The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3153, in the name of Fiona McLeod, on genetically modified crop field trials, to which there are two amendments. [ Interruption. ] As soon as the congestion eases, I will call Fiona McLeod to speak to and move the motion. I hope that she will speak to it herself, and not let Kenny Gibson do it for her.

Oh!

I am just trying to fill time while the principals assemble themselves. I am tempted to tell members to talk quietly among themselves, but I fear that they might do so.

I call Fiona McLeod to speak to and move her motion.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that we are debating the future quality of Scotland's agriculture, produce and environment. Scotland has a reputation for quality and can never compete on the basis of quantity and mass production. Our country must continue to maintain that reputation now and in the future.

Indeed, that is what our customers want. Supermarkets know that Scottish produce can attract premium product labels and so premium prices. Producers know that Scottish produce is backed up by quality assurance schemes and so they can sell it on for quality-assured prices. In a survey, 79 per cent of 15,000 Europeans said that they did not want to buy genetically modified products. I ask the minister to stop jeopardising Scotland's reputation for quality by carrying out open-air experiments in this country.

I draw members' attention to a report by Sherwin Shih of Middlesex University entitled "Regulating the Impacts of Genetically Modified Organisms on the Environment: A UK Perspective". The report says:

"These trials follow the bizarre logic of finding out whether it is safe to release something into the environment by releasing it into the environment."

That is hardly a precautionary approach.

We need an evidence-based approach. I ask about the evidence behind the Executive's amendment. Despite what it says, there has been no "step by step" process in Scotland. We already have field-scale trials and flowering GM crops in Scotland, and are currently releasing genetically modified organisms into the Scottish environment.

Moreover, as the Minister for Environment and Rural Development made clear in a letter to the Transport and the Environment Committee, the crops are not being monitored for their effects on public health. I repeat my question: where is the evidence to back up the Executive's amendment?

Although the whole argument has been raging in the Parliament for many years, feelings have been running particularly high in the past three to four weeks in the Transport and the Environment Committee. Mr Finnie has insisted throughout that he has used scientific evidence in deciding to allow field-scale trials to go ahead, but he has ignored scientific evidence of gene flow between GM crops and others; of viable pollen transfer up to 5km; and of loss of biodiversity and organic status. I wonder how many members know that any organic product that they buy nowadays can be certified as only 99 per cent GM-free. Because of cross-contamination, we can no longer certify that our organic produce is 100 per cent GM-free.

There is much more scientific evidence that I would like to bring before the chamber. Members of the Transport and the Environment Committee know that I have already produced a large number of scientific articles, which the minister seems content to continue to ignore. Today, I would like to bring a few of them to the attention of members who might not be aware of the weight of scientific evidence that supports my motion.

One of the articles is Jorgensen and Andersen's 1994 paper in the American Journal of Botany, "Spontaneous hybridization between oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and weedy B. campestris: A risk of growing genetically modified oilseed rape." Another is Jim Orson's 2002 study, "Gene stacking and herbicide tolerant oilseed rape: lessons from the North American experience". I also draw the minister's attention to the European Environment Agency's report, which he says means nothing. It has 233 references at the end, drawing our attention to the scientific problems associated with growing GM crops in the environment. That report was dismissed by the minister and his advisers at the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, who claimed that it said nothing new, despite its referring to 233 items of scientific research.

That brings me to ACRE, upon whose experts the minister relies heavily. Perhaps members should be aware that eight of the 13 original members of ACRE had links to the biotechnology industry. The minister will probably be delighted to tell me, "But those eight people have now been replaced." However, those eight were in place when the Munlochy application was passed to the minister for consent.

ACRE's remit does not cover strategic, ethical or public acceptability issues. ACRE itself accepts that its advice is not the only advice that ministers need consider. I have already quoted in Parliament from a letter of 31 July 2001 from Adrian Butt of the ACRE secretariat, and I shall quote it again:

"Ministers are not obliged to take ACRE's advice nor is the Committee's advice the only consideration for ministers when issuing a consent."

So what powers does the minister have to protect Scotland's environmental future? I would like to take members through the three powers that the minister could have used and could still use today.

Article 4 of the 90/220/EEC directive states that member states must

"ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment".

That brings me back to the Shih report. How can the minister be sure that all appropriate measures have been taken when he is releasing crops into the environment to find out what happens? The minister himself has told us that the Munlochy experiment is not assessing the effects on human health. Munlochy is simply a trial to see how farmers manage the crops. It is not a trial of their effect on the environment or on human health. The trials must stop now before they damage the environment and public health.

Does Fiona McLeod agree that the whole point of the trial is to measure the effects on biodiversity?

Nora Radcliffe should read the consent, which is to study the farm practice management techniques of using a herbicide-resistant oil-seed rape.

I turn again to the minister's powers. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 has been quoted before. Section 111(10) provides that the secretary of state—or, in this case, the Scottish ministers—may

"at any time, by notice given to the holder of a consent, revoke the consent".

If this Parliament says today that we believe that the scientific evidence shows that the minister's actions are putting the Scottish environment in jeopardy, the minister has the power to revoke that consent and revoke it now.

I would be interested to know how an SNP minister, faced with the situation that Ross Finnie faces, would decide, as a non-scientist, how to assess the scientific evidence.

I am terribly sorry, but I do not have great hearing and the acoustics in this room are not good. I think that you are asking what a Scottish SNP minister would have done. A

Scottish SNP minister would have done exactly what the Belgian minister did on 29 and 30 April this year.

I was inquiring about the basis on which an SNP minister would make a decision when faced with what appear to be all sorts of strands of scientific evidence. How would a non-scientist make a decision?

My first answer still applies. The precautionary principle, which the Belgian minister used on 30 April, should be used. That principle is enshrined in article 174 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The Belgian minister quoted it and said that, of the five applications for GM crop trials in Belgium, she would turn down two of them. One of them would be turned down because oil-seed rape, which is being tested in Scotland, was involved.

Article 174 of the treaty says:

"Community policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:

—preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment".

The treaty says that Community policy

"shall be based on the precautionary principle".

The minister could use that principle now. A Belgian minister has done so and an SNP minister would certainly do so.

Belgium is a small and independent European nation. It is not an anti-science nation but a pro-evidence nation. It should be contrasted with Scotland, which is a small, dependent UK subsidiary whose Minister for Environment and Rural Development proclaims himself a GM fan and refuses to examine and accept the evidence. He refuses to use his powers, which I have outlined to the chamber. Indeed, some weeks ago, he gave back many of those powers to Westminster. He has taken a hot potato and chucked it back elsewhere.

Every MSP must examine the scientific evidence and the evidence relating to legal powers that I have produced. They must examine the minister's motivation for stubbornly refusing to use his powers and they must vote for Scotland's environment rather than for Labour's biotechnology donors.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the future of Scottish agriculture is in quality produce, meeting consumer demand and reflecting its outstanding environmental reputation and that, in light of scientific research which raises concerns about the environmental and public health effects of GM crops, Scottish Ministers should immediately apply the precautionary principle and use their powers to halt the Scottish field scale trials and restrict future testing to enclosed laboratories.

As Fiona McLeod said, this is a serious debate. It concerns the future of Scotland's agriculture, environment and science and balancing the progress of science with robust procedures to protect human health and the environment.

As in any branch of science, we should start with propositions on whether there might be—I stress the words might be—advantage in pursuing scientific development. One can have a view on whether a proposition is proven. There can be no doubt that genetic science has proven itself in medical science. However, in respect of the environment, I do not think that any member is content with the level of pesticides and other chemicals that are poured on to our crops or with the way in which we deteriorate our soil. There may be prima facie evidence, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether there is a prima facie case. The real test then for politicians is to ask, "In this and in every branch of science, what procedures will apply to the process to give due protection to the environment and human health?"

Will the minister give way?

No, I want to proceed a little more.

What do we mean by a precautionary approach? Our precautionary approach is not based on what one, two or three individuals think might or might not be right. If there is a question of risk, procedures must be put in place to address the safety of crops for human health and the environment. I will return to the whole question of taking a step-by-step approach.

On the process, the requirements that operate in respect of human health are that, from an early stage, the genetic stability of the inserted sequence must be shown. It must be shown that information can be produced that demonstrates that no toxic or harmful effect on human health or the environment arises from the genetic modification.

The minister rightly suggests that we must be careful and that we should not be luddite with regard to science. Does he share the concerns expressed by the British Medical Association that some of the material that is being considered for release would be detrimental to human health on the basis that we would be putting antibiotic-resistant material into the food chain? In the light of the significant problems that exist with antibiotic resistance, that is very foolish.

We are not putting anything into the food chain. That is not what the trials are intended to do. We have not yet reached the process of authorising commercialisation. Four or five other tests will address precisely that issue.

I do not accept Fiona McLeod's comments about ACRE. Three or four years ago, Michael Meacher threw off the committee the people who had connections to the biotechnology industry.

The test relates to the question that Robert Brown asked and which was not answered. Of course, we do not have to take ACRE's advice, but members should consider the process. Is it unreasonable for a minister to approach an independent scientific body and ask it for its views on the evidence rather than play God and Mammon with science? That raises the question of the scientific qualifications, probity and integrity of members of ACRE. Nobody has challenged the scientific ability, probity or integrity of ACRE as it is currently composed.

Does the minister accept that his party has said that it was unreasonable for the Conservative Government, with regard to BSE, to do exactly what he is doing, which was to take the advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee?

That is an interesting political point. I am asking a direct question about whether it is unreasonable for a minister to ask an expert committee for advice rather than play God and Mammon.

On several occasions, Fiona McLeod said that I had ignored evidence that she put to me. I have never done that. Any evidence that is passed to my department or me is passed on to ACRE for it to evaluate so that it can come to a view on it.

The minister may not be ignoring the evidence, but is not the main problem as far as public health is concerned the fact that we do not have evidence? There is no monitoring, auditing or baseline data at Munlochy. How can the minister reassure people who are worried about the public health concerns?

I will come on to that point directly. I want to outline the step-by-step approach that is being taken.

In the United Kingdom and in Scotland, the starting place must be the laboratory. Crops cannot simply be planted out in the open. It is necessary to start a trial in the laboratory and permission is required to do that. It is also necessary for permission to be granted when a trial moves into controlled greenhouse conditions. After that, there are small plot-scale trials. In those trials, people collect the toxins and dioxins that are emitted not only from the particular crop but from any other crop, and test the levels against those of comparable crops. They are required to show that the levels are within those tolerated by health and safety standards. Only once the trials have met the conditions that I have outlined can the seeds get a part B certificate. No seed that is currently being grown in plot trials anywhere in Scotland does not possess a part B certificate. In other words, the essential questions on the impact on the wider environment and public health have been addressed.

I do not agree with Fiona McLeod's proposition. All the evidence that has been gathered is designed to examine the impact of the difference between farm practices for conventional crops and for GM crops to test the impact on biodiversity. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Does the minister agree that his party is disingenuous when it expresses concerns about GM crops? Would he make the same accusation against the BMA?

I am saying that, in discharging my responsibility as a minister, I am careful to seek outside evidence from bodies such as ACRE, the Food Standards Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.

I want to make clear one part of the process for applications for trials, which is set out in the regulations. The regulations set down a ridiculous length of time for consideration by the public. I have never supported that measure and have sought constantly to change it. At present, 90 days' consideration is required for brand new field trials. With second trials, 30 days are required and then the figure comes down to 15 days. The Scottish Executive got a voluntary agreement, which was not, in my view, good enough. We went back and negotiated a six-week period, which I still believe is not adequate.

Will the minister give way?

I am running out of time.

You are in your last minute.

We hope to do something about the time limits in the regulations, which we will circulate.

The problem that we must all face is that even the revised European directive says that we should arrive at decisions on the basis of a scientific judgment. Of course everyone thinks that it is good and right that Scotland should be at the forefront of science, but the Executive will never promote science carelessly and recklessly. I assure members that our approach is to test and judge the evidence. That approach does not involve ministers coming to a view as to whether a piece of science suits their purpose. I will not do that: I will ask bodies such as ACRE for their independent judgment as to whether particular processes will give rise to serious harm to the environment or to human health. That process is entirely reasonable. Given the legislative framework, I believe that it is a responsible basis on which to proceed because it allows us to progress with science but never puts human health or the environment at risk.

I move amendment S1M-3153.2, to leave out from third "that" to end and insert:

"therefore recognises the fact that the development of GM crops in Scotland has proceeded on a precautionary basis requiring, firstly, that releases of GM material are only authorised if an objective scientific test demonstrates that such a release will cause no harm to human health or the environment and, secondly, that a step by step approach is taken involving laboratory testing, plot trials and the current field scale trials with no decision on commercialisation to be taken before a full evaluation of the field scale trials has been completed."

I welcome the opportunity to introduce another element of caution into the GM debate. Before I do so, I want to make it clear that I believe that GM crops will be our generation's legacy and an answer to the problem of nourishing an ever-growing world population. Given the finite resources of land and water on the planet, science must address the nourishment of the world's population, which is set to double this century. The problem looks even more acute when set against the backdrop of global warming, rising sea levels and the consequential loss of productive agricultural land. In order to avoid the Malthusian precipice, we have an obligation to future generations to develop plant forms to nourish our population.

Whatever we do must be safe and sustainable. Today, we are again debating the safety of a technology that, in its present state, poses more questions than answers. I suspect that all members would like to proceed with the development of GM organisms for the greater benefit of mankind, if we were safe in the knowledge that such organisms will not ultimately cause more problems than they solve. Neither Ross Finnie nor the scientific community have given us that reassurance. That is why the Conservative party believes that a fresh and complete review of all the scientific evidence should be undertaken. That is necessary not only on environmental grounds, but on public health grounds. It is no longer good enough for Minister Finnie to huff and puff indignantly that all is well because ACRE says so. When the BMA suggests that there are grounds for concern, who are we to believe? When the Health and Community Care Committee has not investigated the issue, what are we to think? If, as the minister said—I might not have understood correctly—toxins and dioxins are being emitted in the crop trials, God help us. The public of Scotland demand more reassurance than they are being given.

The European Environment Agency report, which asks 233 questions, speaks for itself. If there is an abiding political lesson of the past 10 years, it must concern the dangers of Governments' accepting blindly the advice of one group of experts with regard to food safety. For eight years, the Spongiform Encephalopothy Advisory Committee advised that there were no problems with BSE. History records how wrong that judgment was. Today we face an identical situation with regard to GM crops and we are hearing an identical response from the Government. Once again, ministers are not prepared to make decisions, but are following the scientific advice that is available in one area only. I understand the dilemma that ministers face. However, we must remember that farmers farm, lobbyists lobby and ministers decide—as Labour and Liberal politicians were only too keen to point out with the benefit of hindsight, when they called for an inquiry into the outbreak of BSE.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I will not, thank you.

Ministers have to take responsibility, and I regret the fact that Ross Finnie is doing nothing to allay public fears. If he were prepared to accept, on behalf of the Lib-Lab coalition, liability for any potential adverse effects of the trials on human health or environmental well-being, he would be more credible. Twice I have pressed him on the issue of liability for potential damage and twice he has ducked the issue. If he is certain that there is no problem, why does he find it difficult to say, "I and my coalition partners will happily pay compensation if a problem emerges now or in the future"?

Conservative members stand by our position that the experiment should be postponed. If it takes four or five years to complete what should have been a three-year trial, so be it. In the context of the time scales that are involved, another year is not critical, but it is critical that we get it right. Once out of the laboratory, genetic genies cannot be put back. We have one chance to get it right and an ultra-cautious approach must be developed. That must start with a fresh review. The trials should proceed only if all shades of public opinion are convinced of their safety. Until there is scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs—which does not exist at the moment—we must proceed with extreme caution. The people of Scotland do not expect coalition Governments to gamble with their future when reasonable doubts have been expressed. The minister must act now to redeem his position, or face the consequences.

I move amendment S1M-3153.1, to leave out from "and that" to end and insert:

"and to maintain this reputation considers that it is now necessary that a complete review of all available scientific evidence is undertaken to confirm the safety of the continuation of these trials in order to reassure the public on environmental and health grounds and further to make a concerned public aware of the importance of genetic modification with regard to nourishing and feeding an ever-expanding world population."

I had ministerial responsibility for the Scottish agricultural and biological research institutes during Donald Dewar's Administration. In that capacity, I learned a little about the work of the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Invergowrie. I was extremely impressed by the people whom I met there and whom I saw working there. They are not some kind of vegetable Frankensteins; they are public-spirited, professional scientists and they deserve our support.

The debate raises serious concerns about the future of science and science-based industries in Scotland. It is worth bearing in mind the amazing history of scientific and technological innovation in this small country. There are loads of examples of world-leading scientists starting their work in Scotland; however, it is depressing to recall that most of them had to take their ideas and potential somewhere else for development and wealth creation. The names Alexander Graham Bell and John Logie Baird head a long and depressing list.

I acknowledge what the member says about scientists. However, I have here a report from the European Environment Agency, which is a reasonable body to be dealing with this issue. The agency has undertaken a review of GMOs and concludes:

"Under current farm practices, local contamination between crops is inevitable".

The review was carried out in Europe. Does John Home Robertson accept that the European Environment Agency is a substantial body that deserves to be listened to?

I agree that tests need to be undertaken so that we can learn from the results and that we should take a precautionary approach.

To continue with my earlier line, the Parliament and Executive can and must create an environment in which good Scottish science can flourish. We need an economic environment for investment and we must have a political environment for innovation. That is what the Executive seeks to achieve.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but we are short of time.

There is no point in having an Executive that is committed to quality science in a climate of hostility toward scientists and sympathy for science saboteurs. Scottish scientists might as well pack up altogether if Parliament is going to make nonsense of the precautionary principle by banning field trials regardless of the outcome of laboratory tests. That is the logic of the motion that Fiona McLeod moved.

None of us yet knows whether GM crops will turn out to be appropriate for Scotland. However, GM technology might be a good way of carrying forward the ancient science of plant breeding to feed the growing population of the world and, I hope, reduce dependence on harmful pesticides. Yes—there are legitimate concerns that genetic modification might give rise to risks, so it is imperative that GM varieties should be subjected to thorough testing at every stage. That is what Ross Finnie described. Nobody wants to run risks with Scotland's natural environment and that is why the Executive is applying the precautionary principle.

I put it to Fiona McLeod that ignorance is not bliss. Refusing to allow scientists to study a process that could be of immense benefit to the economy of Scotland and to the ecology of the planet would be unforgivable. John Cockburn of Ormiston pioneered the improvement of Scottish agriculture in East Lothian, which is now my constituency.

We are talking about the 21 ^st century, not the 18 ^th century.

The matter needs to be set in its proper historic context because we could be doing terrible damage to something that has great potential for Scotland.

As I was saying, John Cockburn pioneered the improvement of Scottish agriculture in East Lothian 250 years ago. I have no doubt that some people would have been deeply suspicious of the lime that he spread on the land and the new-fangled neeps that he planted, but at that time Scotland was emerging from centuries of ignorance, and even witchcraft, towards a new era of enlightenment and science. I urge Parliament not to reverse that process in this 21^st century debate.

Scotland has the potential to lead the world in bioscience, which could do a lot of good for our economy. We already have an exciting cluster of bioscience businesses in East Lothian and Midlothian. It would be a tragedy if that potential were to be jeopardised by science saboteurs who do not want to know the answers to their questions. If the Scottish National Party had its way, there would never be a proper research programme; it would be shut down on the ground of blind prejudice. It is just as well that the SNP did not exist when somebody invented the wheel.

The Executive has given a clear commitment that it will apply stringent safeguards to protect the environment and maintain tight control over every stage of the development of GM technology. I strongly support that cautious, responsible and precautionary approach and I hope that Parliament will actively support innovative Scottish scientists who are working to that agenda. I hope that Parliament will reject the motion and support the Executive amendment.

There will now be open debate that will finish at 4.40, so not all members will be called. I will allow speeches of four minutes and a little for interventions. I call Robin Harper, to be followed by Brian Adam.

The minister seems to have turned on its head a precautionary principle that was designed to protect the environment. He is using that principle to protect not the interests of local people and farmers, but of giant multinational agribusinesses. Instead of using scientific evidence—which Fiona McLeod has quoted time and again and with which I have provided him—that points to grave concerns about the environmental impacts of oil-seed rape, and instead of considering the economic impacts on local organic and conventional farmers, he is calling for unequivocal evidence that the trial will be harmful.

Well, we cannot provide him with unequivocal evidence. We are saying that there is enough evidence around to say that we should invoke the precautionary principle. I will introduce at this point a series of steps, which has been provided by the group Highland and Islands GM concern, that Parliament could take and which would be constructive. Step 1 is that we review the consents that have been given by the Executive for crop trials grown at distances at which it is known there will be gene flow.

Step 2 is that the Parliament commission new research that is not funded by interests that could stand to gain from particular outcomes, to examine the impacts of GM crops, GM pollen flow and GM food on human and animal health. Scotland could join Norway as one of the few countries that seek independent evidence on this crucial matter.

Step 3 is that the Parliament review the blanket decision by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Pesticides Safety Directorate to allow the use of glufosinate ammonium during winter GM trials, which we were not supposed to be doing until recently. As a precaution, we should suspend the winter use of glufosinate ammonium until research under Scottish weather and farm conditions provides detailed evidence of its performance and safety.

Step 4 is that the Parliament carry out an independent review of the Executive's procedure to find out whether and how it has protected Munlochy from pesticide pollution from the GM trial site. If an assessment has not been performed or the site has not been protected, the matter should be referred to the European Court of Justice.

Step 5 is that the Parliament require the Scottish Executive to provide full liability insurance against genetic contamination.

Step 6 is that the Parliament assert the right of consumers to choose, if they want, 100 per cent GM-free Scottish food. I want to correct Fiona McLeod on one point: our organic food is not yet contaminated but it will be contaminated if the Executive continues to fund its policies for another two or three years. Separation distances between any GM crop site and any organic farm should be at least nine kilometres.

Step 7 is that the Parliament instruct Scottish Enterprise to commission a full and independent evaluation of the long-term economic impact on Scotland of adopting GM crops or of remaining GMO free. We need that information.

Step 8 is that the Parliament review the planning legislation and guidance to local authorities in order to enable them to control the growing of GM crops in their areas. Let us put that power into the hands of local authorities. A new GM release directive regulatory order for Scotland should be drafted to include specific measures to enable equal representation of public views and allow for all relevant issues to be given weight in decision making, including social, economic, ethical and other reasons that reflect local public majority preferences.

Step 9 is that the Parliament draft a regulatory order of the new GM directive to ensure that it allows only GM crops that are demonstrably safe, useful, locally beneficial and acceptable to local communities. It should also ensure that the companies who develop an organism should accept full and ever-lasting liability for any impacts it might have.

The motion suggests that

"the future of Scottish agriculture is in quality produce".

Scottish agriculture relies on differentiation in its market. If we aim only at mass worldwide markets, perhaps we should go hell for leather for GM crops to reduce the cost and ensure that our produce gets into the market at the cheapest price so that we can compete on an even basis. That will not happen, however. Such a move would be against the interests of Scottish agriculture because what sets Scottish products apart is their quality, part of which derives from the environment in which they are grown. We have the opportunity to further develop our organic farms and benefit from the added value that will come from producing high-quality products. Trials of GM crops threaten that.

The Executive has an unusual approach to the precautionary principle. In allowing the trials to go ahead, it is saying that it is up to those who object to prove that there are scientific, medical, health or environmental grounds on which consent should not be granted. That is the only area in which that approach to the precautionary principle is adopted. Normally, it would be up to those who wish to do something new to prove that it was safe, but the Executive is asking us to prove that it is not safe.

Is the SNP's argument that, once the trials are proven safe in the laboratory, they should be able to go into the field?

I have no problem with that, but evidence exists that there is gene flow. Evidence exists that the separation distances that are currently allowed are far too narrow. There is no scientific consensus that GM trials are safe. Bruce Crawford referred to the EEA's having expressed its concerns about GM trials. The BMA has also expressed concerns. Those organisations are not anti-science luddites such as those to whom John Home Robertson and his master south of the border have referred in recent days.

Will Brian Adam give way?

No.

The motion is not about luddite measures. We are talking about safety and the precautionary principle. Other legislatures have taken a view that is different from Ross Finnie's. His party and its leaders have taken a different view. I am very interested to hear what Liberal Democrat members will have to say in the debate.

The jury is out on GMOs and while it is, there ought to be a moratorium. It is not essential to the future of Scottish agriculture to have GM crops now, but it is essential that we ensure that we do not destroy our reputation for quality products on the off-chance that GM crops will be a wonder product for the future. We will not loose out by sitting back and considering GM crops for longer. We will not loose out by continuing to work in laboratories and by not allowing GM genes to escape into the environment. The Executive has already allowed GM genes to escape into the environment. It did that when it allowed contaminated seed to be used as a control. It did not even know that the control material that it was using was contaminated with GMOs. What confidence can we have in the independence of the scientific advice?

I ask the minister to examine carefully the openness of the advisory bodies that the Executive uses. A series of them have been questioned publicly. We should not rely too much on those in the past that have had industry links; rather, we must consider carefully how we will choose independent advice in future.

I will start with the intervention that I was going to make on Brian Adam. Much has been made of the BMA's approach to the subject. However, the response that I got from the BMA's Scottish public affairs officer in the course of e-mail correspondence with the organisation stated:

"the BMA does accept the value of trial sites, since, the best strategy for dealing with environmental risks, where we are confronted by profound uncertainties, is to act cautiously, and to embark on a systematic programme of research to improve our understanding."

The BMA's position has been misrepresented.

Will Bristow Muldoon give way?

No, I will not give way at the moment.

You are quoting selectively. That is not the true BMA position.

I am sorry, but the quote is factual. I got it straight from the BMA today.

The SNP's approach reminds me of the story of the monkey in Hartlepool, a distant relative of whom was recently elected as the mayor of Hartlepool. The SNP's approach seems to be that because the monkey cannot prove that it is not a French spy, we should hang it. That is what the SNP would do to Scottish science. Scotland's future depends on developing our scientific base, as my colleague John Home Robertson outlined. It is clear from the SNP's position that it aspires to a logic-free, science-free and industry-free Scotland.

SNP members have been giving us expert analysis. I do not pretend to be an expert scientific analyst in the field. I am surprised that SNP members do. The minister does not pretend to be an expert, but he takes advice from experts in the field. I believe that 14 specialist scientific committees provide information to the Government on the issue. In addition, agencies such as the FSA provide information on GMOs. Strategic and genuinely expert scientific advice underpin the Executive's position.

Apart from ignoring the scientific position, the SNP ignores the legal position. The minister has clearly stated that the only legal basis on which he could suspend current trials would be that of having sound evidence that they pose an environmental or health risk. No such evidence exists. All the various pieces of evidence that have been claimed by the SNP have been refuted. The Tories' position is also curious. It seems to move from week to week.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you very much. Our time is very limited.

The Tories seem to be returning to the position of allowing some degree of development of GM in the future. That is contrary to the position taken by John Scott at the Transport and the Environment Committee just a few weeks ago. Then, in spite of the scientific evidence to which the minister had referred, John Scott wished to stop the current trials and dig up the existing trial crops. The Tories seem to be finessing their position.

Will the member give way?

No thank you.

Oh, come on.

I am sorry but, as a back bencher, I do not have the opportunity to speak for quite as long as John Scott, who I noted did not take any interventions.

Our position should be firmly based on sound science, which is exactly the position that has been outlined in the Executive amendment and in the minister's opening remarks. The SNP's position is obviously based on populism and opportunism. It is no wonder that one of its own MSPs, Margo MacDonald, said in the national press that the SNP is in a state of demotivation and confusion and will go down to electoral defeat again next year as a result.

It seems that, because of the situation in regard to GM crops, people have lost confidence in science. That is a terrible thing for this country and an unhappy state of affairs, although it is understandable when we consider that Labour has passed the buck to the Liberals, and that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development's party recently appeared to be against his policy, while the SNP is completely shutting the door on any future development of GM. I agree that the trials should at least be postponed until scientific advice proves that they are safe for the environment and public health.

No wonder people are confused. It has been left to John Scott of the Scottish Tories to produce a sensible policy, which is exactly what his amendment describes. The public is right to be concerned about public health and the environment. Nowhere are those concerns more evident than on the Black Isle. Scare stories on GM are abundant, and people are right to seek assurances from ministers based on science. Sadly, they are not receiving them.

We need clear leadership on the long-term future of GM. It may be vital to the future of mankind and beneficial in ending hardship and famine. It could also be beneficial in lessening the use of herbicides, which have poisoned our land, waterways, fish and bird life for so long. Surely most organic producers would agree that that aim is laudable. That is why GM must be taken seriously and why pragmatism is needed in seeking a way to make GM work, rather than making it not work. As a farmer, I know that for centuries man has been modifying plants and crops in fields and greenhouses. This is just another chapter in a long story, but we must get it right. If it takes a year or two more to complete the trials safely, the prize will be well worth waiting for.

No science is absolute, but we can eliminate as much risk as humanly possible. At the moment, there are too many unanswered questions. That is why we need a proper audit and assessment of all the science that is available to us. If that science finds that GM is safe, it should be used to sustain people who are dying of starvation. Hassan Adamu, the former Nigerian Minister of Agricultural and Rural Development, recently wrote:

"To deny desperate, hungry people the means to control their futures by presuming to know what is best for them is not only paternalistic, but morally wrong."

We must not stifle human ingenuity. We must continue to support progress based on safe science, rather than on conjecture or spin.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the purpose of the current set of field-scale trials. The trials in Scotland are of oil-seed rape, but form part of a three-year UK-wide programme on three different crops. Only oil-seed rape is being tested in Scotland, because it is the only one of the three crops that is grown widely here.

The programme is designed to assess the effects on UK wildlife of any changes in farm management practices that arise from growing GM oil-seed rape rather than conventional oil-seed rape. It is designed to measure any impact that that has on biodiversity. Environmental non-governmental organisations, including RSPB Scotland, have supported the trials, because they want the work to be done.

The SNP motion asks that we restrict future testing to enclosed laboratories.

Will the member give way?

No. I have a lot to cover and not much time in which to do so.

This morning we were pressing for movement from research and development to commercialisation of a different technology. In developing anything, there comes a point at which development has to be abandoned or has to move on. In this case, development has to move from laboratories to contained glasshouses, to open-air small plots, eventually to a wider environment that is still controlled and monitored but nearer to the real world, and then perhaps to the real world. At every stage a decision has to be made whether to abandon the development, whether more work needs to be done or whether it is safe—in very large inverted commas—to move on. That decision can never be made in absolute terms or with cast-iron guarantees. There is always an element of risk in moving into uncharted territory.

We are talking about a seed that was developed 20 years ago. It has undergone laboratory trials, glasshouse trials and small-plot trials. It got clearance for open-air growing in small plots in 1989. It has undergone several hundreds of trials since then, none of which has demonstrated ill effects to health in humans or animals or to the environment. That does not mean that it has been absolutely proved to be safe. No scientist would ever be prepared to say that about anything. We are always working on the latest and best hypothesis and we will always work on that basis.

I am not an advocate for GM oil-seed rape and I am not against it, but I want to know a lot more about it. I am concerned about gene stacking and pollen drift. I acknowledge the concerns of organic farmers and beekeepers, but their rights to farm in the way in which they choose have to be balanced against other people's rights to make their choices.

The farmers in my constituency are interested in the potential of genetic modification to reduce drastically their chemical input.

Will the member give way?

No, she is in her last minute.

I am sorry, but I have a lot to say and have only a minute to go.

That has implications for both their competitive advantage and the environment. They are considering possible new options against the background of nitrate-vulnerable zones. They are a canny lot. If and when the time comes, they will offset that against their perception of what the consumer wants and the marketability of their product.

GM technology is an important development. There is no way that we can go back 50 years and prevent it from ever happening. There is no way that we can shut it away and pretend that it never happened. The only way that we can go is forward, but we should go carefully and we should test the ground as we go.

That is the science side, but the people side is also important. The distinction must be drawn between giving information and consultation.

The member should close, please.

The regulations that govern the trials are framed expressly to combat nimbyism. That need not inhibit dissemination of information, but the regulations require decisions to be made objectively on scientific advice that is based on evidence rather than being made subjectively on the basis of preference and opinion. There is a democratic deficit, which needs to be addressed.

The member must leave it there, or she will disadvantage the last member to speak. Given that this is an SNP debate, the remaining two minutes go to Shona Robison.

It is difficult to deal with all the public health aspects of GM crops in two minutes, but I will try to cover the main issues.

The point of the debate is the possible public health impact of GM crop trials. I say possible, because the fact is that we just do not know what they will be. We must have the answer to the public health question before, not after, embarking on GM crop trials. There has to be an immediate end to the current trials until we get those answers. It is not only the SNP that is saying that. The BMA has raised concerns about the trials.

Will the member give way?

No thank you. I have only two minutes.

Scotland's leading public health doctors have voted to call on ministers to begin monitoring the health of people who live close to GM crops. That has not been happening. The public health consultant, Charles Saunders, who is chairman of the BMA's public health committee, has criticised the decision to press ahead with the crop trials in Scotland without first assessing the impact on human health. Such an assessment has not taken place. Mr Saunders said:

"Releasing GMOs into the environment really needs to be regarded as an irreversible act. Because of that, the precautionary principle should be applied. Where there is any doubt about whether something is safe or not, you should not proceed until you have eradicated that doubt. There is not adequate information available at the moment to show the safety or otherwise of GMOs. The potential effect on human health is not known."

Yesterday the First Minister talked about building trust with the people. How can he build trust with the people when such a public health issue exists? The only way to build trust with the people is to listen to the public concern. The minister mentioned everything except the public concern. Let us listen to the public's concerns and let us stop the trials until we have the answers to our questions.

My apologies to the four members who were not called. We move to wind-up speeches.

The debate, which has dealt with an important issue, has been short and contentious. I share many of the concerns that members have expressed about the longer-term effects of GM crop trials. Such concerns were expressed at my party conference and they have been expressed by local people in the Black Isle and by the local representatives, John Farquhar Munro and others.

We are not at the outset of debating the issue, nor are we at the stage of debating the commercial growing of GM crops. That is a different, more fundamental, debate. We are operating within the framework of European Community directive 90/220, which makes clear that the SNP's proposal that there should be a blanket halt on trials would not be legal. European Union law requires a case-by-case assessment before allowing decisions on the release of GMOs.

It is also clear that the minister—who is not a scientist—must proceed on the basis of the advice that is given to him by an independent expert committee. I reiterate the point that I made at the beginning of the debate. How on earth can any minister of any party in any Government make decisions except on the basis of independent expert advice?

The SNP's case is illogical in another way. Although SNP members have made very good speeches, I am not quite sure what the SNP is saying. In a press release that was issued a while back, Fiona McLeod said that the SNP wanted a GM-free Scotland and that that was just one of the benefits that we would obtain from an independent Scotland. We do not know what the argument is there, of course.

Are we properly considering the science? Will we allow the tests to finish so that we can make decisions on that basis, or will we knock out altogether the possibility of receiving scientific advice on the matter? An article by a colleague of the SNP appeared in The Scotsman on 27 May. In it, the SNP's position was described as

"an intellectual fraud ... a transparently populist move that sadly plays on natural fears for political effect."

The issue is important and it must be dealt with rationally. We must take the public with us and there will have to be a big public debate on the issue before the final decisions are made. We are at the test stage; we are finding the information. For goodness' sake, let us conclude the trials and make the decisions in the light of the fullest information, which should be made available to the Parliament and the country.

The debate has been dominated by a degree of discomfort. The SNP's discomfort is plain for all to see. Its motion is not derived from any great position of principle, but from an almost embarrassing desire to play populist party politics with an issue that deserves something better.

The minister's discomfort stems from the Executive's back benches, the Labour members of which do not understand the issue, as it is a rural one, and, in particular, the Liberal members, who will no doubt support their minister, even though their party membership opposed the field-scale trials by a 2:1 majority. It therefore comes as no surprise that the only sensible position in the debate is that which has been taken by the Scottish Conservatives.

Since the horrendous days of BSE, when the then Government acted according to the best scientific evidence available, as Mr Finnie claims to be doing now, the public have not been prepared to accept ministerial assurances—

Will the member take an intervention?

Certainly not from a Liberal, who will not even listen to his minister on the issue.

The public are no longer prepared to accept ministerial assurances that all is well. I cannot say that I blame them. The public need to be doubly reassured on GM field trials, but that is not possible when the minister himself has told the Sunday Herald that

"there's clearly a majority view which says that you can't continue simply to do small plot-scale trials because they're not actually going to find the results".

That statement implies two things: first, that there are still many unanswered questions; secondly, that a substantial minority of scientific opinion believes that answers can be obtained from small-scale plot trials. Given the fact that the scientists are in disagreement, no wonder there is such huge public concern.

I agree with John Home Robertson that we must pay great tribute to all the scientists who are involved on both sides of the argument. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the work of Professor Hillman and the SCRI, to which John Home Robertson referred.

My colleague John Scott has eloquently outlined our environmental concerns, but I want to touch briefly on the possible effects on human health. I echo the warnings that have been given by Dr Charles Saunders, who is the chair of the public health committee of the BMA, which has said that

"any adverse effects from GMOs are likely to be irreversible."

That is worth thinking about seriously. Despite Ross Finnie's speech, in which he attempted to lay those fears to rest, those concerns are worth a bit of caution. They are worth the extra precaution that is proposed in today's Conservative amendment.

Why is the impact of GMOs on public health not being monitored or evaluated? Why will the minister not undertake to provide the public reassurance that such monitoring would bring? If he were to do that, the 92 per cent of residents in the Munlochy area who oppose the trials might even support them. Like us, those residents recognise the tremendous advantages that GM could bring across the world. Like us, they want a greater degree of reassurance than is available.

Until such a reassurance is given, neither they nor we will condone the field-scale trials with which Ross Finnie is blindly pushing ahead. The minister has turned a deaf ear to all concerns and has said nothing new in the debate. Blind, deaf and effectively dumb—that is the Executive's position on GM crops. It will not be easily forgiven. I support John Scott's amendment.

Let me first reassure members that we are neither deaf nor dumb. Furthermore, I believe that we should raise the level of debate beyond personal abuse.

The charge that is levelled against us in the motion is that we are somehow ignoring scientific evidence and playing fast and loose with public health and the environment. That suggestion is completely untrue. As Ross Finnie emphasised, commitments to human health and environmental protection are at the heart of the Executive's priorities. We have developed a step-by-step approach towards the development of GM crops precisely because we are concerned to ensure that the technology can be developed without causing harm.

If the Executive received any evidence that GM products caused harm to human health or to the environment, would the Executive stop farm trials?

Any such evidence would be evaluated. If such scientific advice were corroborated by ACRE, we would stop such trials.

The information that is required to support applications to release a GM crop is extensive and thorough. The GM crops in Scottish field trials have been through that tough scientific evaluation and have previously been grown in glasshouses in small research pots for many years. The scientific advice of the expert bodies that advise the Executive is unequivocally that the GM oil-seed rape in Scottish trials does not pose a safety threat. It would be irresponsible for Ross Finnie or me to ignore the unambiguous advice of our expert advisers. As Robert Brown pointed out, it would be illegal for us to halt the trials on the basis that nationalists and others have voiced concerns that are not supported by solid evidence.

The Belgians have been misrepresented as having stopped farm-scale evaluations, whereas they have simply asked for further evidence. Many have suggested that scientific evidence shows that there is harm from GM oil-seed rape. All such claims have been carefully examined but nothing has emerged from that process. [Interruption.]

Order. There is far too much burbling going on. It is disrespectful to the minister.

Perhaps it is time for the posturing to stop. If there are further doubts to be investigated, let us see the evidence.

Scaremongering—something that SNP members know a bit about—causes understandable public alarm. However, the science and the scientific expertise that we draw on are sound. As many have said, the process will ensure the realisation of the potential benefits. The potential environmental benefits are tremendous—for example, the reduction in the use of damaging herbicides and pesticides. We have the capacity to feed the world—can SNP members not raise their sights beyond the narrow, nationalist, insular approach.

Will the minister give way?

Will the minister give way?

The minister is on his last minute.

Scotland cannot turn its back on innovation or scientific advance. We have, as Business a.m. said today, a proud tradition of looking forward. We have benefited enormously from the contribution of scientific advances. Responsible science and responsible policy making operate on the precautionary principle. However, that principle should make us proceed with care on the basis of fact, not make us fail to proceed at all on the basis of prejudice. That sentiment was expressed by the UK Prime Minister only this week.

The Scottish Executive will promote a public debate on the evidence on GM crops in this country. The evidence from field trials will inform that debate. Let us see that evidence before we jump to premature conclusions. No evidence has been presented from the SNP side. We were promised evidence, but instead we have had a damp squib. We should not be surprised that a party that is led by a damp squib should let off a damp squib today.

I urge the support of all colleagues for the Executive's amendment today.

I make it plain from the beginning that the SNP is not anti-GM per se; we are anti-taking risks with the environment. We want evidence to be assessed properly. We are not for gambling with Scotland's farms, gambling with Scotland's environment, or gambling with Scotland's public health.

Time after time—in the public arena before today and again during the debate—ministers have tried without success to allay the fears and concerns about the impact of GM crop trials in Scotland. In particular, they have cited advice provided to them by their scientific advisers—specifically, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—and claimed that the advice left them with no choice but to consent to GM crop trials in Scotland. I say to Ross Finnie that ACRE is only one advice-giving body and that, in following the regulations on the process of giving consent, he is in no way bound to accept the advice of just one advisory body.

I think that I heard Allan Wilson say that ACRE was the be-all and end-all of advice centres for the Executive. However, in a letter of 31 July, ACRE said:

"Ministers are not obliged to take ACRE's advice nor is the committee's advice the only consideration for ministers when issuing a consent."

I say that because, out there in the scientific community, there is much evidence—about which ACRE has advised the minister—that runs contrary to the recommendations that ACRE has placed before him on GM crop trials. It cannot be argued, from any credible intellectual standpoint, that the European Environment Agency report "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer", which was published earlier this year, provides anything other than evidence of harm. Statements in the chapters of the report dealing with oil-seed rape—the only GM crop that is grown in Scotland—make for remarkable reading when set alongside the advice that the minister has been given by ACRE. I know that the minister knows of the report, but has he read it? Did ACRE tell Ross Finnie exactly what the report says? If he has not read it, I suggest that he do so very soon, because the advice that he has been getting has not been very good at all.

For instance, did ACRE tell the minister that, as the report says,

"some pollen transfer and fertilisation up to 4km can be expected"?

Was the minister told that bees are capable of flying 5km, meaning that pollen can be transferred over distances of up to 10km? The report throws into question the accuracy and validity of the response that the minister provided to the question put by the Transport and the Environment Committee, which asked how far the nearest non-GM commercially grown crops are sited from GM crop trials at Munlochy. The minister told the committee that such crops were sited 1.3km, 1.5km and 1.7km away. His letter continued:

"Successful cross-pollination over the distances involved must be considered extremely unlikely and, in the opinion of all our expert advisory bodies, does not give rise to any safety concerns."

The minister should be reconsidering the advice that he gets from his advisers. The European Environmental Agency report blows a huge hole in the arguments with which the minister is being furnished. The report says:

"The risk of hybridisation between oilseed rape and some wild relatives ... is high."

It also says:

"Oilseed rape can be described as a high risk crop for pollen mediated gene flow from crop to crop and from crop to wild relatives."

However, even more worryingly, on consequences, it says:

"From an agronomic point of view, the transfer of novel genes from one crop to another could have a number of implications, including depletions in the quality of conventional and organic crop seed leading to a change in their performance and marketability."

The European report is quite clear. The minister should be listening to that scientific advice. The report is full of advice that such crops can be harmful to Scotland. The message could not be clearer. Ross Finnie is putting at risk the high-quality product of Scottish farms.

The question must be asked: in view of the report, why can the minister not put an end to the trials of GM crop seeds? There is no scientific reason to prevent such action on the ground of the precautionary principle. All that it would require is for Ross Finnie to have the political courage—that is what this is about—to say that the advice that he has received is not all that it should be and to put a stop to the trials. As the minister said in an article in the Sunday Herald, it is about more than simply losing face. Ross Finnie should not be afraid to lose face in this case—the environment is at risk.

After all, calling off such trials is exactly what the Belgian Government has done, regardless of the rubbish that Allan Wilson told us. On 29 and 30 April, the Belgian Government blocked the go-ahead of three GM crop trials involving oil-seed rape, specifically because of the findings in the European Environment Agency report. The Belgians were prepared to take and use that advice and so to ban the trials. In blocking the trials, the Belgian invoked the precautionary principle as contained in article 174 of the EC treaty.

There are no scientific barriers in Scotland—there are only political barriers that have been erected by a Liberal minister and backed up by Labour and Liberal back benchers. It is time to put the future of Scottish agriculture, the environment and public health first. It is time to follow the Belgian example, to implement the precautionary principle properly in Scotland and to stop worrying about losing face. It is time to put a stop to the trials for the good of Scotland.

That concludes the debate.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The debate was on genetic engineering and I wonder what sort of political engineering went on behind the scenes, given that I was listed to speak in the debate, one of the main crop trials is in my constituency and yet I was not called. What was the reason for that?

As the member knows, I was not in the chair. However, in defence of my deputies, I have to tell the member that there was simply not enough time to call every speaker. At the end of every debate there is always someone who has been disappointed. We always take note of those who are disappointed and try to make remedies later on.