Genetically Modified Crops
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1091, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on genetically modified crops, and one amendment to the motion.
No doubt some members will let out a sigh as they contemplate another debate on genetically modified crops—I even heard one wag describe the debate as groundhog day—but I will explain exactly how the debate has moved on and why we require another opportunity to debate the matter and another vote.
The Executive has not seen fit to give any of its debating time to the issue. Despite the overwhelming opposition to the commercialisation of GM crops, the irreversibility of the decision and the warning signs from other countries, the Executive opposed our call for a debate. Therefore, the Opposition parties—the Greens and the Scottish National Party—have brought the issue to the Parliament. The Greens did so in November, when commercialisation was only a threat; now, it has become Government policy, and the SNP was right to give it time last week.
In last week's debate, it was clear that, whatever arguments were advanced to challenge the Executive's position, Labour and Liberal Democrats MSPs would trot out a rehearsed line and say that we must abide by the law and that the most restrictive approach possible had been taken. The Greens did not believe it then, and today we are backing up our beliefs with a legal opinion, copies of which are available at the back of the chamber.
The act of commercialising Chardon LL maize is a major step, about which full debate is required. We had part 1 of that debate last week; today we are having part 2. I ask all members who voted with the Executive or held back from opposing the Executive to consider their position, but first, let us consider the minister's position. Members could be forgiven for thinking that Allan Wilson's amendment has not changed at all—its wording is almost exactly the same as that of the amendment that we considered last week. The only change from last week's amendment is that the advice that was given to the Transport and the Environment Committee on the legality of a blanket ban on GM crops has been highlighted. If Allan Wilson wants to practise misdirection, he should learn a little subtlety; there is nothing in the Green motion about a blanket ban.
Will Patrick Harvie explain to me, given that I had the benefit of seeing the legal opinion overnight, what is new therein?
What is new is that we have a legal opinion that challenges the minister's claim that he has no powers to act further. Our motion and the debate are on that point, not on a blanket ban; they are on the commercialisation of Chardon LL maize and the Scottish Executive's ability to act.
Members should not be distracted by talk of blanket bans, and those who voted with the Executive because of that should think again. To members who are still writing to constituents to defend their position on a blanket ban, I say, "Wake up! Catch up! We have moved on."
I ask Liberal Democrats to think deeply about their position, because their decision not only loses them credibility, but demeans and undermines our Parliament, which is the last thing that our young institution needs. At the outset of devolution, Scotland was promised a new politics. The handling of the GM issue has been a slap in the face for anyone who believed that promise.
Our desire for a more restrictive Scottish position led us to consult an advocate, as I have explained, who has cast serious doubt on the Executive's claim that the most legally restrictive approach has been taken. That independent legal opinion concludes that the Scottish Executive could have used its powers to block GM maize cultivation. It says that a stronger position could have been adopted on three counts. The first is "on the grounds that" the crop
"did not satisfy the requirements the variety is of satisfactory value for cultivation"
and the second is
"on the basis of the precautionary principle",
which we argue has been improperly applied. The opinion says:
"It is also arguable that in accepting Chardon LL maize on to a National List, the Scottish ministers have failed to apply the precautionary principle properly."
The third ground is that the Executive
"failed to take independent steps … to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment."
We are all aware of the evidence vacuum on health. To commercialise now is to leap before we look.
I thank Patrick Harvie for making available copies of counsel's opinion to his party. He quoted from the conclusions at paragraph 105, but failed to move on to paragraph 106, at which his counsel says:
"I acknowledge the potential for challenge to any such refusal, not only on general grounds of rationality, but on grounds that such a refusal is inconsistent with the European Communities' objectives of harmonisation."
His counsel endorsed the Executive's position.
The Scottish Green Party and I do not claim that only one option exists and that the Executive can use only one interpretation. We argue that a choice is available and that the option of the most legally restrictive approach has not been chosen. The motion that we have lodged as a result of the legal opinion is reasonable. All that it requests is that the Parliament asks the Executive to review all the legal advice and to report to the Parliament, so that we can be assured and satisfied that the most restrictive approach is being taken.
The Executive claims to take a cautious precautionary approach to commercialising GM maize and says that no further legal option was open to it. That claim looked pretty shaky last week; today it has been demolished. The obvious conclusion is that the issue is a straightforward matter of political will. The political will exists in Wales. After a debate on a motion from the Liberal Democrat group there, which was stronger than our motion here, the Assembly's Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside gave a commitment not to add Chardon LL maize to the UK seed list without the Assembly's authorisation through a free vote. Why should we have less than that? All that we need is the same strength of will.
I am sorry; I must move on if I am to finish on time.
Will that strength of will come from Jim Wallace? In The Herald today, he says of the GM debate:
"The Scottish Parliament could say something, but what would it mean?"
I will tell members what that would mean. It would mean that the Scottish Parliament had stood up for what Scottish people want and that Scottish politicians had more than a shred of honesty and credibility. It would mean that an irreversible decision that affects Scottish agriculture—a devolved matter—was not ducked and dodged while fingers were pointed at London and Brussels. Members should stop pointing the finger and assert their authority. They have been put here to make such a decision. They should make that decision for Scotland and not for the GM industry.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern the preliminary legal opinion of independent counsel that the Scottish Executive had discretion to use legal powers to refuse the next stage of GM maize commercialisation which it chose not to exercise; calls for the Executive to review its own legal advice on which its decision over GM maize was based and to reassess the extent of its discretion accordingly, and calls on the Executive to put on hold the decision on final consent to the placement of GM maize on the UK National Seed List, at least until it has reported back to the Parliament on the outcome of such a legal review and satisfied the Parliament that the most legally-restrictive policy possible toward GM commercialisation has been used.
I am not one of those who regret the opportunity to debate GM crops yet again. I welcome the debate. It is time to return to a clear understanding of the legal framework and the evidence base for decisions on GM crops and to move away from some of the high emotion and high-drama politics that some Opposition members favour.
The Executive has already undertaken an in-depth review on GM crops, as I said last week. We considered the evidence carefully and I announced our conclusions to Parliament on 10 March. The Greens' motion exposes their approach of looking for any interpretation that supports their preconceived notions. That is not the way for the Parliament to proceed.
I will clarify the Executive's legal position on deliberate release, as that is at the heart of the motion. First, we are required to meet our legal obligations under the Scotland Act 1998. If the Greens care to check, they will find that section 57(2) of that act includes an absolute requirement for the Executive to comply with European Community law. Article 10 of the treaty establishing the European Community also requires member states to abstain from any measures that could jeopardise the Common Market.
More specifically, article 22 of directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms says:
"Member States may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of GMOs … which comply with the requirements of this Directive."
I referred to that last week, too.
In legal advice to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the European and External Relations Committee, the Parliament's legal directorate confirmed that neither the Parliament nor the Scottish ministers have the power to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops.
Will the minister give way?
I will take Patrick Harvie's intervention.
I fail to understand why the minister is trying that misdirection again after I talked about it in my speech. Our motion is not about a blanket ban. Legal advice about whether the Executive has the power to impose a blanket ban is irrelevant. Why will the minister not address the motion?
Such advice is not irrelevant. As George Lyon said, the opinion of the Greens' counsel—whoever that may be—says that a challenge could be made
"on grounds that such a refusal is inconsistent with the European Communities' objectives of harmonisation."
That is the legal opinion that was given to the Greens.
I will deal with national seed listing, which relates to the substantive point that Patrick Harvie sought but failed to make. It has been claimed that the Executive can and should block the national seed listing of Chardon LL maize. My understanding of the legal opinion that the Greens quoted is that it identifies three grounds on which it claims that that seed listing should be refused. Members should be aware that Chardon LL was the subject of an extensive public hearing under the regulations on national listing, which concluded in June 2002 and for which 227 written and 63 oral submissions were received and thoroughly assessed. The issues that the current legal opinion raises reflect points that were made by Friends of the Earth during that hearing and which were duly considered by the UK, devolved Administrations and our advisers.
The National List and Seeds Committee's view is that Chardon LL satisfies cultivation and use criteria as required by the regulations.
The Government's expert bodies—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs—all considered the evidence that was provided to the hearing on regulation 5(4)(b) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3510) and the precautionary principle and concluded that no new evidence of risk on which to refuse listing had been provided.
Will the minister give way?
I will take another intervention from Patrick Harvie, but I need to make progress.
How many of the organisations that the minister listed have conducted long-term studies into the health consequences of GM crops—whether Chardon LL maize or others?
Those organisations considered all the available evidence. I repeat what I said last week: our expert advisers will consider any new evidence from whatever source—the Green party or elsewhere. If evidence of consequential harm to the environment, human health or animal health were supplied, we would use our powers to ban the introduction of Chardon LL maize.
On whether the requirements of article 4.4 of directive 2002/53/EC to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment have been met, our legal advice is that we have correctly implemented the common catalogue directive by making a part C consent a requirement for national listing.
I make the fairly obvious point, which I have made three times from the dispatch box, that the seed has not been listed. It is clear that whoever was asked to provide the legal opinion to the Greens thinks that it has been listed. We have applied for an amended part C consent to enable the prospective listing of the seed.
Notwithstanding all that, all Administrations considered that a decision on listing should await the outcome of the farm-scale evaluations. That evidence could be relevant to the listing decision. Now that we have received that advice, we are seeking an amendment to the part C consent and we will not consider the listing of Chardon LL until such an amendment has been secured.
I am over my time, so I will finish. However, I would be happy to answer any questions that members might have about any of the scientific evidence that we have received or about any of the legal points that have been raised subsequently or in so-called new advice.
I move amendment S2M-1091.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"acknowledges that at present there is little support for commercialisation of GM crops; further acknowledges the European and UK legislative framework for GM; notes the legal advice provided by the parliamentary solicitor to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the European and External Relations Committee that the Scottish Executive is not permitted by EU law to impose a blanket ban on, 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 coexistence 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."
I could summarise the minister's position as follows: "We'll wait until the horse has bolted and then we might think about closing the door."
I thank the Green party for providing the opportunity to revisit a subject on which the response from both Executive parties has been hypocritical and downright obtuse. I had hoped that, unlike in last week's performance, with the constant referrals to blanket bans, the Executive parties would keep to the terms of the debate this morning and discuss the legal powers of the Scottish ministers, but it is already clear that they will not.
I am concerned about the minister's ability to understand some simple concepts of legal terminology, let alone his ability to use the legal powers that we believe he has. In dismissing what I said last week, Mr Wilson said:
"I noted that, in her conclusion, Miss Cunningham said that the point is ‘arguable'—no more, no less."
The minister should know that, when the term is used legally, "arguable" means that there is a case that can be put and not that the case is tenuous or weak, which is what he apparently thinks. He then compounded the error by saying:
"Anything is arguable in legal terms."—[Official Report, 18 March 2004; c 6773.]
That is simply not true and displays a basic and worrying misunderstanding of the law. Perhaps that explains, although it does not excuse, his apparent inability to exercise his powers under the law.
The opinion claims that it is arguable that ministers can refuse to accept Chardon LL. Any opinion is, of course, arguable. The advice is rooted in whether there is any scientific evidence of increased risk to human health and the environment. Can Roseanna Cunningham provide members with any such evidence?
Like other members, I spent a considerable time last week discussing our concerns about the extent of that scientific evidence and its validity. This week, I wanted—paradoxically—to concentrate on the motion. I know that that is an unusual concept, but we should at least try to do so. I am still concerned about the minister's misunderstanding of the word "arguable" in a legal context.
I thank the Greens for letting us see a copy of the opinion that they obtained. Such a courtesy was not extended by the minister in respect of the detail of his legal advice. I presume that that means that even the Lib Dems are arguing in the complete absence of any knowledge of that detail, although it seems from George Lyon's intervention a few minutes ago that, even when he has an opinion to read, he can do so only selectively, so perhaps we would not have been any further forward in any case. The minister has powers in relation to Chardon LL—however much he might try to wish those powers away—and he should use them.
The preliminary opinion to which the motion refers raises a number of important concerns that should be addressed. Some of those concerns involve points that I made last week. I will not go over that ground again, because the opinion raises other points that need to be addressed—for example, the fact that the precautionary principle in relation to Chardon LL appears to have been interpreted and applied more narrowly than the definition that was given by the Government in the document "The GM Dialogue: Government response" and that there is some disjunction even with the definition, a fact that, in the opinion of counsel, the legal authorities would support. There is therefore a big grey area.
Another interesting question is the definition of risk. When the European Union sought to ban the use of hormones in beef and thereby exclude much United States beef from EU markets, it took the view that a one-in-a-million risk is sufficient justification for avoidance action. I wonder what kind of risk assessment has been done in the context of the introduction of Chardon LL to Scotland.
We are discussing a GM seed variety that still has many question marks hanging over it. It is unsuitable for growing in Scotland and, indeed, most of the United Kingdom. Even the Netherlands does not seek to have it included on the European common catalogue. It is not grown in the Netherlands or anywhere else in the European Union.
The issue is so important for Scottish agriculture and Scottish consumers that it is amazing that the GM crop that the minister wanted to use as a trail-blazer was not of a variety that one could argue might be of more use to Scotland. I can see no purpose in promoting the GM crop that we are discussing as a potential addition to the UK's national seed list other than for it to be a Trojan horse for subsequent introductions. Chardon LL is being used to bridge the Rubicon. It is a bridge too far.
We have heard Roseanna Cunningham speak to the motion. I am not a lawyer, so I will confine myself to explaining my position, perhaps with a slightly different level of detail, and addressing one or two issues that are raised in the Executive's amendment.
In the previous debate, Mark Ballard said that he believed that bioscience was not likely to be a great industry in the future. I think that that is untrue and that bioscience in Scotland could be one of the heavy industries of the 21st century. Consequently, I have shown a great deal of interest in how that aim could be achieved. In previous debates, I have made it clear that I believe that what we describe broadly as GM technology has enormous potential and that, in the future, there could be huge advances in pharmaceuticals and in other fields, which would be potentially beneficial and should be considered. Therefore, I am happy to agree with the Executive's amendment that such things should be treated
"on a case by case basis".
However, there is little else in the cobbled-together amendment that I would be happy to accept.
At least we have a common position in so far as we accept that there is no scientific evidence that the technology per se represents an increased threat to human health or the environment. On Chardon LL maize, which is the specific variety that we are discussing, I ask the member the same question as I asked Roseanna Cunningham, although I did not receive an answer from her. Does he have any scientific evidence that would lead us to believe that the Chardon LL maize variety is any less safe to human health or the environment than its conventional counterpart?
I would have dismissed that long intervention entirely if was not on the next subject that I was going to discuss. I will deal with the matter briefly.
The Executive has put great store by the concept of cost-benefit analysis in respect of individual options for the introduction of GM crops. However, it is clear that Chardon LL maize produces no cost benefit. There is no viable option to increase productivity by the use of that variety in Scotland. In fact, the summary of the legal opinion states that Chardon LL maize is not
"of satisfactory value for cultivation".
We cannot be satisfied that it is of any value. Consequently, it can be nothing but a Trojan horse—as it has been described—for such technology.
Before we go down that road, even I, as a person who accepts many of the principles behind the technology, must accept that economic considerations need to be taken into account. The issue of hormones in beef has been mentioned. I believe that such hormones can be used practically and safely, but they have been banned in this country because of public concerns and economic concerns about the quality of the product that is produced. Similarly, bovine somatotropin—BST—in milk production is widely used throughout the world, but not in Scotland because we believe that it would tarnish the image of a quality product and we do not want to go down that road. We must consider GM technology in those terms before we make a choice.
We must also consider how we can protect those who call themselves conventional or organic farmers and wish to produce a non-GM product in the future. If that is their primary economic consideration, we have the responsibility to consider their rights and concerns. I am not convinced that proper provision has been made to guarantee that they will be protected. The opportunity that has been placed before us today to consider an alternative legal opinion enables us to ask the Executive to halt the process until it has drawn proper comparisons and reinforced its conclusions. I believe that that is an appropriate way in which to proceed. I want the issues to be debated and I want the opportunity to argue cases from my point of view. The Executive has not delivered such an opportunity.
Mr Harvie might choose to remember that the last time Wales adopted an ultra vires position, it was forced to retract.
From the terms of the Greens' motion, I expected a weighty debate, but instead I have a feeling of déjà vu. Those who are daunted by legal opinions should not fear—there is only one small section that they have to read. The footnote to the summary of the Greens' legal opinion establishes that their independent counsel's legal argument is built on three foundation stones—the discredited Friends of the Earth opinion of 2000, instructions to counsel and the Friends of the Earth opinion of 2003.
The Friends of the Earth opinion of 2003 runs to 14 pages, but one need look only at page 2 to evaluate it. The first sentence on page 2 begins:
"Our opinion is that there are a number of grounds upon which the Assembly could and/or should refuse to accept Chardon LL for the National List".
Unfortunately for the Greens' case, the sentence goes on—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I want to finish my point.
The sentence concludes:
"the Assembly could and/or should refuse to accept Chardon LL for the National List if the evidence of FOE … is accepted."
That is a rather big if. I do not think that many people in this country will believe that the Government should set aside its legal advice, which is based on expert evaluation of the scientific evidence from ACRE, in deference to a legal opinion that is argued solely on the basis of the views of one pressure group.
I urge the member to be extremely cautious in attacking the legal opinion, which was prepared by an advocate who is retained by Scottish ministers. I would be cautious about trying to pull apart the legal opinion.
It does not matter how beautiful the edifice is if the foundations are not sound. What does the new legal opinion offer? Under the heading "Are the Scottish Ministers entitled to refuse to accept Chardon LL maize on to a National List?" paragraph 94 of the new legal opinion states:
"The Scottish Ministers would only be entitled to refuse to accept Chardon LL maize on to a National List if a reasonable decision maker could be satisfied that it does not meet the requirements set out in regulation 5(3)(a) to (g) and/or regulation 5(4)(a) or (b)."
Will the member give way?
I will finish my point. The following paragraph ends:
"the Scottish Ministers would have been entitled to refuse to accept it to a National List on the grounds that they were not satisfied that it met the requirements of regulation 5(3)(c)".
That would be news if that paragraph had not begun as follows:
"In the light of the concerns expressed by the Scottish Green Party as to the ability of Chardon LL maize to satisfy the requirements".
The Executive is being asked to set aside the considered legal opinion of its advisers in favour of a legal opinion that was prepared in a few hours and argues that the Executive has powers that are predicated on accepting the concerns of the Greens. I do not find that to be reasonable and I will not be voting for the motion.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have another point to make and I do not have time.
I ask the Greens and others to recognise the reality of the situation and to stop trying to build legal positions on sand. If they could produce peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that would be a different matter and it would merit serious attention. The sensible and pragmatic way forward is to promote voluntary GM-free zones by undertaking the work that is necessary to underpin them and to make them achievable.
At First Minister's question time two weeks ago, the First Minister said:
"A statutory co-existence regime will be created and a regime will be established for penalising GM companies should any cross-contamination occur."—[Official Report, 11 March 2004; c 6569.]
We should be working to get such regimes right. Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the move to establish what would constitute effective co-existence measures, through which we could pin liability where it belongs. We believe that that supports our wider aims of promoting organic farming, consumer and farmer choice and quality Scottish produce.
Here we are again. We seem to debate this issue more frequently than we debate amnesic shellfish poisoning. I suspect that the motive behind the debate was the fact that the vote was very close last week.
We seem to have what is a preliminary legal opinion, which seems to be based on what is arguable and on the possibility of challenges to the Scottish ministers had they made a different decision.
Will the member give way?
I want to get on. I have been speaking for only 20 seconds.
From that legal opinion seems to have come the interpretation that the Executive wants a Trojan horse to bring in lots of GM crops. I cannot understand the basis of that argument, given that it is absolutely clear that decisions on crops will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, I was initially disappointed when I heard the announcement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the UK Government had agreed in principle to the commercial cultivation of Chardon LL T25.
In principle, I am not opposed to GM. Like Alex Johnstone, I believe that GM can be used to our benefit and that it can be used to our detriment. I was disappointed by the announcement because it seemed to be in opposition to public opinion and I believe that politicians have a responsibility to give due consideration to the views of those who elect them. However, the clarification from the secretary of state and from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development has reassured us. The deputy minister has not consented to adding Chardon LL maize to the national seed list.
There are two important conditions to the agreement. First, the restrictions on the European Union marketing consent mean that the crop can be grown and managed only in the trials or under conditions that will not adversely affect the environment. Secondly, when atrazine is phased out in 18 months' time, further scientific analysis will be required to monitor changes in herbicide use on conventional and Chardon LL maize.
Professor Joe Perry of Rothamsted Research has conducted research into alternatives to atrazine. He has found alternatives that are beneficial to the environment and has concluded that the environmental benefits of Chardon LL could therefore decrease. However, he does not believe that those benefits will be negated. If they are negated, the crop will be thrown out.
As we have heard, Chardon LL is unlikely to be grown in Scotland. Forage maize forms less than 1 per cent of Scottish arable production and, as we know, T25 is a late-maturing variety that is poorly suited to the UK climate, although it had clearance to be grown in France in 1998.
As the member's constituency is the one that is most likely to be the recipient of Chardon LL maize, should it ever be grown in Scotland—
I am sorry, but I am not taking that intervention. My constituency is not likely to be a recipient of Chardon LL. Even the climate of Dumfries and Galloway, mild and pleasant as it is, is not likely to be suitable for that brand.
Mr Scott, Dr Murray is not taking an intervention at the moment.
I know that someone in Alex Johnstone's constituency maintained that he might grow the crop if it was commercially advantageous, but it is highly unlikely that a late-maturing variety will be advantageous. Even though the precautionary principle says that the polluter pays—
Will the member give way?
The member is not taking an intervention. You are in your final minute, Dr Murray.
There is a serious misunderstanding about the nature of the precautionary principle as it is applied by the European Commission. The precautionary principle is not a politicisation of science, but a risk-management scheme. When action is necessary, measures taken under the precautionary principle in the EU should be proportional to the chosen level of protection, non-discriminatory—which is one of the reasons why ministers had to make the choices that they made—consistent, based on examination of potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action and subject to review in the light of new evidence. Moreover, there must be a capability of assigning responsibility for producing the scientific evidence that is necessary for a more comprehensive risk analysis. That is how the precautionary principle is applied in the EU and it is the basis on which ministers made their decisions. I believe that the ministers made the decisions that they had to make.
In the brief time that I have, I will concentrate on public consultation and attitudes. In her statement on 9 March, Mrs Beckett said:
"People already engaged with the issues were generally much more hostile. Those not so engaged were more open-minded, anxious to know more, but still very cautious; and it was suggested that, as they learned more, their hostility deepened."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 March 2004; Vol 418, c 1381.]
From that, I take it that, in terms of public perception, the issue is not going to go away.
In the debate last week, George Lyon quoted the Liberal Democrat manifesto. He said
"we would not permit the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland until trials had been completed"
and
"a public debate had been concluded".
When someone asked him what had happened to that public debate, he replied:
"I will move on to public and consumer concerns later in my speech."—[Official Report, 18 March 2004; c 6791.]
He never did that, of course, so what we have is typical double-speak. What do we mean by having a public debate? The Liberal Democrats mean that we may have the debate, but they will ignore the result.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
The Liberal Democrats' argument seems to be based on a total inability to act. If that is the case now, it was also the case when their manifesto was published. They were leading the public up the garden path, because—according to their argument—at the time that they called for a debate they knew that legal advice would prevail and they could ignore the result of the debate, whatever that was. No wonder the public at large do not trust politicians or the political system. We should not be surprised that there is total cynicism about the political process and lower voter turnout. Politicians either totally ignore public opinion or—even worse for our credibility—we semi-agree with public opinion, but say that we are sorry but we cannot do anything about the situation.
The First Minister says that the Scottish Parliament is sceptical about GM, but we do nothing about it. At the beginning of the debate, Patrick Harvie quoted Jim Wallace as saying:
"The Scottish Parliament could say something, but what would it mean?"
Last week, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development cited the legal position. This week he has done so again at length. We are meant to say, "That's all right then. Sorry, we did our best." No wonder the public are cynical. MSPs cannot do anything, because we do not have the necessary legal powers. Apparently, MPs and the Westminster Government cannot do anything, either, despite the fact that we are always told that one of the great arguments for staying in the union, as part of the United Kingdom, is the power of the UK in Brussels. Presumably, MEPs cannot do anything, because the issue does not come within their bailiwick.
Patrick Harvie said that the Executive's stance demeans Scottish politics and the Scottish Parliament. I suggest that politics at all levels is being demeaned. Certainly, the European ideal is being demeaned. We cannot keep saying that, regardless of what people want, we as politicians at all levels in this country cannot do anything about it, presumably because of laws that were made and decisions that were taken earlier. By whom were those decisions taken? They were taken by politicians in this chamber and politicians down the road at Westminster—politicians who in many cases are still making decisions. Eventually, some of us will have to make it clear that, when the public say something, it is our duty—if we believe that people want what they say they want—to translate that into action, instead of just wringing our hands endlessly and quoting lawyers. We might as well have a chamber full of lawyers and no politicians. Certainly, we should never ask the public because, whatever they say, we will do nothing about it.
As Patrick Harvie said, we see today's debate as the second half of the full debate that we should have had and that, in fact, we requested. That is why I may refer back to what was said in the debate last week.
I start by pointing out something that members may have seen in the media. At the moment, there is a competition to find an 11th commandment. How about, "Thou shalt not cause contamination that thou canst not undo"? The point about GM is that, once GM contamination of our environment has occurred, it is there—no one will go around hunting for pollen grains. I do not like the cliché but, as has been said, the genie will be out of the bottle and we will not be able to get it back in. We must take the issue seriously. We are dealing not with just another crop, but with one that is qualitatively different from anything that we have faced before. We must take that point on board.
The Executive amendment refers to "a blanket ban". That spurious phrase keeps coming up. I looked carefully through our motion which is in the name of Mark Ruskell, but it contains only one word beginning with B—"based". That cannot be misread for either "blanket" or "ban". The Executive keeps making what is an entirely spurious point to ensure that we do not discuss the real issues that are at stake.
We have agreed that the only way forward is to examine genetically modified crops on a case-by-case basis—that is why we are considering Chardon LL.
I put the same point to Elaine Scott as I put to her colleague Patrick Harvie. When we say "blanket ban", we refer to the single European market and the provision for competition therein. Paragraph 106 of the legal advice that the Scottish Green Party has received acknowledges "For completeness" that there is
"the potential for challenge to any such refusal … on grounds that such a refusal is inconsistent with the European Communities' objectives of harmonisation."
If a ban is not potentially in conflict with those single-market principles, why would the Scottish Green Party's legal opinion have included that reference?
There is no harmonisation issue, given that—as far as we can tell—no other part of Europe intends to grow Chardon LL maize. I will deal with the issue of challenge later.
I want to examine why Chardon LL has been proposed for planting, because—as Alex Johnstone has said—there is no need for the crop to be included on the seed list for Scotland, as no farmer will want to grow it for its merits. Our legal advice states that the crop does not fulfil the requirement of being
"of satisfactory value for cultivation".
No one disputes that.
The phrase "Trojan horse" has been used. I would like to use the phrase "thin end of the wedge" and to consider briefly what the rest of that wedge may contain. When discussing GM and the so-called farm-scale evaluations, the Executive has been careful to say that, as a result of those evaluations, we will not consider growing beet and spring-sown oil-seed rape. It has not mentioned winter-sown oil-seed rape, as the relevant report has not yet appeared. That is the crop of real concern. A so-called farm-scale evaluation of winter-sown oil-seed rape took place in the area that I represent, the Highlands and Islands. The crop would be a real problem, because it grows readily throughout Scotland, spreads like wildfire—it can be seen growing on islands where it has never been sown—and produces huge amounts of pollen that has the potential to spread genetic contamination over a wide area. In that context, exclusion zones and voluntary bans would be meaningless.
Does the member accept that we can refuse to accept the crop for commercial growing if we receive evidence to that effect from the farm-scale trial?
I am not convinced of that. The farm-scale trial was very narrow in its conception. It considered the management regime but not questions such as pollen drift, an issue that was specifically raised at public meetings. The trial also did not address issues of liability.
I cannot take a further intervention, as I am in the final minute of my speech.
The Environment and Rural Development Committee is currently considering common agricultural policy reform. The thrust of CAP reform is that farmers will farm for the market and be paid for providing environmental benefits. Chardon LL has no place in that strategy—it has no place in the market and is providing no environmental benefits. That makes one wonder what is going on.
The Deputy Presiding Officer is indicating that I am out of time, but I would like to refer briefly to a comment that was made by a Labour member about the message that we are sending to the scientific community. We should send the message that a smart, successful Scotland uses science in a responsible way. We should not just roll over and make ourselves into an open-air laboratory. That would be neither smart nor successful; it would be poor and pathetic.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Alasdair Morgan said that the issue that we are discussing will not go away. On the evidence of the past couple of weeks, it will not. The matter is probably worth debating, although we are going over some of the same ground that we have gone over before.
No member would not have liked to have been able to tell the public, "You were right—it's not safe and we're going to ban it. We have all the scientific evidence that shows that to be the case." Unfortunately, that is not the case. If we do not get what we want, there is no point in our behaving like spoiled children, stamping our feet and demanding that, somehow, reality should be different.
I want to develop this point.
It is all very well knowing what people are against, but we need to know what they are for in the advancement of science, the economy, biodiversity and the environment. If the Greens want to be taken seriously in the Parliament, they need to stop behaving like an overblown pressure group and to start behaving like a responsible political party.
Does the member accept that the biotech industry is not doing itself any good by advancing a young science into an uncontrolled situation in the environment when it is not ready for that? Does she accept that the potential benefits of biotechnology, which are many, particularly in medicine, could be lost if the industry becomes besmirched by some of its own actions?
I do not accept that, because I do not think that the situation is as the member describes. The science base in the UK as a whole and in Scotland, where the industry is particularly important, is behaving responsibly in this case, as it has done on GM issues over the past 20 years, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Let us consider for a moment the evidence that we have.
Does the member accept that hormones for use in beef cattle and BST for use in dairy cattle were not introduced into the UK and Europe, although the scientific evidence in both cases was such that they could and, reasonably, should have been introduced? Public opinion prevented the introduction of those apparent aids to agricultural production. Does she accept that public opinion should do the same in the case of GM crops?
That was a rather lengthy intervention, the nub of which was that we should not take the case-by-case approach that we are taking. However, that approach is the sensible one to take.
Let us look for a moment at the legal opinion of which the Scottish Green Party has graciously allowed us sight. In paragraph 5, that party's counsel says that he had little more than 48 hours to prepare his opinion. He goes on to say that he relied on a number of other opinions in order to produce his. He says in paragraph 8:
"I am broadly in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions set out in each of the said Opinions, although the actual questions to which Counsel directed themselves were slightly different from the question which I am asked."
In fact, the response is based on a different set of premises and questions. That leads me to have some difficulty in accepting the conclusions. Although I accept that most cases are arguable, what is at issue is the strength of the arguments. The opinion has not shown that the strength of the arguments is any greater now than it was last week.
The Executive has listened to the public's views. The public are uneasy about GM and we do not support early commercialisation of GM crops in Scotland. We are looking to safeguard human health and the environment. We do not have the scientific evidence, but if the Greens can bring it to us, we will be delighted and we will make it available to Parliament—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am out of time. I support the Executive amendment and I urge members to be responsible and to do the same.
We are back here again and I thank the Greens for bringing the debate back to the chamber. It gives us another chance to explain things patiently to the Executive.
We in Parliament know that the majority of people in Scotland do not want GM crops to be grown. We also know that, if the Executive was serious about the precautionary principle, it would not be opening the way for the growing of GM. However, as I said, here we are again.
The Scottish Green Party motion that we are discussing today is an easy one for the Executive to understand and for it to support if it wishes. A legal opinion has been obtained from an independent counsel, which states that the Executive has the legal power to refuse the next stage of GM commercialisation. The motion calls simply for the Executive to review its own legal advice. The very simplicity of the situation begs the question of why the motion even needed to be lodged. Is the Scottish Executive so incompetent that it does not know what powers it has? Is the Executive so uncaring that it knows what powers it has, but chooses not to use them? Or, is it the third option: that the Executive knows full well what powers it has, but merely does as it is told by Tony Blair and his science minister, Lord Sainsbury?
Legal experts have stated that Scottish ministers have the powers to refuse consent to the addition of Chardon LL to the national seed list. The ministers have those powers on three grounds. The first ground is because they have failed to take measures to avoid adverse effects. European directive 70/457/EEC, which sets out the overarching legal framework for seed listing and provides the basis for the regulations, states that all seeds that are to be added to the national list must
"be accepted only if all appropriate measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment."
Secondly, GM crops do not satisfy the requirements of value for cultivation. Value for cultivation and use is a specific mandatory requirement of European directives and domestic regulations. No seed variety can be added to the list unless it can demonstrate a clear improvement for cultivation.
The third ground is the most basic of all—the precautionary principle.
Does the member accept that the opinion states in the second-last paragraph:
"For completeness, I acknowledge the potential for challenge to any such refusal, not only on general grounds of rationality, but on grounds that such a refusal is inconsistent with the European Communities' objectives of harmonisation."?
My points override the member's points. The precautionary principle states that the relevant authority—the Scottish Executive in this case—should have regard to all relevant scientific information on the risk of serious and irreversible harm.
We have gone over and over the subject this morning. Labour and Liberal Democrat members are telling the parties on my side of the chamber that we do not understand, but we tell them that they do not understand.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time; I am in my last minute.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are not listening to us and they are not listening to public opinion. I do not know what it would take to get through to them that they must address the problem. The Green motion is a simple one that they should be able to support. As for the Lib Dems, there is duplicity in the difference between their policies down south and their policies up here. It is absolutely ridiculous that they can do one thing here and another thing in another country. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The Scottish Executive has not used all the powers that are available to it to prevent the future commercial growing of Chardon LL. It must give a guarantee to Parliament that it will undertake a review of its legal advice on the matter and put on hold its consent to the addition of Chardon LL to the national seed list.
I urge members to support the Green motion.
We move to the winding-up speeches. George Lyon has four minutes.
I thank the Scottish Green Party for its courtesy in allowing us to see the legal opinion last night, which gave us the chance to look over it.
As I and others have stated many times before, the Scottish Executive has the powers to ban the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland, but—and it is a big but—only if there is credible scientific evidence that there is a risk to human health, the environment or animal health. I hope that we all agree that that is the basis on which the powers exist.
Will the member take an intervention?
I want to make some progress as I have only four minutes.
The Executive has been able to reject the commercialisation of spring rape and sugar beet because credible scientific evidence was gathered during the trials that allowed us to reject those crops. Firm grounds have been established and accepted by the independent scientific review that was undertaken of those crop trials.
The opinions from the Greens' counsel and from the counsel for Friends of the Earth, which was done for the National Assembly for Wales, are right to say that we have the power to reject GM crops. However, both are utterly flawed in that they are predicated on the claim of the environmental damage that would be done as a result of growing Chardon LL. None of those claims is backed by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. Therefore, the legal opinion is based on a false premise and adds nothing to the debate today.
Will the member explain to us the difference between the Liberal Democrats' position in the Scottish Parliament and their position in the Welsh Assembly? In Wales, they lodged a motion to endorse the conclusion of the UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee that it would be irresponsible of the UK Government to allow the commercial planting of GM crops. They also deplored the UK Government's announcement of its intention to approve the growing of GM maize Chardon LL and lodged a motion directing the Labour Assembly Government to ensure that Chardon LL is not added to the UK seed list.
If Robin Harper cares to read our manifesto, on which we were elected in 2003 and which lies at the heart of the Executive amendment today, he will find the position of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. It is the position on which we were elected and it is what we are doing.
The minister has asked both the nationalist party and the Conservatives, if they wish us to move on the subject, to provide new scientific evidence to allow us to reject Chardon LL. That is the key, not legal opinion on whether the Scottish Executive has the powers. The question is whether there is new scientific evidence that would allow us to make such a decision stand up in court against the European Commission.
Will the member give way?
I have to move on—I have given way two or three times. I hope that the Deputy Presiding Officer will make some allowance for the interventions that I have taken.
I turn to the serious question of where we go from here. It is clear that the Scottish Executive's position is to ensure that we take the most legally restrictive approach to any commercialisation of GM crops. Will the minister tell us how long it will take for Europe to agree to amend its current consent for Chardon LL, under part C of directive 90/220/EEC, so as to ensure that it is grown in this country only under the same management regime as applied to the trials? That is the first step of our precautionary principle approach.
Consumers' concerns must be addressed by giving them choice about whether or not to purchase certain products. How soon will the labelling regime be introduced, and will it give consumers information about which farms use GM crops for the feeding of animals?
On the earlier point, it will take several months—perhaps very many months—for the European Commission to respond to our part C consent amendment, which would determine if, how and when GM maize could be grown under conditions that replicate the farm-scale trials. The labelling regime will come into being on 1 April. The member should be aware that Chardon LL maize has consent in the Netherlands, and so could enter the European catalogue from there.
You must finish now, Mr Lyon.
I thank the minister for his response.
The Greens' motion and counsel's opinion add nothing new to the current debate. The Liberal Democrats will be supporting the Executive amendment because it is based firmly on our manifesto, which was endorsed by our party conference last year, and on which we were elected to the Parliament in May.
I call Alex Fergusson. You have four minutes, Mr Fergusson.
So did George Lyon, I think, but I will keep to my four minutes, Presiding Officer.
I am deeply grateful to the Scottish Green Party for bringing this matter back to the chamber today, principally because it gives me the opportunity to complete what I wanted to say last week, but was unable to say due to the fact that I was spending so much of my time venting my wrath at the Liberal Democrats. I will not waste my time doing that this week, other than to suggest to them that they do not bother trying to intervene on me, because I am not taking any interventions—at least not from them.
Last week, I mentioned that a farming constituent of mine was recently quoted in the agricultural press as saying that he would certainly grow GM maize if he perceived an economic advantage in doing so, and I do not blame him for that. However, I do not believe that that is what the minister means by his assertion that the consumer will decide. If my constituent, and others like him, were to grow GM crops and use them as feed for economic gain, the opinion of the consumer would be completely irrelevant, and would have nothing to do with it. An increasing number of my farming constituents are pursuing innovative niche-marketing opportunities—and are gaining premium prices in the process—by developing markets based on high-quality traceable products of high integrity and purity. If my maize-growing constituents were all to grow GM maize—and there are more of them in my constituency than in any other constituency in Scotland—the entire businesses of other producers would be under considerable threat.
I do not claim, and never have claimed, to be a visionary, but I can see a picture emerging. I can see a south of Scotland—which, as Elaine Murray rightly said, has a splendid climate for agricultural products—in which GM crops will become quite common, and where it will become impossible to produce a high-quality niche product of high integrity, purity and value. I see a central belt, offering a natural buffer zone next to a voluntarily GM-free Scotland in the north, with the central belt and the north of Scotland enjoying all the benefits that I am increasingly convinced will come from being robustly and resolutely GM-free.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry; I do not have time.
As a south of Scotland MSP, I will not stand idly by and let that happen. If there are any Labour and Liberal MSPs who should be searching their consciences today, it is those who represent the south of Scotland. They should think very carefully about how they will vote at 5 o'clock, because their constituencies have every bit as much to lose as mine does.
I will probably make up for the extra time that George Lyon had, but I repeat my endorsement of one part of the minister's comments on this subject. I agree that voluntary GM-free zones should be encouraged. As I said last week, I believe that the whole of Scotland should be one. Paragraph 10 of the preliminary opinion of the Greens' counsel, which I thank them for making available, states:
"it is arguable that the Scottish Ministers have discretion to refuse to accept Chardon LL maize on to a National List, the exercise of which would have been unlikely to have been successfully judicially reviewed."
Whether or not Chardon LL has yet been listed—and I accept what the minister says on the matter—that part of the opinion suggests that the Scottish Executive can turn a voluntary GM-free zone into a compulsory one.
If we as a country can afford not to support the motion today—
I am in my last minute, and I seem to remember that I had to remind the minister that he wanted to make an intervention on me last week. He will forgive me if I do not take one this week.
The Scottish Conservatives will not take a risk; we will support the motion.
The context of the debate is the attempts by GM firms around the world to incorporate their products into the agricultural practices of various countries. The European Union has taken the view that it wishes to delay that happening, but it is doing so in the face of pressure from the World Trade Organisation to liberalise its agriculture laws to allow it to happen.
Where field trials have taken place, they have been somewhat incomplete. The Government has a problem in getting all the evidence to maintain its stance. The evidence is incomplete because the Government has failed to ask all the questions. I heard the minister's statement on the subject two weeks ago, and I asked:
"Will he name the definitive study of the effect on human health of GM crops on which he bases his advice?"—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6434.]
However, there is none, because it was never asked for. That is a fundamental flaw right at the start.
If a new crop was brought in, we would expect there to be a check, with a control group, and perhaps another group near a field-scale trial—as there was at Munlochy—and for a study on human health to be carried out. We proved in the Health Committee that that did not happen, and the minister does not acknowledge the fact that that is necessary.
I will not take an intervention at this stage, thank you.
From the minister's interventions when we were setting out our arguments last week, it is quite clear that he relies on evidence that he is not prepared to publish and on opinions from Government solicitors that have not been laid before the Parliament. It would be interesting to know whether any of those opinions are up to date. The solicitor for the Transport and the Environment Committee gave his opinion in 2000, if I am not mistaken. Has it been updated? The Friends of the Earth material, which I cited last week, was updated in 2003. [Interruption.] The parliamentary solicitor gave his opinion. Does the Executive have any opinions that it is prepared to publish? I see none.
We know that no study on Chardon LL has been published—the University of Reading study into the effects of the field-scale trials of Chardon LL maize has not been published. It should be noted that similar maize affected the health of broiler chickens when they were fed it. A similar maize, Syngenta Bt-176 fodder maize, was fed to cattle in Germany, 12 of which died. Syngenta paid compensation to the farmer involved, in effect admitting liability.
When the minister says that he is consulting on such liability, is he standing on the side of reason and of the public, or is he acting as a Trojan horse for bringing GM crops into the country? The minister is acting as a mouthpiece for big business; otherwise, he would adopt the same arguments adopted by the First Minister of Wales, who has said:
"The National Assembly for Wales is … committed to applying the most restrictive approach possible to the commercialisation of GM crops … We will continue to consider all options to protect organic and conventional agriculture".—[Official Record, National Assembly for Wales, 10 February 2004; p 26.]
The charge today is that the minister has not ordered health studies; he has not sought the most up-to-date opinion; and he has not published such information so that the Parliament can have the kind of debate that it requires to have. Members should reject the Government's amendment and support the Green motion.
I will try to cover the points that have been raised, although I will not have time to cover them all. I agree with something that Mark Ruskell said: this should not be a sterile debate about legal opinion. However, we have seen the legal opinion. This is not a question of shooting the messenger—far from it—but the opinion is unsigned and unattributed. Paragraph 5 says that it is a preliminary opinion prepared at 48 hours' notice. To present it as a considered review is, I would argue, misleading.
Would the minister then agree to review the opinion? That is the purpose of our motion.
I would indeed; I am happy to give Mr Ruskell that guarantee. Obviously, if we review legal opinion, we will review all aspects of it. We are in a process of continuous review. Probably for the fifth time in this chamber—if not the umpteenth time—I will say that, when we receive reliable peer reviews and scientific evidence of harm to human health, animal health or the environment, we will use the powers vested in us to ban the cultivation of GM maize anywhere in Scotland.
Will the minister agree to do more than merely wait for that evidence to come along? Will he agree to commission it?
I will come on to talk about all the scientific evidence, from all sources, that has been commissioned, peer reviewed, published and considered by all our scientific advisers in direct response to the points that the SNP has made.
Will the minister give way?
Let me develop the point.
Our scientific advisers have assessed the risks of using Chardon LL maize as animal feed. They have found nothing to indicate that Chardon LL maize grain, or its products, pose any more of a risk than non-GM varieties when used in animal feed. I will quote from the science review panel, which stated:
"There have been many scientific studies, particularly in recent years, involving thousands of pigs and poultry and hundreds of beef and dairy cattle where no evidence has been found for adverse effects on animal health … as a result of the use of GM feed containing herbicide tolerant or Bt constructs."
We have commissioned a multitude of environmental and other scientific advice and no evidence of any harm to human health, animal health or the environment has been produced.
I do not think that the minister has understood my point. BST was not introduced in Europe and cattle hormones were not introduced in Europe, yet the science said that they were safe. The decision becomes political. Is the minister prepared to take that decision on behalf of British consumers?
We are talking about two quite different regulatory regimes. If Mr Scott wants to come back to me to talk about hormones in cattle and the regulatory regime, I will be happy to debate the issues with him. However, we are here to debate a Green motion. The motivation behind that motion is, I believe, genuine—on the basis of both legal opinion and science. The motion is on the introduction of herbicide-tolerant GM Chardon LL maize. With all due respect to Mr Scott, we are not here to debate hormones in beef.
We are not talking about blanket bans. That particular variety of maize has been reviewed by experts not only here in the United Kingdom but in the 15 member states of the EU. Chardon LL has undergone assessment before receiving a part C consent. It received a part C consent not last week, last month or even last year, but in 1998. Since then, there has been a moratorium on its growth and introduction, as a consequence of what I would argue was a responsible attitude on the part of the biotechnology industry.
I say to Alex Johnstone that no cost-benefit analysis is associated with that process. Only the risks are considered. I would argue that those risks should be paramount in the Parliament's consideration of the issues. The higher burden of proof in relation to those risks is connected with the securing of part C consent. I accept that the issue of value arises in relation to the national seed listing. However, to answer Alex's point, Rosemary Bryne's point and everybody else's points on the precautionary principle, scientific evidence and peer-review studies, the maize has secured national seed listing in the Netherlands and, from there, it could enter the EU common catalogue of national seed listing and then could be grown anywhere in the European Union.
To argue, as some have done, that we are not listening to public opinion is specious and erroneous. Of course we listen to public opinion. Public opinion moulded our opinion on the introduction of voluntary GM-free zones. We share with the farming industry a common objective to maintain consumer confidence in the food that we eat. If farmers see the benefit in setting up voluntary GM-free zones, we will work with them to develop guidance on how zones could be established.
With those few words, I commend the Executive's amendment to the motion.
We have had a two-and-a-half hour debate on this topic: we had one and a quarter hours last week, and I thank the SNP for allocating some of its time to that debate; and we have had one and a quarter hours this week from the Green party. In the past week, we have had an opportunity to reflect on some of the words spoken last week. I will never forget Mike Rumbles bravely wafting his Scottish Liberal Democrats membership card around. Surely that was a real declaration of independence, although I am not sure what it was a declaration of independence from—political reality perhaps.
A number of myths from last week have remained on the agenda. The first is the myth of a blanket ban. It is only Labour and the Liberal Democrats that talk about a blanket ban. I suspect that the blanket ban is actually a comfort blanket for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to hide behind.
Another myth is that somehow the Executive will be acting illegally by not allowing Chardon LL on to the UK seed list. The reality is that no other EU country is growing Chardon LL and no other country in the EU is facing infraction proceedings as a result of not growing it. Our counsel has said that the Scottish Executive has wide discretion in this area. Yes, our counsel says that the opinion can be challenged, but the whole point is that such a challenge would be likely to fail if it were ever brought to court.
Does Mr Ruskell accept that Chardon LL maize is listed on the Dutch national seed list, could enter the European Union common catalogue from that source, and so could be grown anywhere in the UK or across the EU?
I thank the minister for bringing up yet another myth. Yes, it is on the Dutch national list but, if it were to go on to the common list—which it is very unlikely to do because I do not think that the Dutch would do that—it would require the agreement of the UK.
I acknowledge that some Liberal Democrats and Labour members are sceptical about GM and, in particular, sceptical about this GM maize crop. I know that some of those members believe that the Executive has interpreted its powers of discretion correctly. Those members have been reassured by the First Minister's comments two weeks ago when he said:
"The arrangement that has been announced is the most restrictive that we could have put in place."—[Official Report, 11 March 2004; c 6570.]
I question that. We have to doubt it because of the opinion of counsel. Our counsel says:
"It is arguable that the Scottish Executive has not used all measures available to it to prevent the future commercial sowing of Chardon LL genetically modified maize."
We must contrast that with what the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development said in his statement on 10 March. He said:
"As I made clear, the Executive does not hold the power of veto on the national seed list."——[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6430.]
Our counsel's opinion was based on three grounds. The first is the VCU—viability of cultivation for use. Does the crop actually grow properly? For the crop to enter the national seed list, it has to show an advantage over other crops. However, the yields in the field-scale evaluations were markedly inferior. The evidence is there; the Executive needs to review it and it needs to review its decision.
We have heard a lot about the precautionary principle and about taking appropriate measures to avoid adverse effects on health and on the environment. Our opinion states:
"There is no requirement that the National Authorities be satisfied that the plant variety is, in fact, harmful."
The opinion goes on to say:
"It follows that regulation 5(4) increases the National Authorities' already considerable discretion to refuse to accept a plant variety on to a National List."
It is the use of discretion that we are calling into question.
Yes, the powers exist and, yes, evidence has to be backed up. We know that virtually no studies have been done on the issue of human health. We know that, in respect of animal health, the minister has apparently seen a study into the acceptability of Chardon LL, but no one else has seen that study and it has not been peer reviewed. How is that an example of exercising the precautionary principle? It is not. The field-scale evaluations were far too narrow. The evidence is not there. They are not an interpretation of the precautionary principle.
The motion is very reasonable—it is certainly more reasonable than the Liberal Democrats' motion in the Welsh Assembly yesterday. There is nothing in the motion about blanket bans. We are asking the Executive to think again and to reconsider the national seed listing of Chardon LL while there is still time. We are asking the Executive to agree to address the matter of the truth—no more political point scoring; no more myths; just an honest review of the Executive's decision making and the decisions that it plans to take over the next few months in relation to the crop. I call on MSPs who have any doubt about the decision that has been made over Chardon LL to vote for the motion at 5 pm.