM material that was not covered by the release consent. That puts the minister's comments about regulation into perspective. How many times does that have to occur before the minister realises that the great theory about managing to contain GMOs is completely impossible? Of course, that was the thrust of the Green party's opening speech.
Important as it is to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge and endeavour, we must acknowledge that when we are dealing with such sensitive and emotive issues as our ability to feed ourselves safely in the future, it is essential that the public can trust those involved. The Executive should know by now how the public feel about GM food.
Some companies deserve praise for their stance. In 1998, Iceland became the first retailer to remove GM ingredients from its own-label products, and the Co-op has recently banned GM food and ingredients from its business. It is clear that those businesses are responding to the message from their customers.
I agree with what the member has said about consumer resistance and the fact that there is no demand, but surely that is a separate issue from whether the product is safe. Surely the correct response is for Scottish farming plc to take a collective decision that there is no market demand and that it will not grow the crops at all.
I do not believe that the two issues are entirely separate. The Liberal Democrat position on GM food is clear, at least in the countryside if not when it comes to making decisions in the Executive. The two issues cannot be easily separated because there is no public confidence in the science. Simply taking a scientific view and pushing ahead will not help the situation.
When we are dealing with the unknown, or even the uncertain, in an area that has the potential to affect every individual in the world, it is obvious that the precautionary principle must be applied. That is particularly true in the case of GM crops, in which once a certain line has been crossed there will be absolutely no going back. The fear is that that line is already being crossed deliberately to pre-empt consumer resistance.
The GM issue is not just a question of whether the technologies involved are safe. It is about allowing choice and ensuring that consumers retain the ability to purchase non-GM foods if that is their wish. It is also about ensuring that farmers who want to continue producing non-GM crops are able to do so. Application of the precautionary principle must ensure that such producers are not disadvantaged. All the evidence suggests that proceeding with the technology will mean choice being removed.
We know that Tony Blair is in favour of GM foods, but the Liberal Democrats' position is appalling. Their leader opposes GM crops. At their Scottish conference last year, in my constituency, they passed a motion calling for an immediate moratorium, but it was a Liberal Democrat minister in the Scottish Executive who approved the trials in the first place.
The Parliament must assert its right to speak out on the issue and we have to accept the public's views. The risk of pollution is too high, the risk to our high-quality reputation is too great and the future of Scottish agriculture depends on our being able to maintain the integrity of GM-free crop production.
I move amendment S2M-560.3, to leave out from "calls" to end and insert:
"recognises the massive public opposition to GM crops; believes that the precautionary principle should be applied to any further development of GM crops, whether on a trial basis or for commercial planting, and considers that the future of Scottish agriculture lies in maintaining the integrity of GM-free crop production."
In dealing with today's motion, I begin to wonder who the conservatives are. Certainly the Green party is taking a very conservative line. I wonder sometimes whether, if Mark Ruskell had been born a couple of hundred years ago, he might have been a member of the Flat Earth Society.
When we talk about GM technology, we have to remember that it is not new. Fifty years ago, experiments were being done with the irradiation of cereal seeds. Much of the barley that is grown in Scotland today, including that which is being grown on many organic farms, can trace its ancestry back to those experiments. Cereal seeds were irradiated in a nuclear pile and the deformed or mutated seeds were then grown and tested for desirable characteristics. Those characteristics have been bred through to the plants that we have today. Technology is something that we have experimented with before and we have to understand the issue in a broader sense.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I have only four minutes, so I have to press on.
The field trials that have been done were completely pointless. They carried on a characteristic that is undesirable in the Scottish environment. The proof is that the general regime that was applied during the tests was not beneficial to wildlife, the environment or the production of the crop. I suggest that we have been barking up the wrong tree.
The debate demonised GM technology and then had the effect of leading public opinion. We should remember that if the technology is allowed to develop, there will be huge opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry for the production of materials in a more environmentally friendly way than can be done at the moment.
Will the member give way?
I cannot, because I am very short of time. Mr Harvie will have a chance to speak when he winds up at the end of the debate.
If we applied the technology and research abilities that are available to us to producing a cereal seed that was resistant to fungal infection, or perhaps a maize plant that could resist a spring frost, that would benefit the farming industry in Scotland. We have the ability to search for those answers.
The biotechnology industry in Scotland is being threatened by the debate that is now taking place and the tone of that debate. Work at the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Invergowrie is being undermined by the failure to grasp the concept of biotechnology and genetic manipulation as it could benefit us in the future.
With one qualification that Alex Fergusson will mention, we are happy to accept Ross Finnie's amendment to the motion. We have more of a problem with the SNP amendment. Although I am almost prepared to agree with everything in that amendment, I do not believe that we are quite at that stage, so we might have to abstain.
We must be prepared to be broadminded on the issue. I believe that GM organisms are not popular with the public because we have been barking up the wrong tree for the past four years. The time has not come for commercial release of GM crops in Scotland, because none of the crops that have been produced for testing is of any potential benefit. The qualification that I must add is that if we turn our backs on the technology for ever, we will have undermined our biotechnology research base in Scotland and we will have passed the industry to less scrupulous people in other parts of the world.
I move amendment S2M-560.1, to leave out from "apply" to end and insert:
"give an assurance that any decisions relating to future development and exploitation of GM technology shall be made on the basis of best scientific advice."
I am sorry to see that the wide title of the motion, "Future of Scottish Agriculture", narrows down in the text to GM crops only, but I will come back to that. Undoubtedly, the question whether GM technology presents a threat or an opportunity is fundamentally important, but it is one to which we do not yet have a thoroughly researched answer.
At this point, I insert my usual caveat on the topic. We may deplore the way in which some global companies operate, but we have to disentangle that issue from the evaluation of the technology itself. In addition, GM covers a hugely wide and diverse technology, and we cannot simply lump it all together and condemn it. Each application must be considered separately and on its own merits or demerits. Furthermore, we should not forget the importance of biosciences to the Scottish universities and institutes. Many are currently world leaders, but a Parliament that projects an anti-science attitude could soon undermine their ability to attract international research funding and their pre-eminence in a fiercely competitive field could quickly be lost.
The farm-scale field trials of the past three years were the logical and necessary step after laboratory testing and plot trials. Conducting those trials, however, is emphatically not to prejudge whether commercial growing will be the eventual outcome—certainly not before the trials have been properly evaluated. The technology is still very much under examination; that examination should be fair and objective, but it must also be thorough, and the early indications from the series of trials that have just finished are that further work must be done.
Setting the pure science to one side, moving operations into the real world meant that there would be a test of the potential for human error. It is important to evaluate that aspect. That the seed companies demonstrated their inability to provide seed consistently within their own acceptable purity standards is an important outcome, which must be given serious consideration in future decisions on whether commercial use should be allowed.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I do not have time.
We cannot simply declare a ban on GM. However, EU directive 2001/18/EC says:
"No GMOs, as or in products, intended for deliberate release are to be considered for placing on the market without first having been subjected to satisfactory field testing at the research and development stage in ecosystems which could be affected by their use."
"Satisfactory" is the key word in that sentence.
The GM science review panel concluded that there are several areas of concern in which further research is needed. That research should be undertaken before consideration of any decision on the commercialisation of GM crops. It would also provide an opportunity for more conclusive work on concerns about health risks.
GM may be the problem of the future, but the future will depend on how we deal with the problems of the here and now. In "Custodians of Change", published in 2002, the agriculture and environment working group concluded:
"the priority environmental issues for Scottish agriculture, for the next 5-10 years, are:
1. Diffuse pollution to water;
2. Biodiversity and habitat protection;
3. Landscape change".
Diffuse pollution is a problem of the here and now. We must give serious consideration to the effect of the nitrates that we let loose in the environment, and possibly even more serious consideration to what phosphates are doing. The example of the Ythan nitrate vulnerable zone designation illustrates how difficult that is to do. The first farm-scale trial was at Daviot in my constituency; the Ythan is just over the hill from there. The Ythan estuary has an extraordinarily rich variety of habitat and birdlife. Aberdeen university has had a field station there for many years, and scientists and students have studied the area and collected data going back 30 years. Even so, when the catchment was designated because of eutrophication it was not possible to say with absolute certainty what the causes or the remedies were. That made me very conscious of the complexities of environmental monitoring. There are no easy or simple answers.
Whatever the eventual outcome, the right approach is one of sound scientific evaluation, with the health of the environment and the consumer firmly established as the fundamental priority.
I am happy to take part in a debate about the future of agriculture. Crofting has been, is, and hopefully will remain an integral part of life and work in the Western Isles and beyond the shores of those isles. Any discussion on what the future holds is of importance, because it allows us to focus on the issues that matter to those who have maintained and continue to sustain the environment in which they work and in which their forebears worked. A discussion about the future of agriculture should focus on the issues that matter and not the sideshow that is the GM debate.
First, I will deal with the reform of the common agricultural policy.
Will the member give way?
Not at this moment.
Decoupling is the central feature of CAP reform. Subsidies will no longer be paid on the basis of what is produced. We know that the link between subsidy payments and production has led us down a road that is far from sustainable, and we now have to play our part in dismantling that link. To realise that aim, the European Union must focus on modulation. More money has to be transferred from the flawed direct payments method to a wider range of rural development measures. I firmly believe that we should review the national modulation rate to establish whether it can be increased from what I believe is the agreed 3.5 per cent rate to production-related subsidies in 2003, to 4.5 per cent in 2004. Perhaps the minister will enlighten us about whether that is the case when he sums up.
I appreciate that the Executive is still consulting all the relevant players, and I urge the Executive, crofters and farmers to consider again the rate of modulation and establish whether we can go further than what is currently suggested. If that were to happen, it would help to turn round an unacceptable level of subsidy payments—payments that are firmly linked with production—and help us to move to a system that would truly help the future of agriculture in Scotland. That would allow us to promote a range of meaningful rural development and environmental programmes that would pass every sustainability test that anyone would care to apply to them.
On GM crops, I firmly believe that the approach that is being adopted by the Executive is correct. As the minister has stated, the Executive is focused on its primary objective of safeguarding human health and protecting the environment. If there is any evidence of danger to human health or the environment from any GM crop, the crop will not be approved for release. As other members have said, we cannot turn our backs on what is happening within our scientific community. If a crop can be modified in a way that helps to put food in the mouths of the hungry of this world, I will be the first to applaud it, as would any right-thinking individual. We all know that crops can be designed or modified to survive in certain environments, or so that fewer pesticides have to be used. Those are welcome developments. The Labour party believes in responsible science and responsible policy making. The precautionary, step-by-step approach is the correct one.
The issue of scallops, in relation to conservation, was raised in the previous debate. The crofters of the Western Isles will most certainly not be looking to the Green party to help them secure a sustainable future. They know that although the Green party can talk a good game about conservation, when it is asked to deliver it is always found wanting. The Environment and Rural Development Committee discovered that a few weeks ago, when a conservation measure—as a statutory instrument—was proposed and the Green party refused to support it. The SI was a credible proposal to reduce the number of dredges that boats use from 14 to eight—a conservation measure in anyone's language. The semantic convulsions of Eleanor Scott and the other Green members do not impress the progressive fishermen who supported the measure.
On that constructive note, I urge everyone to support the Executive amendment.
I want to talk about two issues: science and democracy. Alex Johnstone indicated that genetic modification is some sort of development from the selective breeding that has gone on before, and the methods that have been used to achieve that. GM is qualitatively quite different. It uses a new, young science—
Does the member accept that GM is akin to the process of nuclear irradiation, which was used in plant breeding in the 1950s?
No, I do not. Nuclear irradiation imitates what happens in nature when mutations arise in genes. Bombarding a plant with genetic material, including the desirable gene, the promoter gene to switch it on and a virus that is used as the carrier, is a different process, which may not be stable and may result in transfer from the target organism to other organisms. It is a qualitatively different technology.
I am saying neither that GM is a technology that will never have a benefit for mankind nor that it is a technology that should not be researched. I am saying that GM should not be researched using our open environment as a laboratory, especially without our being asked first. That is the big issue; I will come to the democracy issue in a minute. First, I will say a bit more about the science.
Nora Radcliffe said that we should not appear to be anti-science. I certainly do not to want to appear to be like that. I have not said that biotechnology research, which has the potential to produce pharmaceutical benefits in some respects, should not be done; I said that it should be done in a closed situation. The crops should not be produced in our open environment until we know the potential long-term effects. We are talking about a young science and the advice that the scientists can give will be based on incomplete evidence.
There is also the issue of who owns science. Science is owned and financed by large companies, which means that it tends to move quickly from theoretical science and discoveries to applied science. That is happening nowadays at a rate that would not have happened before. Somebody has to put on the brakes: just because we can do the science does not mean that we should do it. Certainly, it does not mean that we should do it in the open environment in a way that cannot be undone if anything goes wrong.
Does not Eleanor Scott recognise the reality that, for a good number of years, huge swathes of the United States of America, Canada and Latin America have been under such crops? The horse has well bolted out of the stable.
That is right. It would have been salutary for George Lyon if he had been able to talk to the two Canadian farmers whom we spoke to yesterday. The farmers, who are having tremendous problems with contamination, are finding unexpected effects from simple things such as pollen from maize. The maize was modified to contain an insecticide and the pollen landed on plants that are the food of the big butterfly of which people in California are so proud. I have forgotten its name.
It is the monarch.
Thank you. The monarch butterfly is being killed off by the insecticide. Side effects cannot always be foreseen and they cannot be undone once the modified crops are out there.
That point brings me back to the democracy issue. We had a field trial in the Highlands, which was universally opposed by all the democratically elected representatives in the area—from community council members to Highland Council councillors, to members of the Scottish Parliament and the member of the Westminster Parliament, who in this case was Charles Kennedy.
Alasdair Morrison said that GM was a sideshow. That might be so for the Western Isles at this point in time, as GM has yet to come there. However, if the door is left open for GM crops to be grown in Scotland, they will be coming soon to a field near him. Crofters in Alasdair Morrison's constituency will look to him to protect them from that development. GM threatens the livelihood of those crofters because of their dependence on the image of a clean environment and natural production methods.
We need to protect the reputation of Scottish agriculture and take into account people's wishes. People have said that they do not want GM crops growing near them and that they do not want to be part of an unwitting experiment. We have to respect the wishes of the people. It is up to Government to enact those wishes.
Last night, we had a debate on what to do with nuclear submarines once their lives are over. None of the options that we discussed for decommissioning the radioactive rods and other parts of the submarine is safe; every option in the proposal poses a threat to the environment and our health. The situation will get not better but worse as more submarines are decommissioned. From the Scottish Socialist Party's point of view, the decommissioning of nuclear submarines is a floating time bomb that this generation will have to deal with. The point that I am driving at is that, if those who opposed the development of nuclear submarines years ago had won the argument, we would not be dealing with the issue in our environment today.
Today, we are debating GM crops and the GM technology that will have a fundamental effect on our planet for generations to come. I do not support GM, but the Executive supports it. What effect will GM have in 50 or 100 years time? We do not know the answer to that question. I do not know and the ministers do not know—indeed, nobody knows what the effect will be.
Members have said that we should have scientific research, but the jury is out on that. The situation is not clear. I have a real problem with scientific research, when companies like Monsanto sponsor the laboratories, universities, scientists and all the equipment that produces the research to say that GM is safe. I am sorry, but the SSP does not believe that. I do not think that the public believe it either. Roseanna Cunningham made those points.
Will the member give way?
I am not prepared to take an intervention.
Why are we rushing headlong into this technology? What is the haste? Why do we have to go at a rate of knots towards it? The members who think that the agenda is solving world hunger should not kid themselves. One per cent of the research into GM technology is aimed at the crops that are used by poor farmers. The agenda is being driven by four multinational companies that have cornered the market. In 2001, 91 per cent of the seeds for GM crops in use across the planet came from Monsanto seeds. Those seeds do not meet the needs of poor farmers who rely on affordable, readily available supplies for a range of crops. GM seeds are aimed not at eradicating world hunger, but at large-scale commercial farmers who grow cash crops.
Does Frances Curran agree that one of the impacts of the growth of GM crops in America has been to increase the ability of American farmers to dump cheap, subsidised crops on the markets of developing countries? That point underlines the social justice aspects of her argument.
Absolutely. I will make a quick point about that in my last minute.
I ask the minister when he sums up to explain the rationale behind the genetic use restriction technologies—the so-called terminator gene. Why would anyone want to have a crop in which the seed is sterile and the farmer cannot replant it year after year?
Will the member give way?
No. The member is in her last minute.
No. I have only a few seconds left to me.
We are talking about world hunger and sustainability. Next week, I am going to a meeting in Europe where representatives of Indian farmers, who represent millions of people who work on the land, are coming to Europe to ask us not to go along with GM technology. People from the landless organisations in Latin America will also ask us not to do that.
Allan Wilson said that the Executive is neither for nor against GM technology—his bum must be sore from sitting on the fence. Please do something. Have a bit of bottle. It is not as if it would cost the Executive any money. Future generations will thank him for it.
Until yesterday, I thought that the debate was going to be about sustainable agriculture and the future of agriculture in Scotland. I was going to welcome that debate, as it is important to many of my constituents. Unfortunately, the title seems to have been something of a Trojan horse to sneak in a GM debate. For the life of me, I cannot see why, if the Greens wanted to talk about GM, they did not lodge a motion on GM and not raise expectations.
The motion is ill-informed. As the minister demonstrated, the Scottish Executive believes in applying the precautionary principle. Back in March 2000, the then Minister for Health and Community Care, Susan Deacon, led a debate in which public concerns about the development of genetically modified foods and crops were acknowledged and the precautionary approach was commended. I am tempted to replicate the speech that I made on that occasion three and a half years ago. I will not do so, other than to repeat my view that we cannot assess the threats or benefits of GM without informed scientific and medical opinion. That opinion has to be informed by rigorous, controlled and independent research and not by prejudice, ill-informed fears or anxieties.
I have to pick up Eleanor Scott on the idea that nuclear irradiation is akin to something that happens in nature. Intense nuclear radiation causes fundamental genetic mutation. If there were to be a nuclear war, that is one of the reasons that I would sit on the roof with a bottle of wine—I would not want to survive it.
Research is necessary, not only to evaluate whether GM commercialisation is desirable, but because—
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry. I cannot take any interventions, as I do not have time to do so.
The fact is that GM commercialisation exists in other places. As George Lyon said, the horse has well bolted and by now it is not just out of the stable but galloping halfway round the field.
I remind members that foot-and-mouth, which devastated agriculture in my constituency, might have been introduced into this country by illegally imported meat in a sandwich. We have to know how to react and behave if we discover that material has been introduced into this country from overseas sources. That is another reason why we have to get on with the research in this country.
The actual title of the debate is "Future of Scottish Agriculture", and I really wanted to talk about some of the things that are happening in that respect. Indeed, I would have thought that the Green party would welcome certain measures. For example, the rural stewardship scheme was launched with the publication of "Rural Scotland: A New Approach" back in 2000. In August 2002, conservation awards worth £14.6 million were made to 196 farms that covered a total of 75,000 hectares; about 20 per cent of those farms were in southern Scotland. A year later, awards worth £23.6 million were made to 1,078 conservation projects covering 360,000 hectares of Scottish countryside. Surely that should be welcomed if we are talking about the future of Scottish agriculture.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
The Executive's "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture", which was published in June 2002, stated:
"farmers are better able to care for the environment if they are economically successful and if they continue to farm in our remote areas."
The document said that land management contracts would be explored. I am pleased by the progress in that respect with the establishment of a working group and a modelling exercise in which model land management contracts were drawn up for 21 farms, three crofts and a common grazing. Indeed, the model contract that was drawn up for a farm in Dumfries and Galloway identified 15 agriculturally and economically sustainable projects that would bring in more than £11,000 per annum.
I would have welcomed the opportunity to examine what was being done to bring together Scotland's agriculture and environment and to consider a way forward for both.
The Government has to answer some questions about how it might handle the mass public opposition that will break out if there is any suggestion of further field trials or GM crop development. It should heed a Cabinet Office report which, according to The Guardian, said:
"if farmers and protesters thought organic or conventional farming would be damaged by GM crops, and there was no proper legal redress, it would be an invitation for anarchy and the destruction of GM crops before they caused damage."
We know from the GM vigil on the Black Isle that people have very strong views about the way in which this technology is being foisted upon us. Unfortunately, the minister has been silent in the debate—indeed, he has left the chamber. In that case, perhaps his deputy had better tell us why the Government in Scotland has been so supine and has not taken on board the feelings of people in this country.
The responsible science that members on the Labour benches talk about does not take account of the disgraceful links between members of regulatory committees and the industry from which they have been chosen. In fact, Michael Meacher and Lord Whitty have pointed out the links between many members of the committees that make certain decisions and those that advise the UK Government. That Government will not answer questions on the matter, and the Scottish Government is once more supine when it comes to the links between the people who advise and those who make the decisions. A spokesman from Friends of the Earth has said:
"business is setting the agenda right at the heart of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent."
How is this Government making the situation in Scotland more transparent?
In the report from The Guardian that I mentioned earlier, a spokesman from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggests that, when the European Union decides next year on whether to open up GM commercialisation,
"every country, including the UK, will decide what conditions suit our particular circumstances for each crop—if any."
Will that allow the Government in Scotland to go to London and say that no GM crop that has been proposed is suitable to be grown in Scotland or will the minister tell us now whether any such crop has been found to be suitable in that respect?
The Government has to address the question of liability and the separation of crops, because that is where GM crops can affect conventional and organic agriculture. Mr Head-in-the-Machair-Sand Morrison refuses to consider the fact that feed from the mainland could easily be GM contaminated. Will he join me on the picket lines on Stornoway harbour when that feed is being taken off the ships? After all, the GM-free status of Western Isles crops will be directly affected.
The debate asks us to consider the question whether Scotland could follow Wales. I think that Scotland should be setting a lead. It is disgraceful that the Government ministers who have dealt with the issue have been so supine. Mr Finnie is not even prepared to listen to the criticisms that he deserves. I ask members to support the SNP amendment because the future of Scottish agriculture lies in maintaining the integrity of a GM-free crop production system.
It is not often that I begin a speech by agreeing with the Conservatives—and particularly with Alex Johnstone. As someone who is still very wary of GM technology, I think that he at least brought a sense of balance and realism into the debate.
The minister mentioned the importance of the precautionary principle. I believe that the issue is at the heart of the debate. In fact, we already met that principle in the Scottish Parliament when we debated telecommunication masts. One important aspect is public consultation. In my speech, I will consider some of people's concerns about GM foods, one of which is the amount of public involvement in the consultation over field trials. Although I know that we are trying to meet such concerns through the dialogue that has been established, I have heard reports that the last set was not as good as it might have been.
I remember highlighting other concerns about GM crops during our first debates on the issue. For example, North American research on buffer zones shows that they represent a significant issue and that we need to keep an eye on the matter. I agree with some of the Green party members' comments that the transfer of pollen to non-GM crops is also a big issue.
Another concern centres on the long-term effects of GM crops on humans, the environment and the food chain. Elaine Murray is correct to say that science can only go so far in that respect. However, it is important that we carry out longitudinal studies to keep an eye on what is happening year on year and to ensure that GM material is not affecting the food chain adversely.
People are also very wary of big interest groups and multinationals such as Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta. I take on board some of the Scottish Socialist Party's points about that issue, particularly since I gather that the European Commission will most likely have a vote that might put GM sweetcorn and field corn on European shelves. I believe that Syngenta and Monsanto are pushing the issue and that such produce might sneak in by the back door before the EC is able to introduce its legislation on processed food and animal feed next year. That sort of thing makes people wary.
However, returning to Alex Johnstone's point, I believe that we must accept that GM technology will have huge benefits for medicine, pharmaceuticals and so on, and I agree with Margaret Beckett that the farm-scale trials are the biggest that have ever been conducted in the world. There is a genuine desire to make the trials as good as they possibly can be and it is important to feed the results into the European dimension.
Finally, we must agree with the minister that the right way to go is to take a balanced view of the matter, follow the precautionary principle, take on board public concerns, make adjustments as needs be and consider the wider UK and European agenda.
I have managed to call all the back benchers who wished to speak, so I now move to wind-up speeches, but I must ask all speakers to stick strictly to their time limits. Mr Lyon, you have three minutes.
I shall do my best to keep to that limit, Presiding Officer.
I begin by welcoming the minister's statement that any decisions on the commercial planting of GM crops will be taken on the basis of the best scientific evidence available. That principle is fundamental in shaping policy where human health and potential environmental damage are involved. If we buy the conspiracy theory put forward by Frances Curran and Rob Gibson that all scientists have been bought and paid for, the progress of mankind stops here today, because we could never develop new drugs to tackle cancer or other new medicines or health measures without an independent scientific evaluation of whether they were safe to use.
I do not think that anyone has suggested that all scientists are bought and paid for. Will not George Lyon acknowledge our argument that multinational corporations will bring to market only those products that can turn a buck and put back into their pockets the vast investment that they have made, and that that money can come only from poor communities?
The Executive is right to wait until that evidence is available before coming to any final decision.
As a farmer, I personally believe that Scottish agriculture plc should reject the use of GM crops, for three reasons. First, as Roseanna Cunningham and other members have said, there is no market demand for such products. Consumer resistance to GM products is strong, and some of that resistance is due to the intemperate language used by those who are opposed to the technology. Indeed, politicians in this Parliament have used such intemperate language. Nevertheless, the reality is that there is no market demand for the product, so it is a pointless exercise even to consider growing those crops in the first place.
Secondly, we should note the experience of commercial farmers in the United States of America. They were promised that GM technology would lower production costs and that it would be somehow to their commercial benefit, but that promise has not been realised. There is no sustainable long-term benefit to the farmers from using that technology. The argument that one spray of Roundup is all that is needed has been proved wrong; in many cases, farmers have to go in two or three times with Roundup because the first application has not worked.
That brings me to the third, and probably most important, reason. Mother nature is not benign in the process. There is a reaction to every new product that is developed. Mutation takes place, and resistance builds up to every new drug and chemical that we use in the farming industry. That will also happen with Roundup—it is already happening in the USA, which is why it takes more than one spray to kill off the weeds.
It seems foolish in the extreme to go down a road where we are utterly reliant on a handful of multinationals—the Monsantos of this world—to produce and sell us the seed and chemicals that control the world's food production. That is an illogical position to take and one that should be resisted. However, I repeat that the decision must be taken on the basis of the scientific evidence presented to ministers, and I support the minister's view on that.
Like other members, I was somewhat confused by coming to debate the future of Scottish agriculture but finding the debate confined to the fairly narrow but very emotive subject of GM crops. That said, I think that it has been a good debate, and substantive points have been made from all parts of the chamber.
In introducing his motion, Mark Ruskell gave an eloquent and impassioned speech. I cannot agree with it all, however, for the following reasons. Scotland has, as Alex Johnstone said, a proud tradition of plant breeding and research. Whether that is GM under another a name is probably the subject of another debate altogether, but we have always been at the scientific forefront of that type of technology. When we come to the science, we have to accept that the jury is still out on GM technology. Evidence is still being taken and, until it is all gathered and examined, the jury cannot possibly deliver a verdict. I do not believe that we can turn our backs on the science or on any scientific advancement; nor, indeed, can we decide on the issue, or expect ministers to do so, until those evaluations are complete.
Roseanna Cunningham's amendment is carefully worded, and it is tempting to agree with it, but I cannot do so because of the last sentence. The amendment asks that we consider
"that the future of Scottish agriculture lies in maintaining the integrity of GM-free crop production",
but surely that is what the debate is all about. The decision that has to be made is whether that is the case or not and, as I have said, the jury is still out.
I can agree with the Executive amendment, with one proviso, and I hope that the minister can clarify that point. In the past, my colleague John Scott and I have spoken of the need to apply the ultra-precautionary principle on the issue of GM crops. The Executive amendment says that decisions cannot be made until the GM dialogue has been fully evaluated. I hope that the minister can confirm that, at that stage in the process, he and his advisers will apply the ultra-precautionary principle in evaluating the results of those processes. As well as evaluating the science, ministers must also evaluate the effect on Scotland's position in the agricultural marketplace. Will the introduction of GM commercial crops ruin for ever the niche markets that our agricultural producers are becoming ever more efficient at supplying? Will the position only accelerate under common agricultural policy reform, which we are to debate this afternoon?
Such questions must receive substantive answers before ministerial decisions are taken. If the answers are provided within the ultra-precautionary principle to which I referred, the Executive position can and will receive our support. If GM crops are approved, I would take the unusual position of agreeing entirely with George Lyon and expecting all farmers to choose not to grow them.
In closing, I must say that I hope that Stewart Stevenson will be summing up for the SNP, because that will be the first appearance in the chamber of what must be a genetically modified tie.
I thank Mr Fergusson for those warm and unexpected words.
I would like to address the subject of scientists, politicians and the wider public. Scientists are objective. If they are not, they are not scientists. Their job is to inform the decisions that others make. Let us not pretend that the scientists make the decisions. Sometimes in this debate, it has seemed as if the scientists are making the decisions and we are simply to fall into line with them. Let us go back to basics: the scientists must inform the decisions that we make.
If the public are opposed to GM crops, they may express their opposition rationally or they may do so irrationally. Frankly, it disnae matter. We still have to take account of the public's view.
Will Stewart Stevenson give way?
I am sorry, but I have only three minutes.
Of course, we have had genetic modification over thousands of years, in animals and in crops. That was done by using the natural processes of evolution but speeding them up, by denying a future to those animals and crops that were not heading the way that we wanted and by selecting and promoting those that were. Now, however, we are using technology that brings new risks. We see from the example of Dolly the sheep that the modification of genetic structures can create weaknesses in the resulting organism that have adverse effects. The same will undoubtedly be true of crops. We breach the cell wall to introduce viruses and genetic modifications, and doing that leaves a weakened structure. That is the source of some of the difficulties that we undoubtedly face.
We and the broader public have difficulties with the subject of risk. Statistically, how likely is it that something adverse will happen, and what will the impact be when it does? Is there a management plan for when that impact is too great? In this debate, there are huge issues around those questions. How would we manage a situation in which Scotland goes down the GM crop road and then concludes that doing so was the wrong answer? There is no such management plan—no one has come up with one. That is why, while the jury may be out on this particular debate, the burden of proof has to lie with the prosecution, and the case of those who prosecute the benefits of GM crops has not been made. We must not proceed.
Although I can agree with much of what Mark Ruskell said, I must say that the Green motion is both misguided and mistimed. We are obviously aware of the public concerns that Sylvia Jackson and many other members have referred to but, as our amendment states,
"no decision has been taken on the possible commercialisation of GM crops".
That is not because we are sitting on the fence, but because our decisions on those matters are evidence based.
We are not supine or anything like it. We acknowledge—Stewart Stevenson raised the issue—that generic lessons are to be learned in relation to the communication of science and risk. Consider the example of herbicide resistance, to which many members referred. That can develop through conventional cross-breeding and through genetic modification. That is why we established the farm-scale evaluations, which the Greens and others oppose. It would be irresponsible to take decisions before we have received scientific advice from our advisers on their statutory assessment of the results of that evaluation process.
I noticed that Stewart Stevenson distanced himself from the demeaning comments of his colleague Mr Gibson about the scientists concerned. The people who are at the cutting edge of the development of the new technology are independent of Government and of industry. It is naive to suggest that because industry may have given some research funding to scientists those scientists are consequently in the pay of industry.
Our primary objective is to protect human health, animal health and the environment. That is the basis of the strict European Union regulatory regime to which I referred. No crop can or will be approved without its having first satisfied that rigorous risk assessment. If there is any evidence of harm, that approval will not be given. I say to Alex Fergusson, Sylvia Jackson and others that we will continue to adopt the precautionary approach in risk assessment.
Wales is regularly pointed to—as happened today—as an example of where there is a successful restrictive GM policy in action. However, let us be clear on one point—Wales is not and has never been GM free. The joint paper that it has presented along with other regions effectively acknowledges that the power that they seek to declare themselves GM free is contrary to the single market and therefore, as I said, such demands cannot be met.
We recognise that GM crops could affect the interests of conventional and organic farming and that measures will be required to ensure the sustainable co-existence of the regimes. We will receive evidence from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and we will examine those co-existence issues. We look forward to the Greens and others having an input in that process.
Will Allan Wilson give way?
No. I am sorry, but he is in his last minute.
I stress that no decision has been taken on the possible commercialisation of GM crops. It would be premature to do so before the results of the farm-scale trials are known and the GM dialogue fully evaluated. We will need to reflect on all the relevant information. We will not be bounced into making a decision by either Mr Ruskell or the biotech companies. We believe in responsible science and responsible policy making. We should proceed with care on the basis of scientific fact rather than on the basis of prejudice and misinformation.
The debate is about the future of farming in Scotland. Do we want farming to be dictated to by a few companies with a specific financial agenda, or do we want an open agenda that puts at the forefront of the debate the needs of not only the wide variety of interests represented in our farming community but the consuming public?
The partnership agreement specifically mentions a market-led vision for Scottish agriculture. Nobody here has produced any evidence to show that there is a market for genetically modified crops. As a farmer, I am delighted to hear three farmers say that they have made the decision that they will not grow GM crops. That says it all.
The supermarkets do not want to sell GM food, the people do not want to eat GM food, and many more farmers are extremely wary about growing the GM crop. Even NFU Mutual has come out clearly against providing cover for cross-contamination. That is a serious point to make.
Where is the future for the GM crop? Roseanna Cunningham made an important point when she mentioned the lack of trust in the biotech companies and commented on the line that has been deliberately crossed to force us to go down the GM route. Sylvia Jackson repeated that point. The companies—there are only four main companies—are forcing us to take on board the GM crop.
The farm-scale trials have already shown that there is a reduction in biodiversity. We do not need any more discussion. The "GM Nation" dialogue showed that people are overwhelmingly against the crop. We have heard about the experiences of Canadian farmers. We do not have room in our small country to have sufficiently safe buffer zones, even if such a thing genuinely exists. If the wide Canadian prairies have been so contaminated that there is no chance of growing GM-free—never mind organic—oil-seed rape, what chance do we have of doing that?
Although members have talked about buffer zones, not much has been said about one of the most important aspects of GM pollination—bees. It has to be emphasised that bees fly up to 3 miles, so one bee can fly in one direction for three miles to a field and another bee can fly in the opposite direction for three miles to another field. We therefore need buffer zones of 7 miles between crops. Where in Scotland can we have buffer zones of 7 miles? The whole idea of growing GM crops is nonsense.
The Canadian National Farmers Union representative from whom we heard yesterday acknowledged that GM oil-seed rape covers the whole of Canada. What really concerns him is that wheat is the next crop that is being genetically modified. That has a serious implication for Scotland, because we grow a lot more wheat than we do oil-seed rape. The Canadian NFU is concerned that if it is so easy for contamination to take place, their wheat crops will not have a market anywhere. They are already being told by American, European and Asian markets that there is no market for GM wheat. We must not go down that road. We must declare ourselves GM free and concentrate on our top-quality, world-renowned local food.
The debate is not only about the future of farming in Scotland, but about a technology that could seriously damage our countryside. It is about the people who live in villages and farming communities that are surrounded by oil-seed rape fields.
The Executive amendment does not go far enough. We need a firmer commitment and real leadership from our Liberal Democrat Minister for Environment and Rural Development. What is he waiting for? The debate has taken place and the people have spoken. No other decision needs to be made. The scientific advice is irrelevant when we can see the reality in the fields in Canada. That is the bottom line.
Far more members are in the chamber now than were present throughout the debate. All members should discuss what has been said in the debate. We need to vote with our conscience for the people of Scotland. I want members to vote the way that they really feel about the motion—I want them to support it.