Plenary, 18 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 18, 2004

Official Report 767KB pdf

---

Genetically Modified Crops

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1051, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on genetically modified crops, and one amendment to that motion.

Whether it is due to concern about the science behind GM foods, the impact on the wider environment, the removal of consumer choice or the huge commercial interests behind GM foods, there is enormous public opposition to the growing of GM crops. One recent poll showed that 85 per cent of people believe that GM crops would have a negative impact on the environment, 86 per cent believe that the technology has been driven by profit rather than public interest and only 4 per cent strongly agree that they would eat GM food.

As politicians, we must respond to that overwhelming public concern by using all the powers that we have at our disposal to prevent the commercialisation of GM crops. At this moment, that means that we must say no to the Government's proposals regarding Chardon LL maize.

In Westminster and the National Assembly for Wales, the Liberal Democrats, in particular, have been firm in their opposition to GM, but in Scotland, where they have some loose grasp on the reins of power, their response has been to roll over and do what the Government, the Labour Party and the GM industry want them to do.

In their alternative Queen's speech last year, the Liberal Democrats in Westminster made a strong statement that no decision on the growing of GM crops in the United Kingdom should be taken until the public debate was re-run. In advance of Margaret Beckett's statement on GM, the Westminster Liberal Democrat spokesperson on food and rural affairs, Andrew George MP, said that giving the go ahead for GM maize would

"show a breathtaking disdain for both the public and MPs".

It is interesting that the Scottish National Party suddenly thinks that Westminster is the important area to highlight in this debate. If Roseanna Cunningham had read our party's manifesto, which was agreed at our party conference in spring, she would know that it sets out clearly our position on the growing of GM crops. The Executive's proposals are completely in line with the commitment in our manifesto. That is what we stood for election on, what we were elected on and what we are now delivering.

It is interesting that George Lyon makes that point, because Mick Bates AM, the Welsh Liberal Democrat countryside spokesperson, accused the Welsh Executive of having

"caved in to pressure from Westminster"

over Chardon LL maize, which he described as

"a Trojan Horse crop"

that would

"mark the end of any dream for a GM-free area".

He also said that he was "ashamed" of the Welsh decision.

The position of the Liberal Democrats is hardly clear. How, then, to explain to voters their behaviour in Scotland? The existence of Lord Sainsbury might explain the Labour Party's position but it gives no comfort to the Liberal Democrats. The problem for the Liberal Democrats is that big questions remain about the suitability of Chardon LL maize for Scotland.

In his statement last week, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development made great play of his insistence that there are no reasons for principled opposition to Chardon LL maize. Among other things, he said:

"The safety of this GM maize was confirmed by its gaining part C consent in 1998."—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6428.]

That is true, but he did not say that the consent was given under a European Union directive dating from 1990 that has been superseded by directive 2001/18/EC, which provides for a rather more rigorous process.

Indeed, it is that kind of rigorous process that the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee was concerned about. It said that the advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment was "clear but … not decisive", that problems evident in North America had

"not been taken seriously enough",

that

"No decision to proceed with the commercial growing of GM crops should be made until thorough research into the experience with GM crops in north America has been completed and published"

and that farm trials

"should have lasted longer than three years".

Despite the Environmental Audit Committee's report, within days Margaret Beckett was making an announcement that responded to none of the concerns that were expressed therein.

It is interesting that Westminster sources are being quoted again. Does the SNP recognise the fact that, in the first session of the Parliament, the Transport and the Environment Committee, during its detailed consideration of the Friends of the Earth petition to ban GM crops, got advice from the Scottish Parliament's legal adviser, who confirmed that neither the Parliament nor Scottish ministers have the powers to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops? That is a source within the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps Roseanna Cunningham should deal with Scottish Parliament matters.

If George Lyon will sit in his seat for two minutes, I will be able to deal with some of the issues surrounding the legal position.

The Environmental Audit Committee's report is important because it was published only on 5 March. There are huge concerns about the fact that atrazine, a herbicide that is being phased out, was used in the trials. However, while the committee called for Chardon LL to be "thoroughly re-trialled", Beckett's statement called for only "further scientific analysis". Arguably, if that is needed, the statement should not have been made at all, but well might she take the view that further analysis is required. Quite apart from concerns surrounding atrazine, there are other questions. For example, no feeding studies have been carried out on cattle, although that is what Chardon LL would be used for. Further, although the committee called on the Government to ensure that, before any GM crops are grown commercially in this country, a clear and comprehensive liability should be put in place to underpin any future regulations to deal with co-existence issues, Margaret Beckett would say only that the Government "anticipate" that such measures would be in place. Allan Wilson's reference to that was wholly without timescale.

Legal opinion exists that suggests that a rather different position from the Executive's current position could be taken and which expresses the view that seed matters generally are devolved. It states:

"under the 2001 Regulations the functions of the National Authorities are stated to be exercisable by the devolved authorities in relation to each of the devolved regions. However, there remains only one National Seed List for the whole of the UK and the term National Authorities is specifically defined to mean each of the relevant devolved authorities ‘acting jointly' … As a result, no decision to add Chardon LL to the National List … may be made without the agreement of all the relevant authorities."

Therefore, it is legally arguable that the Scottish Executive could have taken a different position. That legal advice suggests that we have some clout. What evidence do we have that that clout was used?

The same opinion also suggests that, although there are a couple of prescriptive reasons for refusal, there are also discretionary powers under regulation 5(4)(b) of the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 2001, which is where some of the flexibility exists. Has the Executive explored that? Indeed, has the minister explored any of the means by which he can stop what he and the First Minister profess to be so uneasy about?

If the Scottish Parliament is "sceptical"—to use the First Minister's phrase—about GM crops and shares the concerns of the public, our Health Committee and the Westminster Environmental Audit Committee, for heaven's sake, let us make sure that we have done everything in our power within the powers that we have available to us to have the decision on Chardon LL blocked.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the recommendations of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee's report GM Foods – Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials; believes that the cultivation of Chardon LL maize should not be considered in Scotland until a full inquiry has been undertaken into the potential commercial, environmental and health impact of such an introduction, and believes that, pending the outcome of such an inquiry, all existing legal powers should be used to block the approval of Chardon LL maize in keeping with the precautionary principle.

I hope that, in my speech, I will be able to bring a little more light to the debate and a little less heat than we have just seen demonstrated.

Now we know what we always suspected: SNP policy is dictated by public opinion polls rather than by any reference to the facts. Not for the first time, the SNP has spotted a passing bandwagon—this time in the shape of a House of Commons committee's report—and has decided to jump on. I suppose that George Lyon is right; we should take comfort from the fact that the SNP still sees some point to Westminster. I am reassured by that.

The SNP is calling for a full inquiry, despite the fact that we have just had what is widely acknowledged to have been the most thorough examination of the science, the costs and benefits and the public's views, which I take on board. It wants the Parliament to instruct the Executive to use all legal powers

"to block the approval of Chardon LL maize"

for commercial planting in Scotland, even though there is no legal as well as no scientific basis for a ban.

Will the minister give way?

If Bruce Crawford will let me develop my point, he is welcome to come back in later.

As usual, the SNP has not taken the trouble to consider the facts behind the issue or, for that matter, the legal defensibility of the course of action that it proposes. I noted that, in her conclusion, Miss Cunningham said that the point is "arguable"—no more, no less.

It is arguable.

Of course it is arguable. Anything is arguable in legal terms.

Why did the minister not argue it then?

On Scotland applying to become a GM-free zone, has the minister had a chance to consider the note issued by the parliamentary office of science and technology, which states:

"Although the first application by an EU region, Upper Austria, to set up such a zone was not allowed, future attempts may have more success if they apply under a different part of EU law."

Has the minister gone to the trouble of investigating what that EU law might be?

We have gone to great trouble and to every conceivable length to investigate precisely that point and other related points. That is the fundamental difference between us: I believe in upholding the law but I know that the SNP takes a less defensible position, led by its leader. Not only do we have the prospect of illegal fishing, we now have the prospect of Roseanna and John treading the crops together. It is some vision.

Let me be clear: in the absence of credible scientific evidence of potential harm, a ban would be illegal. We do not have the scientific evidence that would allow us to ban GM maize. Indeed, the farm-scale trials that the Green party opposed—[Interruption.]

I think we need a bit of order.

The minister says that he is adopting the precautionary principle, which means that he has to consider all the risks. Has he considered the risks of feeding Chardon LL maize to cattle, which is what we are debating today, not blanket bans? Has he had those studies peer reviewed?

Yes.

Yes? [Interruption.]

Order. Let the debate proceed.

Will the minister take an intervention?

With respect, Presiding Officer, I am trying to answer a question.

Indeed.

As we speak, the outcome of the University of Reading trials is being investigated by our scientific advisers. Every decision that we take on the evidence about the prospective threat from GM crops to health or the environment is made on the basis of the best available scientific advice. Any research from any source that comes to light that casts any doubt on either environmental safety or human or animal health is taken on board by this Administration. If that evidence was sufficient to warrant any action to ban temporarily the cultivation of GM crops, we would take that action, as I said in my statement only last week.

I see that the Presiding Officer wants me to press on.

Indeed. You are over time, minister, but I will allow you another half-minute to wind up.

Perhaps he could wind up by telling us about the tests.

Perhaps the members opposite could restrain themselves.

Ministers must act responsibly, unlike the Opposition. We must act within the law, unlike the nationalists. The legal framework permits GM developments when they do not represent a threat to human health, animal health or the environment. The partnership agreement and our commitment to the precautionary principle enable us to proceed with care on the basis of scientific fact rather than fail to proceed because of prejudice and misinformation. That is a fundamental difference between the partnership parties, the Executive and the Opposition. I stand by our position.

I move amendment S2M-1051.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"acknowledges that at present there is little support for commercialisation of GM crops; acknowledges the European and UK legislative framework for GM; recognises that the Scottish Executive is not permitted by EU law to impose a blanket ban or blanket approval for GM crops; understands that decisions are required on a case by case basis; welcomes the Executive's decision to reject the commercial growing of spring GM oil seed rape and beet; notes that the Executive does not have scientific evidence nor the powers to ban the cultivation of GM maize; supports the Executive's decision to seek amendment to the EU approval for Chardon LL maize to restrict its cultivation; supports the Executive's decision not to agree seed listing for Chardon LL unless and until such EU changes are made; welcomes the Executive's commitment to consult on co-existence measures that will protect farmers who wish to grow conventional or organic crops, give consumers the choice not to consume GM foods and introduce compensation and liability measures; supports the Executive's initiative with the farming industry to ensure consumer confidence and consumer choice in Scottish produce, and welcomes the continuing commitment in the Partnership Agreement to apply the precautionary principle."

Politics is a fascinating thing, and sometimes it makes for very strange bedfellows. As I have said before, I am one of the members who is probably more convinced of the beneficial nature of the technology that we now describe as GM. However, sadly, I find myself speaking in support of Roseanna Cunningham's motion. That is because there has been a failure to address adequately the process that we are going through and to justify to the Scottish public the decision that has been taken. It is the process that I am concerned about above all else.

There are several issues that we have completely failed to address. The first is liability. A private member's bill is available to Westminster, but the issue of liability has not been addressed. The Executive in Scotland proposed the idea of voluntary GM-free zones, which I am interested in, but there is no system in place to establish how such zones might be run. Consequently, there would be no way for us to know that a particular area was free of GM contamination and there would be no test to guarantee it. Therefore, there is no way that we could guarantee the public's confidence in any such process. Surely it is only reasonable to suggest that such things should be discussed before a decision is taken to introduce a genetically modified crop to the Scottish environment. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the decision that has been made is premature and should be delayed until we have a proper discussion on that subject.

Another area that fascinates me about the process is the inconsistency of the Liberal Democrats' position. They seem to be prepared to argue that one policy for Scotland is completely justifiable while their party argues for completely different policies in Wales and in the House of Commons.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I am tempted to say no, but I am interested to hear what Mr Rumbles has to say.

Alex Johnstone is talking about inconsistency in arrangements. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have been consistently consistent on the issue. What about the member's position on GM crops? Is he not in favour of them?

I made it quite clear that I am aware of the science and understand it. However, we require to take the public with us and, for five years, I have argued that the Executive has failed to do that. The decision delivers that—

Will the member give way?

I am sorry; I have to continue.

The Liberal Democrats and the Labour members in the Executive are being held to ransom for no apparent reason or gain. Chardon LL is a crop that no one in their right mind would choose to grow in Scotland, even if it were not genetically modified. Chardon LL is a late-maturing maize variety that, at best, should be grown in the middle of France. If it could be grown in Britain at all, it would be a crop for the south of Wales and the extreme south-west of England.

The introduction of Chardon LL as an approved crop in Scotland is a political Trojan horse, as the member who moved the motion stated. It has no value to Scottish agriculture and it jumps the gun as far as the many decisions that have to be made in Scotland are concerned. If the power exists for the Executive to prevent the growing of Chardon LL maize given the decision south of the border, it is essential that the Executive makes that decision now. We should get on with the business of discussing the future of Scotland's agriculture, genetically modified or otherwise, before we make irreversible decisions.

Today's debate, to which the SNP has allocated half a morning, has nothing to do with the law, the truth or concerns about human health and the environment, and everything to do with SNP political point scoring. Although I do not welcome the SNP's motives for initiating the debate, I welcome the opportunity to dispel some of the myths that have been peddled by the SNP and the Greens.

Will the member give way?

I have only four minutes and I have a lot to say.

The Liberal Democrat position on GM crops is clear. We acknowledge that there is currently little support for the commercialisation of GM crops. Our manifesto committed us to act in accordance with EU rules.

The Scottish Liberal Democrat election manifesto for 2003 stated:

"Until this process is completed and the public debate concluded we will not permit any further GM field trials or commercial growing of GM crops."

Does Nora Radcliffe consider that the public debate has been completed?

We have completed the process, but the public debate will never be complete absolutely. I consider that we have fulfilled the terms of our manifesto commitment.

Having already called for fishermen to break the law, the SNP now seems to think that the Scottish Executive should disregard the law that applies to GM crops. As a responsible party of government, the Liberal Democrats will keep to our manifesto pledge and continue to work within the law.

Let us be in no doubt about what the law allows. Neither the Parliament nor Scottish ministers have the legal power to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops. If members do not believe me, they should ask Carwyn Jones, who is the Welsh Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside. Carwyn Jones told the National Assembly for Wales:

"We have consistently endorsed taking the most restrictive approach possible to the commercialisation and growing of GM crops in Wales within current UK and EU legislation. However, this does not mean that we can declare Wales GM free as many would like. To do so would be illegal and it would be irresponsible for any Government to work outside the legislative framework."—[Official Record, National Assembly for Wales, 9 March 2004; p 61-2.]

That hardly fits with Roseanna Cunningham's comments in Monday's edition of The Scotsman, in which she claimed:

"Last week's GM announcement was met with outright opposition from Welsh ministers but here in Scotland the response was feeble."

The only feeble thing in Scotland is the SNP's grasp of the true position of the National Assembly for Wales and of what EU law says. Alternatively, perhaps the SNP knowingly and deliberately wants to misrepresent both those things.

Will Nora Radcliffe clarify what her personal view of GM crops is? Is she for or against the growing of GM crops?

Personally, I am in favour of the precautionary principle and of considering the science. If it is safe and sensible to proceed, that is fine. If it is not, we should not do so.

Let me reiterate that the legal opinion on the Parliament's powers to resist GM crops—which is the same as when it was first given by the Scottish Parliament's legal adviser in 2001—is that neither the Parliament nor Scottish ministers have the power to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops.

If we had scrapped the crop trials, as both the SNP and the Greens repeatedly demanded, it would not have been possible to resist the commercial growth of GM oil-seed rape and beet.

We totally support the Scottish Executive's decision to seek an amendment to the EU approval for Chardon LL maize to restrict its cultivation so that it could be cultivated only under the regime that was tested in the farm-scale trials. Until that amendment is made, the Executive should not agree to the seed listing of Chardon LL. However, we must remember that, as Chardon LL is listed on the Dutch national seed list, the crop could be listed on the EU list, so it could be grown in Scotland.

You must wind up.

I am just finishing my final point.

It is time for the Opposition parties to realise that it is not sensible to focus on the issue of seed listing. The best way forward would be for everyone to unite behind the Executive in promoting voluntary GM-free zones and in undertaking the necessary work to underpin those and make them achievable.

I thank the SNP for using its debating time to discuss such an important issue. I am pleased that the call for consensus that we made last week was heard and that we were able to discuss the text of the motion with colleagues from the SNP, the Conservative party and the SSP.

Three questions need to be answered today. First, has the Executive properly applied the precautionary principle to GM maize? I can tell Nora Radcliffe that, no, it has not been properly applied. The precautionary principle means that we must look before we leap rather than leap into the dark. The Executive's definition of the principle appears to be upside-down.

Mark Ruskell argues that we should be able to prove a negative. On that principle, nothing could ever be permitted, including crossing the road.

That is not true. In this case, the precautionary principle means that all the environmental risks must first be taken into account. That has not happened. Can George Lyon name any feeding studies that have been conducted? We know that the field-scale evaluations were extremely narrow and that they did not even consider the issue of contamination.

Until we see the Executive's legal advice, we will treat its reassurances on the precautionary principle as a waffle-a-lot-and-hope-for-the-best principle. The attitude that we have not yet come across any harm is not the precautionary principle. The EU directive requires member states to demonstrate that risks are being avoided. The problem is that the studies have not been done, so we cannot know what all the risks are.

Secondly, does the Executive have the powers to block GM maize getting on to the UK seed list? Yes, it has. Before a crop can be added to the UK national seed list, it must demonstrate an advantage over existing crops on the list. However, we know that the yields that Chardon LL achieved during the field-scale trials were inferior compared with conventional maize varieties. The lack of improved performance would have been a valid reason to reject the listing.

The Executive claims that Chardon LL could be added to the European catalogue because it is already on the national seed list of another member state. However, the crop is not grown in the Netherlands or anywhere else in the EU and the Dutch are unlikely to apply to have it added to the common list. Even if such an application was made, the application would require the consent of the UK state.

The UK state, with the agreement of the Scottish Executive, is pushing the process that will result in GM maize being grown in the UK in the next year. No other EU state is facing legal sanctions for not growing Chardon LL maize, but Scotland and the UK are blazing a GM trail for the crop.

For those reasons, we need an inquiry into the decision to pursue the commercialisation of GM maize so that we can review the impact of that decision on the environment, the economy and human health. I strongly suspect that alternative courses of action are open to the Executive. As has been outlined, a legal opinion on the powers of the National Assembly for Wales has already cast doubt on the Executive's room for manoeuvre.

Thirdly, there is a fundamental question of principle. I am sure that a majority of MSPs support the motion.

Will the member give way?

No, I am in my final minute.

In the past, a majority of members would have voted openly for the motion. The MSPs who participated in the two committee inquiries into GM would previously have voted for the motion and they probably want to do so today. The question is whether members will vote at 5 o'clock on the basis of what the SNP motion says rather than who lodged it. We will join the Tories and the SSP in voting for the motion. Most of the independents that I have spoken to have said that they will support the motion. Will other supportive MSPs—such as John Munro—put their principles first and vote for the motion?

I am astonished at how vocal the Lib Dems have been in supporting ministerial decisions, given that their counterparts elsewhere in the UK have been equally vocal in opposing them. The only thing that is consistent about the Lib Dems in the UK is their inconsistency.

The member accuses us of inconsistency, yet week after week we hear the SNP's front-bench spokesperson Kenny MacAskill demand that spending levels should be equivalent to those under the Swedish model, while the party's other front-bench spokespersons demand that our tax levels should be based on the Irish model. Let us see some consistency from the SNP.

Presiding Officer, I shall continue on the issue of GM crops being introduced into Scotland. This is not just a debate about the economy and the environment; it is a debate about democratic deficit in Scotland. People voted for this Parliament because they felt that decisions were taken outwith Scotland over which they had no control and which they did not want to be taken. We now have a Parliament and we put authority in ministers to go and negotiate on behalf of Scotland, but they are not doing that.

When those ministers go south of Gretna, they seem to have difficulty in speaking to their counterparts in London. They forget their responsibilities. I do not know whether they are overawed by the seniority that they seem to think their counterparts in London have, or whether they want to avoid falling out with their bosom buddies in case they do not buy them a pint at the next Labour conference in Brighton or Blackpool, but they are not negotiating on behalf of Scotland. They should be fighting tooth and nail to protect our interests on the issue, but the fact is that there is not enough information to allow this GM crop to be introduced to Scotland.

As Roseanna Cunningham and other members have pointed out, there have been no tests on feeding this crop to cattle. There have been no tests, and the minister must accept that. When he made his ministerial statement to the chamber a few days ago, he said that there was no problem, that it was just about fodder and that only a few farmers would grow the crop in Scotland. There have been no tests on that.

Richard Lochhead says that there have been no tests, but what is the University of Reading ruminant study about?

There was no reference to that in the minister's statement. The view of the other authorities that I am just about to quote, and which have been quoted elsewhere in the debate, is similar to the view of the SNP and the other parties that are opposed to the proposal—that there have been no such tests. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee's report states:

"Pollen spread and the calculation of separation distances so as to prevent contamination is a subject still heavily debated by scientific experts."

The other gaps in knowledge are referred to in the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission's report of October 2003, which cites

"other instances of organic and non-GM farmers facing significant problems and economic loss from adventitious presence in Canada and the US from the growing of GM oilseed rape and maize."

The report goes on to say:

"The Spanish Association of Corn Growers reports that some 5% of batches of maize destined for one of Spain's largest food processors were rejected due to adventitious presence of GM."

There is a lot of uncertainty, not just in this country but around the world. The voluntary zones are a sop. There will be a whole lot of disputes over the boundaries, contamination issues and so forth. The only people who will make a profit out of the issue are the lawyers in Scotland. The organic sector will have the rug pulled from beneath its feet as well. The Soil Association will have to withdraw organic status from many farms in Scotland if the 0.1 per cent threshold that it has set is broken, which is likely if the proposal goes ahead.

If the minister is sceptical, as he said he was in his statement, and the First Minister is also sceptical, have they requested that the UK Government change EU law so that we have more powers here in Scotland to do something about such issues? Or will they just shrug their shoulders and allow another decision that we do not want to be foisted on Scotland? It is not the World Trade Organisation, the US, the EU or the UK that should take decisions on growing GM crops in Scotland. It is this Parliament, representing the people of Scotland, that should take those decisions. As I have said, there are authorities elsewhere in the UK that think that there are powers in Europe that would allow Scotland to be declared GM free. The case for not allowing the specific crop that we are discussing today to come to Scotland is overwhelming.

My constituency of East Lothian has a long history of high-quality arable farming, starting way back in the 18th century with the agricultural improvers who embraced scientific ideas to improve the fertility of the land, to apply new techniques to control weeds and diseases and, yes, to breed better crop varieties. It is worth mentioning that conventional plant breeding takes full advantage of natural mutations, which are themselves forms of genetic modification, but I shall not dwell too long on that point. Those smart, successful agriculturalists applied scientific knowledge over many years for the benefit of Scotland and the rest of the world. I submit that that culture has contributed to Scotland's leading role in the development of new ideas on land management and food production for the benefit of the entire planet.

Does Mr Home Robertson accept that there is definite qualitative difference between conventional breeding—where crosses are made in a natural way between different varieties, including natural mutations—and taking genetic material, sometimes from a completely different species and using a virus carrier to inject it into a plant or other organism in the hope that it will produce the desired effect? Does he accept that that is potentially unstable and hazardous and that it could have unknown effects?

Can I have some injury time, Presiding Officer? That was a genetically modified intervention.

You are still burning up time.

Conventional plant breeding and GM technology are obviously different, but there are genuine comparisons between the two.

My suspicion is that the motion is intended to curry favour with science saboteurs, but my big concern is that it could damage the prospects for a smart, successful Scotland for the future. I suggest that it would not be very smart for Scotland to opt out of a potentially valuable area of bioscience. Our Executive has quite rightly told the scientists to apply the precautionary principle, but today's motion is something completely different. It would override scientific precaution with political prejudice.

Leaving aside the sheer absurdity of politicians writing the list of approved varieties for planting on farms in Scotland, we need to understand that a political decision to ban Chardon LL maize would convey an alarming message to the Scottish scientific community. That message would be that the Scottish Parliament is prepared to overrule good science in favour of blind prejudice, and I submit that that would be a very serious mistake.

Is Mr Home Robertson aware that the results of the University of Reading studies were never published, that the studies were carried out in secret and that it was Bayer itself that carried them out? Does that not say everything about those studies?

My fundamental point is that I want to trust scientists on this issue. I do not think that political prejudice is the right way to go about this. There is no question of running any risks. The Executive has already applied a rigorous precautionary principle. I do not need anyone to tell me about the risk posed by invasive plant species. Where there is any risk at all, such varieties should never be cleared for planting anywhere in Scotland. That is the precautionary policy that has been set by the Executive and applied by scientists.

The Cunningham doctrine is something completely different. It goes like this: never mind the science, ban it anyway. That is a tempting thought. I can think of many things that I might like to ban on the basis of my own excellent personal judgment—otherwise known as prejudice—but that approach would be the antithesis of a smart, successful Scotland. On the contrary, I submit that it would be an agenda for a silly, stone-age Scotland, and I do not want to go down that way.

I fully appreciate that there are legitimate concerns about new technologies and it is right to respond to those concerns by applying rigorous tests and precautions. Likewise, I agree that we need to be careful about cross-contamination and that we need effective buffer zones between different types of crops. The Executive is proposing that in the amendment that has been lodged. I urge Parliament to acknowledge the fact that GM science may have considerable potential for good—for example, by reducing dependence on pesticides. In my view, the motion is anti-science, cynical, opportunistic and irrational. On balance, I prefer to support the Executive amendment.

I thank the SNP for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject of GM crops today. During his statement on GM crops in the chamber only a week ago, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development stated that talk of a veto on the planting of Chardon LL maize was "wholly misplaced". He went on to say that the Executive

"will rigorously apply the precautionary principle in our approach to the planting of GM crops."—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6434.]

We are left with two options: either the Executive does not understand the precautionary principle or, for some bizarre reason, it is unwilling to apply that principle to Chardon LL. So much for protecting the environment.

The SNP motion is clear. It states that cultivation

"should not be considered … until a full inquiry has been undertaken".

The minister stated last week:

"I have the power … to ban GM crop cultivation in Scotland if there is scientific evidence to underpin such a decision".—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6431.]

Why will he not undertake an inquiry to ascertain that scientific evidence? He talks about establishing a voluntary co-existence scheme to protect non-GM farmers, but that will not protect the environment, let alone non-GM farmers, once the GM genie is out of the bottle. All that is being asked for in the motion is an inquiry.

Last week, I asked the minister why, in light of the fact that the GM crop trials that were conducted did not test whether genes could flow from GM crops to other crops, GM crops would be planted. He replied:

"Gene flow was tested in some separate experiments. Gene flow is not a safety issue per se and does not, of itself, constitute harm to the environment. However, the gene flow research will inform all our deliberations on the development of a programme of statutory co-existence."—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6436]

Does he not see that such replies serve only to increase public concern? If gene flow research will inform decisions on the programme of statutory co-existence, why was that not part of the original field trials? For the minister to state that gene flow is "not a safety issue" and does not harm the environment is astounding. If genetic material can flow from GM crops to non-GM crops, how can that be classed as not damaging the environment? That is the crux of the argument about GM contamination.

Does the member agree that variant CJD was the outcome of legislation and controls on cattle feeding that were backed by scientific evidence? We heard from Malcolm Chisholm yesterday about the continuing ramifications of flawed decisions in that area. Does it not follow that feeding genetically modified maize to cattle could also result in the build-up of serious problems for the future?

The member makes an excellent point that should be taken on board.

Will the member give way?

Sorry. I have only a minute left.

The fact that the potential for gene flow exists makes a nonsense out of the Executive's proposed co-existence scheme and assurances of environmental protection.

The minister stated last week:

"The Executive believes in responsible science and responsible policy making."—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6429.]

If that is so, I challenge the Executive to live up to those beliefs.

In his amendment, the minister states that he has neither the

"scientific evidence nor the powers to ban the cultivation of GM maize".

Had he supported the SNP motion, we would now have an Executive dealing with responsible policy and initiating an immediate inquiry. I urge him to think again.

For some time now, I have been sceptical about the planting of GM crops in Scotland. That scepticism derives not from a desire to hold back progress and the use of science but from the fact that scientists cannot agree on the science.

Let us consider the science. Here in Scotland, the field trials on oil-seed rape were botched. Contaminated seed was used when it should not have been and public confidence was damaged—not by Scottish ministers but by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; nonetheless, confidence in GM was shaken.

Health issues about GM have been raised and not answered by either the Parliament's Health Committee or the British Medical Association and the effect has been, once again, to shake public confidence. Animal feeding trials on Chardon LL have been carried out, but the results have not been published.

The farm-scale evaluations were set up to examine the herbicide and pesticide regimes and their effect on biodiversity. Those evaluations, which were the biggest ecological study of their type undertaken anywhere in the world, showed that the impact on biodiversity of GM herbicide-tolerant maize was less than that of the conventional variety. Does the member dispute that finding?

My colleagues are pointing out that that relates to atrazine, so it is not relevant to the current debate. The trials discounted themselves by using that weedkiller.

In Westminster, the Environmental Audit Committee's report on farm trials noted:

"The problems evident in north America have not been taken seriously enough."

It also noted that the committee is

"very concerned about possible contamination … of non-GM crops and insist that the issue of liability be settled before any GM crops are allowed to be commercially grown in the UK."

There is no sign of that happening.

Doubts about the future of GM are being expressed in every quarter by consumers and farmers. We in Scotland must take a similarly cautious approach and the minister recognised that when he called last week for voluntary GM-free zones in Scotland. I recognise and support the wisdom of that request from the minister, which is as close as he can come to banning GM crops without having the power to do so.

For purely marketing reasons, we should seek to make the whole of Scotland a GM-free zone—for the time being if not for ever. In the short term, I am certain that Scotland's farmers and food retailers would gain a commercial advantage if we produced food in a GM-free zone. We should grasp with both hands the niche-marketing opportunity that we have been offered and must not let the genetic genie—my phrase, not Rosemary Byrne's—out of the bottle in Scotland, either now or perhaps even ever.

The attraction of preserving our GM-free integrity is that in three, five or 10 years' time we can evaluate our position again. If, at that time, niche marketing of Scottish produce grown in a GM-free zone is successful, we can continue with it. If, in the meantime, all the scientific arguments have been resolved and the fears have been allayed, we can then decide whether to adopt GM. We will have lost nothing by being cautious for two, three or five years.

That is why the Conservatives' position is not "not ever" to GM; it is "not now". It is time to sit on the fence rather than rush into a decision in haste that we might repent at leisure.

I regard the debate today, initiated by a motion in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, as one of the most important that the Parliament has undertaken. The outcome of the debate and the vote that will follow at decision time will be a litmus test of whether individuals and political groups in the Parliament are prepared to take their duty of care towards the Scottish people seriously or, conversely, whether they are—like the Liberal Democrats—prepared carelessly to cast aside those responsibilities and the principle of precaution for the sake of political expediency.

In effect, that would be to take a decision that is about getting through tomorrow and the next day—and to hell with the long-term potential consequences for Scottish agriculture, public health and the environment. The potential long-term consequences are there and they are real. For example—I ask the minister to listen rather than shake his head all the time—the only published study that is available on feeding animals T25 maize, of which Chardon LL is one variety, found that the number of chickens that died after eating that GM maize was twice the number that died after eating non-GM maize.

Given that evidence, members would have thought that the next logical step would have been to carry out feeding studies on cattle and release the results. However, the minister knows about the University of Reading study, which was carried out and paid for by Bayer. The results have never been published, nor have they been sent to any regulatory authority. Will the minister tell me whether he has seen the results of those studies?

As the member knows, the study has just been completed. The researchers intend to publish the study and have it peer reviewed. As with all new evidence, when it is published it will be referred to ACRE for its advice. Does the member agree that the researchers have stated that the study does not reveal any adverse effect on the health of ruminants that have been fed T25 maize?

The minister has confirmed to the Parliament that he is prepared to give the go-ahead on this when he has not read or seen the study that was carried out by the University of Reading into the feeding of this sort of maize to animals.

There we have it. The minister has opened up the nightmare scenario.

I still have stuff to say. The Liberal Democrats are the guilty people—they should sit and listen for a change.

The suspect GM maize will now find its way into the feedstock of Scottish cattle. What on earth will that do to the reputation of a quality Scottish product, which we have tried so hard to build up after the BSE and foot-and-mouth catastrophes?

Will cattle be susceptible in the same way as chickens? Who knows? The truth is that it does not matter. GM maize will have entered the food chain, the consumer will rumble the truth and the good name of Scottish beef will be thrown down the stank.

Worse still, if GM maize has the potential to be more harmful to chickens than the non-GM varieties are, what impact will the meat and milk from cattle fed on GM maize have on human health?

I can add a bit to the discussion as I listened to "Farming Today" about a fortnight ago and heard the author of the report talk about it. The author said that nothing in the studies showed that there was any harm at all to cattle from this feed.

Has Maureen Macmillan seen the chicken study? For her information, as I have said twice, the study on feeding cattle has never been published and it has not been released to the relevant authorities. No one in government here has seen it and Maureen Macmillan has certainly never seen it.

If this GM maize has the potential to be harmful to chickens, and it gets into meat, what will it do to human health? No one knows the answer to that question, so the only viable route must be the precautionary route.

I remind the Liberals of their commitment at their 2003 federal conference, which overrides their manifesto. [Interruption.]

Order.

That conference called for

"The continuation of a UK moratorium on the commercial planting of all GM crops that have the potential to contaminate non-GM and organic crops."

So much for the Liberals' commitment.

Will the member give way?

The member is in his last minute.

I am already in my last minute.

Yesterday, someone said to me—cruelly, but perhaps accurately—that the Liberals in Scotland are a bit like the Labour Party's crash-test dummies. Perhaps they will want to prove me wrong by the time we finish today.

I welcome the lengthy Executive amendment and will speak in favour of it. What is the starting point for the debate? We had a lengthy consultation exercise, which demonstrated public scepticism about GM technology as people understand it. It also demonstrated people's strong demand to be able to choose the kind of food they eat and the kind of food they see on their supermarket shelves.

Will the member give way?

No, thanks. I want to get going.

Part of the reason for that scepticism is the over-inflated claims that were made by GM companies, and the sense that the big GM companies want to push us down the GM route regardless. The claim was made a couple of years ago that GM technology could at a stroke get rid of poverty and famine in developing countries. If it was that easy, it should have been done already, but it is not that easy and the issue is much more complex. There are a wide variety of concerns, particularly about the long-term effects of GM products, and there is unease about where the technology might lead and—crucially—about a lack of future choices for farming methods.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you. I want to get on.

For those reasons, it is absolutely right that we should have a robust testing framework, so that we can examine the issues and have technical debates in Parliament. We have to raise our game and think about these difficult scientific issues. That is why I welcome last week's decision to rule out the commercialisation of GM beet and rape on the basis of robust scientific testing, which discovered evidence of a potential negative impact on our environment. That is not mentioned in the SNP motion. I am not surprised by that, because the SNP wants only to score political points, not to protect consumers or our environment. As Allan Wilson and George Lyon made clear, the reality is that under EU rules, if we did not have a robust approach to testing, we would not have a leg to stand on if we wanted to ban such crops.

I fully support Sarah Boyack's comments on the trials that took place with rape and beet, but how can she defend the decision that was made on Chardon LL maize, when the regime under which it was grown was compared with a regime under which a non-GM variety was grown with the chemical atrazine? In a paper that I read, that chemical was described as one that could turn the garden of Eden into a desert, and it has been banned. No constructive, positive comparison can be made to enable that trial to be considered effective or its results to be considered conclusive.

We should be supporting the Executive's decision to seek to amend the EU approval for Chardon LL maize to restrict its cultivation, as laid out in the amendment. More tests need to be carried out, not just on that maize, but on a variety of different crops.

I return to my main point, which is that although choice is an issue for farmers in developing countries and in the UK, it is also an issue for consumers.

Will the member give way?

I have just taken an intervention.

I agree with what John Scott said about having high-quality niche marketing for Scotland's crops. We have to address particular issues if that is to be a reality. The first issue is crop distances. I would like the minister to outline the timescale for and the nature of the consultation that he is going to conduct, because we cannot have genetically modified crops without having effective distances, with scientific backing, between crops. The EU agreed that products must be labelled if the GM content of non-GM products is greater than the threshold of 0.9 per cent, but we need a lower limit, particularly for organic foods. According to the Soil Association, that is critical for consumer confidence.

We cannot have GM crops in Scotland until we have a proper liability regime. We also need to apply the precautionary principle. The polluter-pays principle means that biotechnology companies should be prepared to accept liability. We need to be sure that minds are concentrated in those companies. We have already had mistakes in the US, where mislabelled seed was provided to farmers, who unwittingly planted seed that had GM contamination. I would like the minister in summing up to address the need for an effective liability regime.

A debate of one hour and 15 minutes does not provide anything like enough time to do justice to this complex and difficult issue. That is regrettable. If the SNP truly believed that GM crops are an important issue, it should at least have taken the whole morning to discuss it.

Will the member give way?

I will give way to Richard Lochhead in a minute or two.

It was interesting that Roseanna Cunningham spent the majority of her speech quoting Westminster—an institution that is rubbished and disparaged by the SNP on a daily basis in this chamber. Clearly, the union is safe in Roseanna's hands.

As my colleague Nora Radcliffe stated, the Liberal Democrats have stuck to our manifesto, which stated that we would not permit the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland until trials had been completed, a public debate had been concluded, and—most important of all—a proper assessment of the science had been carried out. That process has been completed, which is why we are now in a position to proceed with the commercial growing of maize.

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

I give way to Richard Lochhead.

George Lyon mentioned the relationship of the public debate to his party's decision on whether to support GM crops in Scotland. What bearing does the public debate have on his support for GM crops in Scotland? Does he have any indication that the public support the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland?

I will move on to public and consumer concerns later in my speech.

The principle behind the decision to allow the growing of this GM crop is that matters of human health and food safety must be based on the best scientific advice that is available. That is the only principle on which we can base a decision on the safety of food products. To do otherwise would be extremely foolish and ill thought out. It is because that principle was applied that we are legally able to reject the commercialisation of spring rape and sugar beet, as the trials demonstrated that there was a risk to the environment.

Decisions can be made only on the basis of scientific evidence. Once that evidence shows that a product is safe, the issue then arises of consumer choice, about which everyone in the chamber is rightly concerned. That is why a rigorous and robust labelling scheme must be introduced, to allow consumers to make a choice.

The minister's other point was that we will allow maize to be planted and grown in Scotland only once the EU has adjusted the current consent, to ensure that maize can be grown only under the same rules that were applied in the trials.

George Lyon, like Sarah Boyack, talked about consumer choice. How will consumers in Scotland be able to choose to buy or not buy milk or meat that is derived from cattle that have been fed Chardon LL?

That is a matter for retailers and consumers, who must consider labelling and whether they wish to know from where products have come.

Co-existence rules are important to protect conventional and organic farmers who do not wish their crops to be contaminated by GM. We have already pledged to introduce compensation and liability measures to protect those who do not wish GM crops to be part of their crop growing schemes.

As I understand it, the Greens' position is that, in principle, one must prove a negative. In reality, that means that all progress and human advancement will come to an end now. The Tories appear to be unsure whether they are for or against GM, given that they licensed three GM products when they were in government before 1997. Of course, the SNP has no principles at all in these matters, apart from the principle of populism.

The SNP wishes to be taken seriously as an alternative party of government, but on fishing and GM crops, it advocates breaking the law. I am sorry, but it cannot advocate that route and be taken seriously as an alternative.

The Liberal Democrats will support the amendment in the Executive minister's name because it reflects our manifesto commitment, which is what we stood and were elected on.

Almost a century ago, scientists invented chlorofluorocarbons and the world was able to postpone its milk going sour by keeping it in fridges. We now know that we were simultaneously blowing a hole in the ozone layer, which may or may not be repairable. If we could rewrite history, I suspect that the invention of the fridge might have been somewhat delayed.

Today, we face a similar dilemma of equal importance. We have a choice between accepting the commercialisation of GM technology—which science suggests is safe, although by no means unanimously—and continuing the research into and development of the technology but putting the commercialisation on hold. Unlike when the decision-making process that led to the introduction of CFCs took place, we now live in a world in which public opinion is supposed to be taken into account, or so Governments would have us believe. The UK Government spent £500,000 over six weeks on consulting its population of around 60 million. The New Zealand Government spent £2 million over 14 months on consulting its population of 3.5 million. That statistic is relevant to the debate because we can learn many a lesson from New Zealand about marketing agricultural produce in the global market.

Only two days ago, I attended a very good conference run by Quality Meat Scotland at which Gerry Thompson, the general manager in Europe for Meat New Zealand was a principal speaker. He told us that New Zealand was and would remain at the forefront of GM research and development, but he affirmed that the New Zealand Government, having listened to the concerns of its people and customers over 14 months concluded that neither the time nor the technology was yet right for wider commercialisation and that it would not go down that route.

Will the member give way?

No. We have heard quite enough from Mr Lyon today.

Alex!

Mike Rumbles is right to be surprised. I do not usually get riled, but George Lyon is doing a good job of riling me this morning.

Our Governments have caved in following the most minimalist consultation exercise ever devised. Shamefully, the Government in Scotland has done so without any justification, as any seed that is added to the certified list must be a proven improvement on what is already available.

I will take an intervention in a second.

As Alex Johnstone and Mark Ruskell clearly stated, we are told that Chardon LL is unsuitable for Scottish conditions. In any event, the trials involved the use of atrazine, which is a banned pesticide.

Will the member take an intervention?

Certainly not from a Liberal Democrat. I will take one from the minister.

Minister.

He is not listening.

I was listening. I am being accused of giving in and surrendering and all the rest of it. What exactly have we done? We have applied for an amended consent for Chardon LL maize based on the outcome of the farm-scale evaluations. The original consent was approved in 1998. How does that constitute surrender or caving in?

Roseanna Cunningham answered that question. The European requirements have changed considerably since then.

On the subject of atrazine, Professor Geoff Squire, who was a member of the farm-scale evaluation independent steering group said:

"Obviously, if atrazine is withdrawn, we'll have to look at maize again. This is a package, the GM crop and the herbicide. If either element changes, we shall have to revisit it."

Wrong, professor, we are not revisiting it, we are going to commercialise it.

If we do so, my constituency is likely to be the most affected in Scotland. A farmer who is a constituent of mine is quoted in the latest edition of The Scottish Farmer as saying:

"If I see a commercial advantage in growing GM maize, of course I'll grow it."

I do not blame him for that—he is a businessman—but it blows wide apart the Executive's assertion that the consumer will decide the outcome.

Our country cannot afford to lose the integrity and pure status of the food that we produce. I agree with the Executive's proposal for a voluntary GM-free zone—Scotland should be one. I urge members to vote for the motion.

We reject the SNP motion and ask members to support the lengthy and comprehensive amendment that has been agreed between the partnership parties. We reject the calls for an inquiry because we have just had an open and transparent public inquiry, as Sarah Boyack and Nora Radcliffe said. Their speeches were an injection of light into what has otherwise been a fairly dark debate. The inquiry was called the GM dialogue. No other country has undertaken such a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the case for and against GM crops. We have weighed up the evidence and found that the only sensible and legally sustainable approach is to assess each GM crop on a case-by-case basis.

Will the member give way?

No. I want to put some points on the record. I gave way several times earlier, including to Mr Lochhead.

It is ironic that some of those who opposed the farm-scale evaluations before they were set up now call for more and bigger evaluations. The fact that atrazine will no longer be used does not invalidate the outcome of the farm-scale evaluations of maize. That point was made in no less a scientific journal than Nature on Friday 5 March. I understand how difficult it is to reach agreement among farmers. Three farmers are sitting in front of me, each of whom has a different approach to the issue. However, we agree that future research may be necessary, particularly if the industry applies for a renewal of the release consent in 2006, which was a point that one of those farmers made.

As I have explained, decisions about what can be consumed or grown in the EU as a whole are taken by the member states. The Greens should look at the legal advice that the parliamentary solicitor provided to the Transport and the Environment Committee. That was not Executive legal advice, although the advice that I have received has been clear and concise. The advice to that committee confirmed that neither the Parliament nor the Scottish ministers have the power to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops.

The subsequent directive 2001/18/EC, to which Ms Cunningham referred, re-emphasised that point. When a product—[Interruption.]. If members cared to listen to the explanation, they would find out that recital 56 states:

"When a product containing a GMO, as or in products, is placed on the market, and where such a product has been properly authorised under this Directive, a Member State may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of GMOs, as or in products, which comply with the requirements of this Directive."

Will the member give way?

In my summation, I will come to the point that Mr Lochhead made earlier.

As George Lyon properly pointed out, the precautionary approach provided the scientific justification for our decision to oppose the cultivation of GM, herbicide-tolerant, spring-sown rape and beet, as grown in the farm-scale evaluations. Science has shown that the management regimes associated with those crops have a more harmful effect on biodiversity than those of their conventional counterparts. With maize, the same precautionary and science-based approach confirmed that the reverse is true. Growing GM, herbicide-tolerant maize is better for many groups of wildlife than is growing conventional maize.

Will the minister give way?

I say to the chief witch doctor of the SNP that we cannot accept scientific advice only when it fits our prejudices. The fundamental point is that the farm-scale evaluations have vindicated our precautionary, case-by-case, evidence-based approach. Despite all the bluster and claims from the Opposition, we do not have the power to ban GM crops without evidence of harm. That important legal point has been confirmed in advice from the parliamentary solicitor to one of the Parliament's committees.

As I explained, we have already undertaken a comprehensive and rigorous inquiry into GM. We do not, therefore, need another one. We have used "all existing legal powers" to block approval for the commercial growing of rape and beet

"in keeping with the precautionary principle".

We have neither the scientific evidence nor the legal powers to ban GM maize. Without such evidence, the SNP proposal would be illegal and the Executive would be liable to infraction proceedings. The SNP's motion is based on an anti-science and Euro-sceptic policy—it is no more than populist opportunism. I urge the Parliament to reject it.

I want to make it quite clear that Executive party members appear to have addressed an entirely different debate to the one that we proposed in our motion. The SNP is not asking for a blanket ban on GM crops, but for a full inquiry into Chardon LL maize. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that severe doubts exist as to whether Chardon LL maize should be accepted on to the seed list.

Although the Executive says that it has involved the public and that it has tried to impress on them the potential for choice in food, the debate on the whole process of the GM farm-scale trials continues. Indeed, the House of Commons Environment—

Oh!

We are happy to take evidence from the United States of America, New Zealand and so on. If George Lyon is so blinkered, he will miss the points that are clear to see.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you. Sit down.

As I said, the report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the conduct of the public debate on GM concluded that

"the wider public was in the main not informed by the debate, and nor were their opinions canvassed."

That is a severe questioning of the Government's real efforts to involve the public in the debate about the effects of GM on the products that the public buys.

Let us break down the subject of the debate and think about it. We are talking about feeding maize fodder to cattle. There is a free market in cattle across the border between Scotland and England.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

It is possible that supermarkets that buy food on the basis that it has no GM content or, in the case of the European agreement, that that content is not above 0.9 per cent, will find it necessary to require absolute testing of nearly everything that they purchase because, increasingly, there will be contamination.

As far as the SNP is concerned, it is necessary to have the kind of full inquiry that we propose in the motion because the public is not convinced; indeed, the Government has not convinced them. I was appalled to hear the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development suggest on television that it was job of Governments and producers to convince the public that GM food is safe. If members and the minister look back at "Newsnight Scotland", they will find out exactly what he said.

It is interesting to note that the Consumers Association supports the SNP motion. The association does not trust the science that has led us to the position that we are in today.

Earlier in the debate, we tried to get a response from the deputy minister on the fodder maize studies. When Peter Ainsworth, the chairman of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee was challenged on the fodder maize studies, he said:

"It is quite clear that this research is highly speculative. It appears that meaningful results from only four fields which did not use atrazine or other triazines in the trials can be examined with any confidence, and that this number of fields provides no statistically sound basis upon which to extrapolate results with any certainty whatsoever."

Would the member therefore disagree with the subsequent scientific research, which, as I said earlier in response to the Conservatives, was published in the scientific journal Nature on Friday 5 March? Does he disagree that, in the short term, the banning of atrazine does not invalidate the conclusions of the farm-scale evaluations in respect of herbicide-tolerant maize?

The press release from which I quoted was Mr Ainsworth's response to the article in Nature. That is why there is a large degree of doubt about the whole issue, which the Government is not acknowledging.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you. I do not have time to do so.

The SNP position is that we have to ensure that the science is not flawed. Of course, science learns as it goes along: there are plenty of examples of that, including those of CFCs and CJD. As far as the Environmental Audit Committee's report is concerned, a number of concerns about Chardon LL maize are raised in its 27 recommendations and conclusions. The results of the forage maize trials, which we heard about earlier and on which I questioned the deputy minister last week, have not been published. The trials have not been peer reviewed and there is therefore major doubt about them.

I turn to the question of gene flow. No attempt was made in the farm-scale trials to deal with the question over the long term. The farm-scale trials were extremely limited. The Environmental Audit Committee recommended that no decision should be made in respect of the commercial growing of GM crops until thorough research, gained from the experience in North America, has been completed and published. That research is important; because of the length of time that GM crops have been grown in North America, more and more we find that many people are disadvantaged by the whole process.

I know that the minister would like to have a shouting match, but the SNP believes in the truth and in the science and in looking at all the options that are open within the European Union for us to say no.

In the legal opinion that Friends of the Earth got ahead of the debate in the National Assembly for Wales, questions of animal feed safety, horizontal gene transfer, pollen dispersal, ensuring that varieties comply with the terms of new directive 2001/18/EC, and flaws in the regulatory process, open up the possibility of using article 4.4 of the common catalogue directive 2002/53/EC, and of deciding whether value for use is satisfied and whether the discretionary elements of regulation 5 of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3510) should be used. The Scottish Executive has refused to use those parts of the European Union regulatory process. The SNP motion suggests that a full inquiry should look at that and that, in the meantime, there should be no listing of Chardon LL in the UK. The deputy minister should stand up for Scotland and stop caving in to his London masters.