Genetic Modification Science
The next item of business is a debate on genetic modification science. I want to explain to members that, unusually, I have selected three amendments to motion S1M-675, and I do not want that to be taken as a precedent. Mr Harper's amendment raises a different point from the other two and was supported by other members. That is why I have selected three amendments.
In the business bulletin, amendment S1M-675.4 in the name of Robin Harper contains an error. It refers to the Enterprise, Culture and Sport Committee, which should be the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I am sure that Mr Harper will agree with that verbal amendment to his amendment.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Executive.
As members will be aware, genetic modification science is a complex issue. However, it an issue that is relevant to our policies on food, agriculture, the environment and industry. I want to set out clearly to members the Scottish Executive's position on the issue.
First, let me be clear that the Executive is neither for nor against genetic modification. Our priorities are to protect human health and to safeguard the environment. We are pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-consumer choice. I am very aware of the real and understandable concerns of consumers and the wider public about genetic modification. That is why we are moving forward on a cautious, precautionary basis. We have helped to establish and are working within a rigorous and stringent regulatory regime. There is a comprehensive framework of regulatory bodies, which provide advice on the safety of GM and the broader implications of biotechnology.
As I said when we debated food safety last September, we must promote a mature and well-informed public debate on issues such as GM. We must move away from the highly emotive language that has surrounded such issues in the past. That is in the best interests of everyone, particularly the public. The recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference, held in Edinburgh and supported by both the UK Government and the Scottish Executive, was an important step in widening the debate. It is that sort of open, constructive dialogue that we wish to encourage, allowing different perspectives to be aired and considered, sensibly and maturely. I hope that today's debate will be a further step towards raising public awareness and providing the factual information that is crucial to enable informed views to be reached.
As we all know, GM is an evolving subject; research is constantly extending our knowledge. There are potential benefits that have already been demonstrated through, for example, new therapeutic products for diabetics and haemophiliacs and the development of nutritionally enhanced staple crops. Those are real benefits that our people need. We cannot ignore that.
Major developments are taking place every day in this area of science and across the world. GM is not just a Scottish issue or a UK issue, but crosses international borders. We need to work in partnership with other countries if we are to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place. That is why the European regulatory framework is so important.
Although GM food and crops is a devolved matter, it would be unrealistic to take an entirely separate Scottish approach, not least because we do not have the legal scope for action outwith the European rules. We have powers to prohibit cultivation or withdraw GM products, where there is supporting evidence. However, we cannot and will not take a stance that does not have a sound legal or scientific footing. Let me assure members that if unacceptable harm is demonstrated, we can and will act. European legislation gives us that important safeguard.
The development and the possible commercial planting of GM crops have been the subject of much concerned debate. Let me be absolutely clear. There is at present no commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland or in any other part of the United Kingdom. Under an agreement reached with the industry and farmers, no commercial growing will take place until a programme of farm-scale evaluations is completed and independently assessed for risk, which will happen no earlier than 2003, and no GM crops will be grown or marketed commercially until they pass one of the most rigorous regulatory systems in the world. We will always act cautiously, but—equally—we will not turn our backs on progress.
Does the minister accept that there are limitations to our scientific knowledge in this matter, and that the damage that is feared by many people in the green movement could be done before the tests are even concluded?
It is precisely because scientific knowledge is—as I have already said—growing and evolving that it is important that we take a precautionary approach and that we are prepared to learn from the evidence and to apply what we learn to our policy making. That is precisely what we are doing in relation to crop testing.
In Scotland, a number of small-scale trial sites have consent to grow GM crops for research. I stress that, before any GM crop is allowed to reach that controlled trialling stage in the open, it needs to satisfy strict safety tests in the laboratory and under greenhouse conditions. However, testing under those conditions cannot tell us definitely what effect, if any, the crop will have on the countryside. For that, we need to consider the conditions under which the crop might be grown commercially and the agricultural practices that would be adopted. That is why we are participating in the UK programme of farm-scale evaluations, which will provide essential scientific information on any effects that the growing of GM crops might have on biodiversity or on the environment generally. That will enhance our scientific knowledge, and will enhance our ability to make policy on an informed basis. It is essential that informed decisions on the potential effect of those crops are taken on the basis of sound scientific evidence.
Will the minister give way?
I would like to move on.
Without such scientific knowledge, we can only speculate, and that is in no one's interest.
The first trial site in Scotland was announced last week. It is important for carefully assessed trials to take place in Scotland to reflect our particular climate and ecology. Farm-scale evaluations are the precautionary principle in practice. Without them, GM crops would already be grown commercially in this country—and they are not.
Equally important is that the public should have the right to know what is going on, where it is going on, and why. That is why we will make public the exact location of all trial sites, and why we have put a fuller explanation of the purpose of the trials on the internet.
Our overriding responsibilities are to safeguard public health and to ensure that consumers can make informed choices about whether to eat GM food. We believe that effective labelling is crucial to allow real consumer choice. We already label foods containing GM soya and maize, which are the only GM foods currently on sale in this country. Legislation was laid before this Parliament on 17 March to extend the requirements on labelling to cover GM additives and flavourings.
We wish to see labelling go even further than that. We fully support the UK push to get "GM free" labelling as well as labelling for animal feed with GM ingredients. Where possible under European law, we will take action to provide maximum information for consumers, to allow real choice. That thinking has underpinned our approach to GM and food safety throughout our time in office.
It is important that the public have access to information on this subject, and that they have access to and confidence in the regulatory process that operates on their behalf. In the UK, that process is rigorous and is based upon the precautionary principle. The regulatory system has two distinct functions: to regulate the approval of individual GM products and processes, and to provide a strategic framework for the development of the technology.
Expert committees already provide us with independent scientific assessments of the environmental and health implications of GM crops or foods that are proposed for development or marketing. We have also acted jointly with the UK Government to establish two new commissions to advise us on the wider, often ethical, issues that go beyond purely scientific considerations.
All those bodies will operate alongside the new Food Standards Agency to provide a strong, strategic advisory structure to oversee the regulatory system. From 1 April, when the new Food Standards Agency is established, we will look to it for advice on all GM food and animal feed issues. The agency's independent Scottish Food Advisory Committee will advise on specific Scottish issues. In particular, the agency will advise us on the longer-term and ethical implications that surround GM food. It will also ensure that the safety assessment regime continues to meet the pace of change in this fast-moving area of science. The agency will be independent, open, transparent and consultative, and will give clear, well-publicised advice. The Food Standards Agency and the other advisory bodies will advise Scottish ministers directly on devolved issues.
In accordance with our approach of being open on all such matters, we are taking other steps to extend information more widely. From today, a Scottish Executive website will be dedicated specifically to providing information on the issues that we are discussing today.
This is a complex issue. Public health and protection of the environment are at the core of our policies, but it is important that we do not lose sight of the significant developments that are taking place in our biotechnology industry. Biotechnology is important, for example, in the discovery, development and delivery of new medicines and vaccines. It has helped us to advance in our ability to diagnose accurately and quickly, and is key to developing completely new treatments for a range of diseases. The industry in Scotland is well established and we are in a leading position, in particular in the medical sector, in a field with the highest potential.
The Scottish Executive examines all those aspects when it considers the most appropriate way of formulating its policy on GM. We have adopted a cautious approach to a very sensitive issue. We are neither pro nor anti-GM. We must, and we do, give priority to the need to protect public health and the environment, but we do not turn our backs on the science, which has the potential to bring us significant benefits. To assess that potential properly, we believe that it is necessary to learn more, but we will do that within rigorous constraints to ensure that the public and the environment are fully protected.
We will work with the UK Government and our European partners to improve the information that is available to consumers and to ensure that consumer safety is protected. We are acting in a responsible, measured and precautionary manner. That is in the best interests of Scotland and the Scottish people, and for that reason, I commend the motion to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament acknowledges the public concerns which exist in relation to the development of genetically modified foods and crops; commends the precautionary approach of the Scottish Executive and the rigorous regulatory systems which are in place to control the development of genetically modified foods and crops, and recognises the excellence of the Scottish biotechnology industry.
It is one thing to be neither pro nor anti, but actions speak louder than words and if trial testing is given the go-ahead, that will take matters a quantum leap ahead.
At the outset, I want to indicate our support for my colleague Robin Harper's amendment. The facets that are addressed by that amendment are separate and distinct, but he has our full support.
This debate is long overdue; it is also far too short, and it must continue. The Parliament has been in existence for nigh on nine months; the GM debate has progressed at pace, and serious and important events have taken place without the Parliament having the power of veto, or even a by your leave. That is a scandal.
As we begin the debate, we should examine our current situation and the factors that are before us today. In Scotland, we are fortunate enough to have a pioneering biotechnology industry. We have scientists whose work is recognised beyond these shores and whose reputation is justly world renowned. It is a matter for considerable national pride that the Roslin Institute and the Rowett Research Institute are household names. Scottish science is once again a pioneer in progress and is pushing out the parameters of knowledge.
Although we want such technology to be progressed in Scotland, boundaries must exist, as in any other field. We welcome the advancement of knowledge, but do not worship at the altar of applying untried technology for its own sake. We are not prepared to sacrifice the rural economy of Scotland, the proud reputation of our quality farming industry or the health of our people. Boundaries must be placed and regulations followed. That is not meant to impede scientific progress, but it is meant to ensure that science is not applied beyond our control in unforeseen circumstances and with possible catastrophic consequences.
What is the current situation? First, we should scotch some of the myths. Myth No 1: GM crops will feed the world. With genetically modified loaves and fishes, Monsanto will end world hunger in an act of altruism unknown for nigh on 2,000 years; a company founded on sheer capital for profit's sake will be moved to the provision of seed corn for humanity's sake. Aye—that'll be right. The tragic images of starvation on our television screens should lead not only to charity but to an analysis of the cause and the solution. The cause is not food shortage, but unfair distribution and supply. There is more than enough food in the world to feed the whole human race. The United Nations World Food Programme reckons that enough food is grown to feed the world one and a half times over. If so, why should one seventh of the world's population go hungry and one in four children go to bed hungry tonight?
GM foods are not the great white hope from America's corner coming to deck the dark, rampaging scourge of hunger; they are being used to increase Monsanto's profits, boost its share capital—and hell mend the consequences. They are indeed a food steroid in the environment ring. If the Executive is determined to increase food production, it should put some of Scotland's 77,000 hectares of set-aside land back into production and create jobs and produce.
Myth No 2: GM foods pose no threat. Who says? This is not a criminal prosecution; the burden of proof is not based on the concept of beyond reasonable doubt and the onus of proof is not on us. We are told that there is no evidence to show that GM foods are unsafe. However, that is not the issue. The Executive has rightly used the terminology, "precautionary principle". This is not a matter of proving beyond reasonable doubt that GM foods are unsafe; it is about the manufacturers satisfying all of us beyond reasonable doubt that they are safe.
Myth No 3: GM foods will improve Scotland's agricultural reputation. Although Scotland's agriculture industry needs assistance, this is a helping hand from the devil. Scotland's reputation in the food industry is, to some extent, based on high-quality foods for niche markets. Like everywhere else, we grow the basic crops, but the image that we market of "Scotland the Brand" is top of the range: fresh, clean and pristine pure. Organic farming is the only growth sector in Scottish agriculture at the moment, and we must encourage it instead of jeopardising it by planting environmental time bombs.
As for the SNP amendment, it is one thing to conduct tests in a laboratory where conditions are safe, secure and isolated; it is quite another thing to jeopardise all in an unrestricted, unrestrained, open experiment in the Scottish countryside.
Will Mr MacAskill explain how cross-pollination of crops, for example, can be tested in laboratories and greenhouses?
The bottom line has to be the precautionary principle. The simple fact of the matter is that if we cannot be satisfied that testing can be done in any other way, we must not proceed with it.
As the legacy of Chernobyl testifies, the environment knows no boundaries. That event was on a macro-scale; we cannot risk something similar happening on a micro-scale. In the same way that GM foods have not been proven safe beyond reasonable doubt, the parameters that have been set do not suffice. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a safe distance or an exclusion zone; the only safe exclusion zone is within the confines of a laboratory or in a similar restricted environment. A generation ago, army veterans in fields in Australia were told that if they turned their backs and put their fingers in their ears, all would be well as an atomic bomb was tested. There, the safe exclusion zone was shown to be flawed, as radiation penetrated the victims unfelt and undetected.
Can we be absolutely certain that, as the wind blows and the bee flies, not one grain of pollen will cross the 50 m exclusion zone set by the Executive? For those who would accuse me of scaremongering, I produce in evidence the statement of the chair of the British Medical Association's board of science of education, who said:
"Once the GM genie is out of the bottle, the impact on the environment is likely to be irreversible."
Plant in haste, repent at leisure.
At the moment, there is one test site, but up to 24 more are possible, located throughout our land, whichever direction the wind blows. They would be environmental time bombs and we cannot take the risk.
We acknowledge the progress made by the biotechnology industry and the benefits that it can provide to our society. However, exactly as in day-to-day life, no one is above or beyond the law, neither in science can anyone or any institution be beyond control or regulation. We seek to impose not unnecessary constraints, but safeguards for a yet unproven technology.
Just as we have learnt the lessons of Windscale and now recognise the risks involved in moving nuclear fusion from the lab to the field, we must be conscious of the possible consequences of moving GM technology from the lab to the field. We are playing with fire. We risk, in the event of a technological meltdown, a disaster for our agriculture industry, our natural environment and our people. If we play with fire and are not careful, we are likely to get burned. We cannot take that risk. The devastation of the fire would be too great.
I move amendment S1M-675.2, to leave out from "commends" and insert:
"recognises the Scottish biotechnology industry's excellent work and record to date; notes the concerns regarding crop testing expressed by bodies such as the British Medical Association, and calls for a moratorium on field crop testing until all legitimate causes for concern have been satisfactorily addressed."
Some weeks ago, two petitions came before the Rural Affairs Committee. The first asked the Parliament to debate the issue of GM foods. The second asked us to support the call to have GM foods banned in Scotland. It is with great pleasure that I welcome today's debate, which satisfies the demand of the first petition, which the Rural Affairs Committee approved. We did not approve the second petition, but decided to wait to make a judgment, pending a debate on the issue. I am therefore delighted to be able to take part in today's debate.
Genetically modified food has, as we have heard, been a controversial issue for many years. It is widely available in Scotland and, surprisingly to some people, is in cheese products and, I believe, in some tomato products. However, the main sources are, as the minister rightly said, soya and maize. We know that GM products have been included in animal feed in Scotland for some time. It could, therefore, be argued that the genie is already out of the bottle.
We know that the varieties of genetically modified crop that are available could conceivably have a number of benefits for people who farm and who consume farm products. There is little doubt that genetic modification can bring benefits. It might reduce the persistence in the environment of certain chemicals and the total amount of chemicals applied. It could also increase yields from existing agricultural land although, as we have heard, there are question marks as to whether that would be an appropriate objective to pursue. The concept of cheaper food is difficult for many farmers to understand, when they are selling food at prices that are cheaper than those at which food has ever been sold in living memory.
Genetically modified crops also have a number of potential pitfalls, many of which we have heard about, particularly from Kenny MacAskill. However the problems are perhaps rather too easy to highlight. As he anticipated someone might, I would suggest that Kenny slightly overstepped the mark, entering an area that some might consider as scaremongering.
In the past week, we have had announcements that there will be farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops in Scotland, particularly in the north-east. I am sure that today's debate is particularly pertinent for people who live in the Inverurie and Oldmeldrum areas of Aberdeenshire and will raise concerns about the issues of the past week.
When Ross Finnie, the Minister for Rural Affairs, announced that farm-scale trials were to take place, he did so in a letter to MSPs. In that letter, he said that the GM crops being tested had already undergone years of tests, both in laboratories and in carefully controlled sites. He added that the Executive's scientific advisers, all experts in their field, had concluded that the crops themselves did not present any direct threat to the environment, and were safe for humans and animals.
Therein lies a problem. I, as a Conservative and a farmer, can remember all too easily the situation that existed in the 1980s in relation to BSE. In spite of the people who like to take advantage of this—I am not looking at anybody in particular, George Lyon—I should point out that throughout the 1980s, the Conservative Government acted on best scientific advice, and decisions were made largely based on that advice. The fact remains that the scientific advice changed. At progressive stages of that crisis, it became obvious that decisions made on what appeared at the time to be sound advice were in some way flawed. For that reason, I have serious concerns about the scientific advice relating to this matter.
Will Alex Johnstone give way?
If it is very short—I have points to make.
May I remind Alex Johnstone of exactly what did happen, as opposed to the sanitised version that he gave a minute ago? The scientific advice was right in the 1980s; the big problem was that it was not implemented.
I remind George Lyon that we are not here to debate BSE today—we have done so many times in the past. What he has suggested many times in the past is that the Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of BSE. I am suggesting today that perhaps we all need to learn some of the lessons of BSE.
If we are to make a constructive judgment on GM science, we must have all the information in the public domain. I am delighted to have heard today that more of that information and more scientific facts will be placed in the public domain in the near future. I would like to have seen those facts in the public domain, so that the public could have been involved in the decision-making process that led to the decision to go for full-scale field trials. Only if we include the public can we carry them with us.
There are more than just scientific issues involved. One of the biggest opportunities that GM crops present to farmers in Scotland is—Robin Harper will like this—the possibility that Scotland could exist as a GM-free area. It is conceivable that the biggest financial advantage that could accrue to Scotland's farmers through the introduction of GM crops to the United Kingdom could be that we could claim to be GM-free: as a result, Scottish products could command a higher premium in the marketplace. For that reason, we needed to consider more than just scientific advice before proceeding to the full-scale field trials.
In spite of my broad agreement with many of the views contained in the Executive's amendment, I cannot commend its precautionary approach, and I ask ministers to ensure that all information on GM crops be placed firmly in the public domain, so that a full public debate takes place, taking the facts into account. Once that is done, the Conservative party will be the first to support GM field trials in Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-675.1, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:
"and, while recognising the excellence of the Scottish biotechnology industry and the benefits that GM technology has the potential to provide, calls upon the Scottish Executive to delay the recently announced farm scale trials until evidence from previous scientific tests, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that such trials pose no threat to the environment or public health, has been thoroughly evaluated by a range of independent assessors and placed in the public domain."
While I welcome the fact that the Executive has finally allowed some debate in the chamber on genetic modification, I am unhappy that it has granted a debate of only one and a half hours. Five minutes is not very long to make a presentation. I am also critical of the fact that, as Kenny MacAskill said, this has taken more than nine months and that it took an 18,000-signature petition from Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Green party to add enough weight to secure this debate.
No doubt the Executive has avoided a debate because GM is a difficult issue for it. It is an issue on which the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties were divided before entering into the partnership agreement and on which they are divided still—if reports from the Liberal Democrat conference in London are true. Which, of course, they must be.
The title of the Executive's motion is "Genetic Modification Science", but that title blurs the line between the potentially beneficial applications of genetic science and the particular application of the science that threatens the environment and human health—GM crops and GM food. In reply to a point made by Elaine Murray, I will say that the responsible thing to have done in the farm-scale trials that were set up in 1999 would have been to incorporate research into cross-pollination resulting from pollen flowing into the environment. That was not included in the research. The research tried to discover whether there was any significant difference between the biodiversity associated with the management of GM herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape and maize and comparable non-GM crops.
I take Mr Harper's point about the earlier field trials, but the field trials that were announced last week are intended to consider pollen transfer and cross-pollination. I am sure that he will welcome that.
I do not welcome that, because I strongly feel that research should be done into that without doing trials in the open. While the Scottish Green party is concerned with some other applications of GM science, such as human cloning, at least those applications are confined to the laboratory.
The urgency of this debate on GM crops is that genetically modified oilseed rape is about to be planted in Aberdeenshire on such a huge scale that the results might be irreversible and might damage the Scottish countryside. We are not asserting that it will; we are asserting that it might.
History shows that the appliance of science is not always beneficial. Ecological history is littered with examples of biological introductions that have shown man's knowledge of biology to be naive and partial. A little knowledge has been shown to be a dangerous thing and interference with nature has been shown to bring unforeseen consequences. Ecological systems are complex and it is difficult or even impossible to predict the outcome of interfering with the balance of nature. In Scotland, ecological havoc has been wreaked by the accidental introduction of the New Zealand flatworm and Japanese knot weed.
We have reached the point where we need to stand back and take a long look at what the GM biotech corporations want to do. It is worth highlighting that we are not talking only about GM oilseed rape, GM beets and GM maize: the biotech corporations have scores more GM crops ready for release or in the pipeline. Although the few GM crops that are currently being released might be less damaging to the natural world, some GM crops that are proposed are more obviously alarming, such as the Bt corn, which has been genetically modified to express an insecticide and the pollen of which has been shown to be lethal to monarch butterflies.
We must have the wisdom to acknowledge that there are limitations to scientific knowledge, in particular to scientific knowledge of complex, living eco-systems. When the stakes are so high, we need to be much more precautionary in our approach. Remember: we are contemplating the possibility of irreversible damage to Scotland's countryside. Would it not be prudent to work with the grain of nature, as with organic farming techniques, rather than against it?
We have not had the time properly to examine the implications of GM crop technology before it is released in Scotland. I propose that we remit all relevant committees of the Parliament to report on the implications of GM crops for Scotland. The Transport and the Environment Committee should consider the long-term interest of Scottish farmers, particularly the impact of GM crops on neighbouring producers of conventional and organic crops—I will return to that in my summing up.
You are pretty close to your summing up, Mr Harper.
The Rural Affairs Committee could form an opinion on the benefit to Scottish farmers and producers and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee could take up the point that was so ably made by Alex Johnstone about the benefits to the tourism industry of selling Scotland as a GM-free zone.
I move amendment S1M-675.4, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:
"recognises the excellence of the Scottish biotechnology industry and calls on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Rural Affairs and Transport and the Environment Committees to report to the Parliament on the full implications of planting GM crops in Scotland for our economy, agriculture and environment."
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are fully committed to the precautionary principle. Our overall approach on all GM issues is to value caution and transparency. As the minister said in her introduction, it is right to be pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-consumer choice. In his conference speech in Plymouth last weekend, Charles Kennedy said that
"the Liberal Democrats have constantly urged caution. We see science as a servant, never a master. The government must now go the whole hog. Back our policy of a five-year moratorium on commercial GM crops."
My party has campaigned, and is campaigning, to impose tight European international regulations on all aspects of GMOs. The European Parliament's environment committee voted only on Tuesday to toughen up the European position on the 1990 directive on the deliberative release of GMOs into the environment. The European Parliament Liberal group voted to strengthen the accountability of biotech firms that are conducting GMO trials.
In particular, the environment committee of the European Parliament is calling on European member state Governments to take action, when they consent to such trials, to prevent gene transfer from GMOs to other organisms. The committee proposes that biotech firms should have strict civil liability for any damage to human health or the environment that is caused by the release of GMOs and that they should take out liability insurance prior to any release. That would be an important step forward. There is surely no more hard-headed assessment of risk than in the insurance industry. Liberal Democrats are working to strengthen the regulatory regime, and I hope that the minister will address those two points in his summing-up later this afternoon.
It is important that genetically modified crops are fully tested before there is any question of commercial growing. It is vital that we know the full facts and it is right to be cautious. Much greater scientific work is needed on the threat to the environment, which is why it is right to conduct field trials under strict controls that include the appropriate buffer zones. Taking the head-in-the-sand approach is akin to saying that, when Alexander Fleming discovered mould in a test tube, he should have poured Domestos in right away. After all, there would have been—to paraphrase—"legitimate causes for concern that have not been satisfactorily addressed".
In addition to that approach, food labelling measures are extremely important. We want consumers to make informed choices. We will push for GM-free labelling throughout Europe. It is right for consumers who want to avoid GMOs to be provided with clear labelling so that they have a choice. Anyone who goes into a supermarket anywhere in Scotland today can see that they are reacting to what consumers want: that is self-evident in any Sainsbury's, Safeway or Tesco in Scotland.
This debate comes at a time when the public need strong reassurance about food safety. The new Food Standards Agency, which is to be based in Aberdeen, will play an important role independently of the Government. The ethical role that the minister mentioned in her speech is particularly important. I agree with Winnie Ewing, who said that GMOs are scary. That is why the ethical points the minister mentioned about the role of the FSA in that area are extremely important.
I am curious. Tavish Scott is outlining a distinctly Liberal position, although the Minister for Rural Affairs is a member of the Liberal coalition. If the Liberal Democrats are getting a bang of the bucket out of the coalition, why do they not have direct access to the Minister for Rural Affairs, who can influence policy?
I am completely lost by Duncan Hamilton's question. I am sure that the minister will deal with that in his summing-up; I am giving the Liberal Democrat perspective. I have talked about what Charles Kennedy said, and the Liberal Democrat minister will respond to the debate on behalf of the Executive.
A more significant development is the announcement of a large-scale trial at a farm near Inverurie, in Nora Radcliffe's constituency. It will enable scientists to assess the environmental impact of GM crops in comparison with more traditional farming practices. It is right for the public to be aware of what is happening in the locality and why. For that reason, it is right that the precise location of sites where GM crops are being grown should be published.
Members may have read in The Press and Journal on Saturday about the proposed designation of the Ythan estuary as a nitrate-vulnerable zone. If science can reduce fertiliser inputs, and thereby help the environment, surely it is right to undertake the research. Scientific research can be an ally of Scotland's environment, although, given public concern and the questions that surround GM technology, it is right to publish justification for each separate trial. Transparency in decision making regarding what will be found out is important.
Liberal Democrats endorse the precautionary principle. A policy on GMOs must be based on caution, safety and good science. If evidence emerged from the trials that GMOs pose a threat, Liberal Democrats would argue strongly on the basis of sound science for a legally defensible ban. A commercial moratorium in Europe remains our key aim. The right approach is not pro or anti-GMO but pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-consumer choice.
We are now in general debate. If speeches are kept under four minutes, all will get in.
Genetically modified foods is one of the most important issues to face the world in the 21st century. It has led to heated debate and I am glad it has made it to the Scottish Parliament today. More than most topics, it has split society; I hope that our debate will be informed, balanced and free from the prejudice that has characterised many discussions of the issue.
Irrespective of whether we agree with Kenny MacAskill's claim that there is enough food to feed the world, agriculture must cater to the food and fibre needs of an increasing human population: 1.5 billion in 1900 and now 6 billion. It is estimated that by 2025 the world population will be 8.3 billion. Present food production techniques are inadequate to cater for the expanding population. United Nations research estimates that in the next two generations, twice as much food will be consumed as was consumed in all of human history. It is time for Governments throughout the world to decide how agriculture can best deal with the problem.
The possibilities of new biotechnology techniques providing more food are exciting and must be explored. I do not think anyone here disagrees with that. The big challenge for the biotechnology sector is to ensure that GM food is safe for the consumer and the environment. If that can be achieved, much can be done, not just in foreign aid but for the low paid and poverty stricken at home. Cheap, affordable, safe food could provide basic nutrition for the poorest and most deprived members of society in affluent as well as poor countries.
There is a long way to go before fears about the safety of GM crops are allayed. Terms such as Frankenstein foods used in the wider debate have cheapened the arguments; nonetheless we must take account of people's concerns. People are usually afraid of change. Fears about GM science go far beyond that. They include the concern that the introduction of antibiotic-resistant genes in plants used for food could have serious implications for public health. Lives must not be put at risk as a result of stubbornness or ignorance. Before any progress is made on the availability of GM food, we must be certain that it poses no health risks.
We must recognise the concerns about potential environmental risks. It would contrary to the aims of producing GM crops if they led to the destruction of healthy, natural crops. If modified plants that produce new compounds such as insecticides disrupt the balance of nature in some way, we must ensure that that is not harmful. However we cannot bury our heads in the sand, as some of the more extreme elements of the anti-GM lobby seem to suggest—
I like what Janis Hughes is saying about ensuring that we do not compromise other crops. How does she propose to deal with the problems caused for organic farmers, who have no wish to have their crops contaminated by GM trials, but whose farms are already threatened by contamination? An example is five organic farms near Liff where potato trials are being conducted.
As Elaine Murray said, how can we conduct trials to help us know that GM foods are safe if we do not have field trails, which will result in some cross-pollination? We cannot decide whether it is safe if the trials are not conducted.
Does Janis Hughes agree that it is scientifically impossible for genetically modified oilseed rape to cross-pollinate a potato?
The member is absolutely right.
GM foods offer exciting opportunities and could revolutionise food and nutrition throughout the world, but without proper scientific testing we will never know. I welcome the statements that Susan Deacon made last week and today, in which she said that the Executive is neither pro nor anti GM but is in favour of consumer choice and environmental protection.
I commend the Executive's position and its adoption of the precautionary approach. Public safety must be our utmost concern, but if we bury our heads in the sand we might miss out on an incredible opportunity to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
I associate myself with remarks that have been made about how long it has taken for this issue to come to Parliament. It strikes me that an issue of this importance should have been debated long before now—nine months after the opening of the Parliament. I know that Robin Harper has been trying to drive the issue forward and I am delighted that we are finally debating it here.
The delay perhaps reveals much about what the Executive feels for the Parliament. It has shown a disregard for the dignity of this institution that I hope will not be repeated in other respects. Today, we are trying to get away from the idea that because GM testing is happening throughout the United Kingdom, it has to happen here. The Scottish Parliament should focus solely on doing what is in the interests of Scotland. I urge members to remember that that is why we were elected.
I will touch on the point of confusion that arose between me and Tavish Scott—so confused was he that he has left the chamber. I asked him to explain why it was so difficult to transmit the strongly held, independent Liberal position, which seems to be different from that of his party in the UK and that of the Lib-Lab coalition Executive, to the Liberal Minister for Rural Affairs. Charles Kennedy accused the Government of
"flying in the face of public opinion".
He said that
"It shows a highly irresponsible disregard for the environmental agenda of British politics."
That is the Liberal party's position, yet Liberal members in the Executive are taking an entirely contrary approach. I look forward to Mr Finnie's efforts to explain that.
I want to challenge the concept of safety. I am no scientific or medical expert but I have talked to those who claim to be. The point that has been put to me is that when people are told that GM foods or these trials are safe, how do they know that? If we do not know what we are looking for, we cannot possibly know whether something is safe. Until the Executive understands that, it cannot come to this public forum and tell the people of Scotland that it is happy to proceed. That is true of the lab test, in which we are told that what is being tested is safe for human and animal consumption. How on earth can we possibly know that without knowing the whole spectrum of things for which we should be looking? Equally, in the full farm trials, how does the Executive know what it is looking for? If it does not know, how can it give us a guarantee?
The answers that we have received so far have been very interesting. We are told that we cannot have a guarantee or some firm assurance that it is safe to proceed because of the rough edges of the forward drive of technology and scientific thought. It is not good enough simply to throw the matter into the mists of time and say that although it is not known what will happen, no guarantees can be given and the Executive will not be liable for anything that goes wrong, and people should trust the Executive because that is just how scientific progress goes.
The issue of consumer confidence should also be highlighted. Alex Johnstone made an interesting point that it may be to Scotland's advantage—it may be its unique selling point—to be the GM-free zone. That would build on Scotland's international reputation as a clean and environmentally friendly country. That is a huge opportunity for Scotland. We have to decide whether to cherish or threaten that reputation. This debate is an opportune moment for us to reinforce our environmental credentials. If we are going to grow consumer confidence in this area and ensure that Scottish interests are promoted, we should support the amendments lodged by Mr MacAskill and Mr Harper.
I have a close and personal interest in this debate, as the first Scottish farm-scale trial of genetically modified oilseed rape is taking place not only in my constituency, but just down the road from my home.
Like others, I believe that the first consideration in this enterprise must be safety, both for ourselves and for the environment. I am pleased that the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is taking a firm line on strengthening the accountability of biotechnology firms conducting field trials and that it is being supported by the Liberal group in the European Parliament.
It is extremely important that the whole proceedings are open to public scrutiny. I will be satisfying myself that the precautionary principle is being thoroughly applied and that my constituents have access to all the information that they require. I have already spoken to the biotechnology firm that is supplying the modified seed and the scientific institution that is doing the independent monitoring of the field trial. I will be visiting the neighbouring farmers and the people who live in Daviot, the village nearest to the field that is proposed for the trial, to speak to them about their concerns and to do what I can to help them find out any information that they require.
Nora Radcliffe's party leader, Charles Kennedy, said that Ross Finnie's recent announcement of the crop trial in the Gordon constituency flies in the face of public opinion. Does Nora Radcliffe agree with that statement, or does she think that Charles Kennedy is wrong?
If the member will allow me to proceed with my speech, he will see where I am coming from. The question will be answered as I proceed.
The local community council has already had a preliminary discussion of the proposal and it, too, will be seeking more information to assure itself and the community that they are satisfied with the precautions that are being taken.
My first concern was to check that there will be baseline monitoring before the trial begins—if there is not, on-going monitoring will be fairly meaningless. Samples will be taken prior to sowing. There will be intense monitoring of the site and its environs this year, while the crop is growing, and follow-up monitoring of the site and its environs over the following two years. A week on Wednesday, I will receive a full and detailed briefing on what will be monitored and how.
It is important to be clear that field trials are the logical next step after laboratory testing and plot trials. Conducting farm-scale evaluation is emphatically not prejudging whether commercial growing will be the eventual outcome; this is still very much a technology under examination. Having said that, the examination should be fair and objective. If this technology can be demonstrated to be beneficial, we do not want to wake up one day and find that we are behind the game and that our agriculture industry is operating at yet another disadvantage. As science has progressed, farmers have refined their use of fertilisers and weedkillers, and the new technology may enable farmers to use even fewer chemicals on their crops, which cannot be a bad thing—for a number of reasons.
Tavish Scott referred to farmers in the Ythan catchment area—not a million miles from Daviot—who are having to look very carefully at their inputs because it has been declared a nitrate-vulnerable zone. My experience of the build-up of nitrates in the Ythan and what I know of the monitoring of the estuary and the catchment area over many years make me very conscious of the complexities of environmental monitoring, and I will pay very close attention to the work of the Scottish Crop Research Institute.
I conclude by reiterating that the right approach is one of sound scientific evaluation, with the health of the environment and the consumer firmly established as the fundamental priorities, and that everything should be done in an open and above-board way to ensure that everyone is kept fully informed.
In reply to Richard Lochhead's question, I think that this is the logical next step in scientific evaluation. It in no way implies that we will proceed with full-scale commercial growing.
I ask members to keep their speeches as short as possible to enable us to accommodate everyone who wants to speak.
I want to declare that before I became a member of this Parliament I was a scientist and that I recognise that science is important in moving the Scottish economy forward. Having said that, there are issues that I would like Ross Finnie to address in his winding-up speech.
It is quite obvious that there is concern, not only in Scotland but in Europe, which I have been made aware of through reading European Commission literature. We have also recently seen on television the situation in the USA. While talking about some of the concerns, I will quote first from the global assessment of the EC programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development. The document, which is called, aptly, "Europe's Environment: What directions for the future?" says:
"The control of both experimental and commercial deliberate release of GMOs is covered by legislation that provides a common approval system for the whole EU. Preparations are underway to strengthen the legislation in response to the concerns of citizens. This will provide for more substantial monitoring of potential impacts."
At the last meeting of the European Committee, two documents came members' way that relate to strengthening the legislation mentioned in that quotation. One of the documents deals with the precautionary principle, which has already been mentioned this afternoon. It says:
"The precautionary principle is not defined in the Treaty, which prescribes it only once—to protect the environment. But, in practice, its scope is much wider, and specifically where preliminary objective scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen for the Community.
The Commission considers that the Community, like other WTO members, has the right to establish the level of protection—particularly of environment, human, animal and plant health—that it deems appropriate. Applying the precautionary principle is a key tenet of its policy, and the choices it makes to this end will continue to affect the views it defends internationally, on how this principle should be applied."
Further—this is particularly important—the document says:
"Recourse to the precautionary principle presupposes that potentially dangerous effects deriving from a phenomenon, product or process have been identified, and that scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty."
I will now consider Ross Finnie's letter to all MSPs in relation to the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops and the purpose of those evaluations. His letter says:
"Our scientific advisers—all experts in their fields—have concluded that the crops themselves do not present any direct threat to the environment and are safe to humans and to animals."
Through the website that I know is to be set up and through any other methods that Ross Finnie can think of, it is imperative that the public—and MSPs—are given the information that justifies the scientific advisers' conclusion that there is no direct threat to the environment and that those crops are safe for humans and animals.
At the end of that page of his letter, Ross Finnie says:
"They will also look at potential pollen transfer and cross-pollination."
It is not clear to me that such tests will be undertaken in an enclosed area. It appears from Robin Harper's speech that they could be undertaken outwith the trial area. That must be taken into account and I ask the minister to explain how. Is that action not against the precautionary principle, given that we do not know what area will be affected?
I, too, welcome the fact that we have finally managed to secure time for a debate in the Scottish Parliament on this important subject.
GM is a fast-moving science and we must not allow it get ahead of us. The SNP does not want the Executive to storm ahead with GM food without giving the Parliament adequate opportunity to examine the implications of such a move. It is quite clear that the Executive is outpacing public opinion and we must have time to address the many concerns expressed by the public and by many organisations.
It has taken 10 months since the Scottish Parliament was set up to get this debate. The Food Standards Agency, which will have a remit over GM foods, is not yet up and running, but the Executive is storming ahead with crop trials. The biotechnology industry set up a group on GM technology only last month, and we have not yet had a chance to hear its side of the argument.
We are told that the Government is taking advice from such bodies as the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. How many people in Scotland know who is on those committees? How many people in Scotland have spoken to the people on those committees or had a chance to ask them questions? No one. No one in this Parliament has had a chance to ask questions or speak to them, or even find out who is on those committees. Why are we not meeting those people? Why is Scotland's national Parliament getting to hear everything at third or fourth hand? That is completely unacceptable.
The Rural Affairs Committee, as Alex Johnstone said, recently got a note giving the background to those committees. It is quite clear from reading that note that the people who put it together—officials of this Parliament—had to call the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London to get all the information about the committees. In spite of that, our ministers feel qualified to proceed and make important decisions. It is time that the Executive got a grip on the issue of GM foods.
We have had many empty assurances. A press release on the much-talked-about Government website says:
"The Government makes the location of trial sites public as an exercise in openness and transparency."
Yet what do we hear at Daviot, the site of the first crop trial announced by the Minister for Rural Affairs? People living adjacent to the chosen site are quoted in the press as saying:
"We were not even asked or consulted about this. I don't really know anything about genetically modified crops so I don't know if I should be concerned or not but I think someone should have explained to us what it all means."
So much for transparency and openness.
The fact that only one site has been identified in Scotland surely tells us that Scotland's farmers do not want to touch GM crop trials with a bargepole. They are busy developing the organic sector, which has a lot more to offer Scotland.
It is not only the agricultural sector that is expressing concern. Even the salmon farmers do not want to touch the issue with a bargepole. In The Press and Journal last week, under the headline
"GM salmon rejected by Scots farmers",
it said:
"Scottish salmon farmers have made it clear that they are totally opposed to genetically-modified salmon".
A spokesman for Scottish Quality Salmon was quoted as saying:
"None of our members want to get involved in importing GM salmon eggs."
According to the Minister for Rural Affairs, however, everything is hunky-dory and everyone is on side for the development of GM foods in Scotland.
It is the duty of this newly established Parliament to lead the public debate on GM foods, not to be led by the debate south of the border and to do as we are told. Surely the minister realises that, now that we have our Scottish Parliament, when London says "Jump," we no longer have to jump. Ross Finnie announced the crop trials before this Parliament had even had its first opportunity to debate the issue.
GM foods is one of the biggest issues facing this Parliament, and we need time to address the many important matters associated with it. We have to maximise our influence over the decisions that are made. We cannot ride roughshod over public opinion; to do so would be letting down the people of Scotland. Even the remotest suggestion that the trials might have any adverse consequences would be highly damaging to Scotland's reputation for the best quality food produce.
We call on the Scottish Executive to scrap its plans for those crop trials and to give this Parliament its due place in investigating the issue. We must find out all we need to know and inform the people of Scotland. Let us make today the beginning of the debate on GM foods, not the end.
We now move to closing speeches. I apologise to those members whom we were unable to call this afternoon. I call Dr Elaine Murray to close for the Labour party.
I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues. People are right to be cautious, because there could be risks to human health or to the environment from some transgenic organisms. People have the right not to touch GM foods with a bargepole if that is what they want, and that is why labelling is important, as Tavish Scott said. Nobody should be forced to consume genetically modified foodstuffs against their will.
There is, of course, a difference between those foods that contain genetically modified materials and those that are produced by genetically modified plants but are themselves chemically and biologically indistinguishable from the naturally occurring product. People should have the right to produce and to consume organic food without any fear that that food may inadvertently have been contaminated by cross-pollination from genetically modified plants. That right must not be compromised, and that is why we need to know more about the possible hazards of cross-pollination.
Of course, scientists working in the field of genetics are themselves divided on the potential benefits and hazards of this technology. On the anti side, there is concern that genes may be transferred to other plants—not necessarily potatoes and oilseed rape, but other plants that are compatible—and thereby inadvertently alter the genetic makeup and characteristics of those plants and the ecosystems in which they survive.
There are also well-founded anxieties that genetic modification could alter plants' metabolisms, and possibly result in the production of toxins that could get into the food chain through the consumption of GMOs by farm animals. That is why it is important that no trial GM crops enter the food chain. The experience of the BSE crisis, as Alex Johnstone said, naturally makes people cautious. There is concern about the introduction of terminator genes into GMOs, which prevent the organism from replicating, and thereby tie in producers to the annual purchase of seeds from powerful monopoly suppliers.
On the other hand, there are the possible benefits of gene technology. Contrary to much public knowledge, pharmaceuticals have been produced by expression from genetically modified bacteria such as E coli since the early 1980s. That is possibly scarier than some of the matters that we are discussing today.
Genetically modified plants can be used to produce vaccines. Axis Genetics, which went bust last year through investment problems, was producing an oral hepatitis B vaccine in plants. Plants can also be developed that have resistance to pesticides and to herbicides, which makes them less environmentally invasive than those plants that are used at present, although I have some concerns about herbicide and pesticide resistance.
Plants that are adapted to hostile environments, such as dry, hot, wet or saline conditions, might be developed to enable food production in currently infertile environments. Plants that produce biodegradable plastics, for example, could have environmental benefits. They may produce plastics that do not pollute the environment for evermore, and such plastics would emanate from a renewable source and therefore not use up the world's finite oil reserves.
Labour's position is not pro-genetic modification, nor is mine; neither is its position necessarily anti-GMO. There needs to be more medical and scientific opinion, and there must be no general cultivation of GM crops until scientific and medical opinion is completely satisfied that there are no unacceptable effects to either public health or the environment. However, we cannot resolve those dilemmas without knowing the facts. Banning GMOs for evermore would be impractical, because they will be used in other parts of the world and could be introduced illegally into our environment.
We need to know the facts. We need to know if there will be an environmental price for the use of GMOs, but we need to make informed choices using knowledge that is based on rigorous scientific method, and not on melodramatic pseudo-science or 19th-century horror stories—a point that was well made by Janis Hughes and something that, I am sorry to say, was illustrated by Kenny MacAskill.
The only grounds on which such choices can be made are independent, controlled and rigorously evaluated research, using organisms that are proven not to be hazardous, but which can provide information about the possibilities of, for example, genetic transfer to other plants. Controlled farm-scale experiments have to be used, because that is the only way in which we can get that information. No committee of this Parliament can report on the implications for the environment or agriculture of GMOs at this time. We must proceed cautiously, but we must let our scientists collect and analyse the data, provided that carefully controlled experimental conditions are used. We can discuss the implications, but the research needs to be done first.
I commend the Executive's motion to the Parliament.
First, I will turn to some of Elaine Murray's points. The only way to address them is to pass my amendment, because the committees that the amendment refers to are where her points should be debated.
Before I sum up, I will address the fact that there seems to be general acceptance of that appalling "Equinox" programme that was shown on television earlier this week, which was made by the appalling Martin Durkin. He has a judgment against him from the Broadcasting Standards Commission for his programme "Against Nature". "Equinox" gave the impression that the third-world countries of this world cannot wait to get hold of GM crops. I will read a quote from all 23 African delegates at the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations meeting in Rome in July 1998:
"We, the undersigned delegates of African Countries participating in the 5th Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources, 8-12 June 1998, Rome, strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations"
such as Monsanto
"to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us."
That is the third world's view. Members must not ignore it. We must not be patronising and say, "We are going to offer them the crock of gold and the solution to all their food problems." Ask Oxfam, Christian Aid or any other organisation that works in the third world. They will say that the third world's problem is western greed, not lack of food supplies. Lack of money to buy those supplies is, perhaps, a problem, as is lack of distribution.
Of the two other amendments that are before the chamber, I lean towards the SNP's, although, as far as I can see, there is no reason why members should not pass all three. The Conservative amendment has some things to commend it.
My amendment does not necessarily rule out acceptance of GM crops in the future and it does not call for an end to GM research. It does not seek to undermine a small but important area of research that could be of benefit to us all. It does, however, call on Parliament to recognise that the argument about the safety of GMOs has not even begun as far as the public of Scotland is concerned. It calls on Parliament to recognise that the relevant committees of the Parliament are the proper, the good and the public way to conduct the debate. My motion calls on Parliament to assume its responsibilities in this matter. It calls on Parliament to do what it was elected to do—debate and decide publicly on matters of grave public and environmental importance.
I appeal to back benchers of all parties and none. If they do not, through my amendment, vote for a full investigation of GMOs by Parliament's committees, they will be handing powers over to the Executive and abandoning their responsibilities. Members will be failing to assert their right in the chamber to advise the Executive and to call it to account.
I am not being overdramatic when I say that the subject of debate epitomises one of the great conundrums of our time. As a people, we have ability and science, but we lack certainty. We do not want to stand in the way of progress, but we are nervous—if not sometimes terrified—of what that progress might unleash. We are right to be nervous, right to be cautious and right to be somewhat wary of what is, after all, a comparatively new science.
We have heard convincing arguments from members on the benefits that the scientists might bring us through this nature-defying technology. It does not, however, matter how convincing the arguments are—the practice of genetic modification is a non-starter unless, as Robin Harper said, the body of public opinion agrees with it. That is where the conundrum lies.
Despite all the assurances, the great British public remains largely unconvinced about the desirability of GM foods and crops. The great Scottish public is no different. They do not want GM foods. The more that we, the politicians, tell them that they should want GM foods, they less they, as consumers, will want them. That was the overriding lesson of the BSE crisis. If the Executive has not taken that lesson on board, it is considerably more arrogant than I thought it was.
The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities published a report on genetic modification in agriculture in December 1998. It recommended that risk assessment should include
"direct, indirect, immediate and delayed effects."
The second and fourth of those adjectives most concern public opinion. I am sure that they are also of most concern to members.
If the Executive insists—as, no doubt, it will—that we need have no fears over the indirect and delayed effects of GM, why is any analysis virtually hidden from sight and why are the statistics virtually unobtainable? Why, in these days of supposedly open and accessible government, is proof so hard to find? I welcome what the minister said about internet accessibility, but that is not enough to satisfy public opinion. The proof of the pudding is usually in the eating, but in this case the pudding is not even on the menu so it is no wonder that the public has severe reservations.
The Conservatives firmly believe that there are potential benefits, which could be achieved by careful and controlled genetic modification of crops. We are equally firm in our belief that in order to achieve public acceptance, which is a prerequisite of the successful commercialisation of GM crops, we must take the steps that would have been outlined by my colleague Jamie McGrigor, had he been around when the Presiding Officer was looking for him.
They are good, sensible steps. I believe that the most important one is to secure what we believe is a beneficial technology against its possible misapplication. There is a very fine line to be drawn between genetic modification and genetic manipulation. It is the prospect of the abuse of the latter that is the real reason for the fear that is felt by the opponents of this technology. I admit to Kenny MacAskill that, at one extreme, the potential exists to solve world hunger but that goes hand in hand with the other extreme, in which lurks the potential to destroy our countryside.
That is why the Conservatives urge the need to be extra-cautious over the future programme of GM development. That is why we insist that the science and its results should be open and accessible to all, as Sylvia Jackson said a few moments ago. That is why I commend the amendment, in the name of my colleague Alex Johnstone, to this chamber.
Susan Deacon was recently referred to—she may not know about this—as the Margaret Thatcher of Scottish politics. If that is a reputation of which she disapproves, and I suspect that it may be, I am happy to offer her a way out. On this issue at least, she could prove that she is a lady that is for turning. If she does that, she will do a great deal to meet the aspirations of many Scottish people.
This has been a good debate and, perhaps surprisingly, there has been a general acceptance that we should proceed with caution. The division seems to arise as to where we draw the line and how much caution will be enough.
I will summarise some of the arguments. One of the first arguments against field trials is that they will have a long-term and irreversible effect on other plants and crops due to cross-pollination. There is evidence that the cordon sanitaire, the exclusion zone, around field trials can never be large enough. Once that is crossed, it is liable to be crossed for all time. I know that cross-pollination is not possible between oilseed rape and potatoes, but Elaine Murray said that it is possible between oilseed rape and other species. This is not a no-risk scenario.
In her speech, Susan Deacon said that she wanted to follow the precautionary principle, but surely that would be better exemplified by a moratorium rather than by going to field trials at this time. She also referred to European legislation and the fact that, under council directive 90/220/EEC, we must take commercial crops that are approved. I hope that when Ross Finnie replies to the debate, he will confirm that we are under no obligation to permit any field trials. Some other dangers are probably relevant only to larger-scale growing, so they will not be proved or disproved by field trials.
We will be being blind if we do not accept that this project will develop a momentum of its own. Nora Radcliffe referred to the next logical step. My worry is that there will always be a next logical step after every step that we take. This may be the only time at which we will be able to pause.
The dangers to which I am referring include the effect on other crops and organisms because of the success of GM crops. A danger is that, by natural selection, insect-resistant crops will promote the development of insects—I do not want to call them super insects, but that is the term that the press would use—that are able to destroy insect-resistant crops. Far from reducing the need for pesticides, we will end up needing pesticides that are more powerful than the ones that we now use. To the extent that those crops are successful, the effect on the ecosystem—on the birds and insects that live on these crops—is unquantifiable and will not be predictable as a result of field trials.
The other main argument, which many speakers have alluded to, is the commercial effect on Scottish agriculture and food, both of which are highly significant industries. One of the few ways in which they will survive and prosper is by concentrating on quality. In agriculture and food, there is significant scope for increasing sales and increasing margins by the proportion of sales in the quality areas. The question is whether the existence of GM crops will cause problems in the public perception of the quality of other Scottish crops and of Scottish animals.
There has already been a vast swing in the enthusiasm of the supermarkets for GM foods, a reaction that surprised many. We would be rash if we took the public's reaction to GM crops, and to other crops that are grown in the same countries as those crops, for granted. On the matter of quality, it will be the public's perception that is right. It will not matter what science says; it is what the consumer says that will be important.
I do not think, therefore, that we can afford to take any risk that undermines the quality reputation of Scottish produce. I will let Sam Galbraith, the former minister for health, take his seat. He may be interested in this. Alex Johnstone was right: it is not just about avoiding potential disadvantage. There may be some positive commercial advantage to being GM-free. [Interruption.] I will sum up, while the Westminster habits that some people find difficult to leave behind persist on the other side of the chamber.
The key aspect of the decision on GM trials is that it is potentially a one-way decision. There may be no return, once genetically modified organisms are out in the environment. They may well be beneficial to mankind; however, the jury is still out on that. I have heard nothing to convince me—and to convince many other people in this chamber—that irreparable damage will be caused by waiting or by delaying. However, damage might well be caused by going ahead too quickly. That is why we need a moratorium and that is why the amendment should be supported.
I am very glad that the Scottish Parliament has had this opportunity to debate an issue that has been, and will continue to be, the subject of much public and media concern. That concern is understandable—it emphasises the duty that we all have to ensure that the public has access to information that will enable it to come to informed decisions and information that will reassure it that the regulatory process that we have in place to protect them and the environment is transparent.
There have been many interesting and valuable contributions to this debate. However, I have found it slightly surprising that, particularly in the case of the contributions from the Scottish nationalists and the Conservatives, we appear to have ignored the European structure that is in place. Indeed, in so far as the Scottish National party, the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are signed up to the European Union, that impinges upon us and places obligations upon us in terms of the precautionary principle that has been developed over many years.
I am not suggesting that that principle has not been improved at times. Indeed, there have been many recent improvements to some of the EU directives. Let us be clear that we are governed in this field by Council directive 90/220/EEC, which deals with the precautionary principle as it affects us. It is apparent that we are bound by the directive at any stage of the development of a crop, unless the member state can show that a product represents a threat to human health or to the environment. In that case, there are provisions within existing legislation for the Scottish Executive to withdraw a consent or to ban a product.
Is the minister saying that we are under a legal obligation to license field trials?
I was coming to that point. That is the case, provided that the very conditions that I have read out are adhered to. If we cannot meet the condition in terms of clear scientific advice, we are obliged to allow those trials to take place. Failure to do that would leave the country open to infraction proceedings. I do not take that lightly.
Does that mean that we may ultimately find ourselves under a legal obligation to allow full commercial release?
That is a possibility. That is one of the reasons why, at a UK level, there was great anxiety to secure an agreement that there would be an absolute moratorium on commercial release for at least three years. That gives us the opportunity to use the present trials to determine whether we can advance the necessary scientific advice.
In the case of foods, there is a similar position, although there is an even more rigorous regime. Foods must be rigorously assessed under the EC Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulation 258/97. In the UK, the Food Safety Act 1990 prohibits the sale of food that is injurious to health, fails to comply with food safety requirements or is falsely described—that includes GM foods.
Would the minister explain how the precautionary principle has been applied to the potato trials at Liff—release number reference 00/R23/7—in relation to the five organic farms nearby?
That is a rather specific reference. All I can tell Mr Harper is that those applications go through the statutory procedure and they are assessed by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—which sets out the regulations that should be observed. If Mr Harper is saying that those regulations have not been observed, that is a matter that should be taken up. There are powers to deal with it.
I want to discuss some of the other important issues raised in the debate. We are not in a position to declare that we are going to have a GM-free Scotland. However, we are in a position to follow carefully the precautionary principle as it is set out. The Executive has no intention of departing from that principle. When I informed members about the field trials and said that we had no evidence, that meant no evidence on the basis of the previous steps that had been taken. If evidence that the trials are not in compliance comes to the attention of the Scottish Executive, it will take the necessary steps either to end the trials or to withdraw a particular licence. Members can be assured of that.
I want to repeat a question that I asked previously about pollen transfer. If pollen transfer is going to be considered in the trial site, would it be useful to examine that outwith the site as well and to include that in the scientific evaluation?
There are two aspects to that. First, the distances that are set for the trials are based on previous evidence within the limited plot-scale trials. The observation of pollen transfer in the current trials will not extend just to the buffer zone. Secondly, Mr Harper was right in saying that the previous trials in England did not include the observation of pollen transfer, but the current evaluations will.
Will the member give way?
In a moment.
I want to deal quickly with the apparent difference between my policy and that of other Liberal Democrat members. All members, as keen readers of political science, will have read the full policy document that was debated at the Liberal Democrat assembly in Harrogate. They will know that many of the measures to improve EU directives on GM that were called for at that assembly have already been adopted. In addition, we called for a five-year moratorium and the document clearly stated that that would require an amendment to European legislation. I assure members that if there are changes to the EU directive, the Scottish Executive will take them on board.
I would like to move on to deal with other points that were made during the discussion of the Conservative and SNP amendments. I was disappointed, if that is the right word, in Kenny MacAskill's opening remarks. He went not only over the top but very much further. To talk of technological meltdown and a disastrous threat to Scottish farmers is going too far.
Of course there are myths surrounding this issue; but we in the Scottish Executive are affected not one jot by claims by Monsanto. We are sticking to a regulatory process that has been laid down by the European Commission and the European Parliament. We are not deviating from that, and we will certainly not be put off by the nonsense that is often put about concerning GMOs.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is winding up now.
Points were made about the unavailability of information. The bodies to which Richard Lochhead referred have public websites. The operations of those bodies and the decisions that they take are available on those websites.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but the minister is into his last minute and we are well over time.
My apologies, Mr Chisholm.
The Executive is keeping an open mind on the benefits that GM science has the potential to deliver. Science-based testing procedures are in place and we will not move from that position. We believe that we cannot turn our back on a developing science in which Scottish scientists play a prominent role. However, we must not proceed pell-mell in pursuit of some so-called golden goose. That road has been travelled enough.
The Scottish Executive's approach is sensible and responsible. It is firmly rooted in the precautionary principle, and it best serves the interests of Scotland and the Scottish people. We will not take risks with public health. On GM foods and crops we are neither pro nor anti. We are pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-consumer choice. I commend the motion.