| Allan Wilson:
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.
Mr Alasdair
Morrison (Western Isles) (Lab): If the Executive
received any evidence that GM products caused harm to human health or to
the environment, would the Executive stop farm trials?
Allan Wilson:
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.]
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: Order. There is far too much burbling
going on. It is disrespectful to the minister.
Allan Wilson:
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.
Richard Lochhead:
Will the minister give way?
Dorothy-Grace
Elder (Glasgow) (Ind): Will the minister give
way?
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: The minister is on his last minute.
Allan Wilson:
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.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
