 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 5292, in the name of Stephen Kerr, on a potato with more vitamin C than a lemon. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons. I call on Stephen Kerr to open the debate around seven minutes, please, Mr Kerr. Deputy Presiding Officer, here's something I never thought I'd have to say in the Scottish Parliament, but contrary to the Scottish Parliament's Twitter account, I can confirm I am not a potato. Those of you who are not on Twitter or haven't seen it, it's really funny. The motion before us today speaks to our history, a history that has always been at the forefront of innovation and development. It speaks to the Scotland of today, one where our citizens are well positioned to take full advantage of the latest scientific developments in this time of extraordinary and ever-quickening change. This motion speaks to the Scotland of tomorrow, where we are at the cutting edge of technological revolution that we can scarcely begin to imagine to ourselves today. From James Watt's improvements to the steam engine to the construction of the Falkirk wheel, Scotland is at its best when its people are being their best creative, innovative and entrepreneurial selves. Scotland is at its best when we embrace the modern world, when we are playing our full part in the design of the modern world. It is in this spirit that I addressed the motion before us today. I believe strongly that Scotland should be at the forefront of gene-editing technology. We have one of the best educated populations in the world. We have the soils and environments suitable for growing healthy and fertile crops. We have a farming sector that embraces change in technology and wants to embrace change in technology. We are free to pursue our own destiny without the burden of EU regulation. Scotland can be at the forefront of this new technology. Scotland must be at the forefront of the new technology. I would like to ask, being free of the burden of the EU as you talk about, does that mean that you are giving up on selling seed potatoes to Europe? We are talking about tatties, but not the sort that Jim Fairlie wants me to talk about right now. We are talking about the technology that Scotland wants to and should be embracing, because, Jim Fairlie, the climate is changing. At the same time, the world is becoming a less secure and more dangerous place. With Putin's aggression in Ukraine and climate-induced crop failures around the world, security of food production must be further up our agenda. We must be able to produce enough food to feed our people and feed people beyond our shores. Continuous temperature changes will inevitably change the way that we farm. We are lucky to have had relatively minor crop failures this year, but we do not fully understand the impact that continuous temperature rises will have on Scottish agriculture and food production. We must be prepared. The best way to prepare is to embrace science. That is nothing new. We all know the stories of how selective breeding changed the way that food is produced, to make crops more palatable, easier to grow in less fertile soils or to deal with changes in temperature or rainfall. Look at how our farmers use science and data to ensure productive output of lamb. This is another area that we need to adopt. There is a scientific consensus that gene editing is safe and practical. 107 Nobel laureates pleaded for the introduction of golden rice in 2016, and in India and Australia the development of heat and drought-resistant crops is at the forefront of farming development. Scotland should be harnessing this expertise and we should be setting an example to other parts of the world. As the title of the motion outlines, we can not only make our food more resilient or grow in less ideal conditions, but we can make it better for us. More nutrition is food, is better food, and the developments at the famed James Hutton Institute in Dundee have done significant work in this regard. They predict that gene editing technology will result in potatoes with more vitamin C than lemons being grown. There is the title of the debate for you. Combining secure food production with more nutrition as food will result in a healthier population and food security in the world with increasingly unstable food production. Emma Harper Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking an intervention. I am just wondering if the member recommends how we capture the vitamin C from the vitamin C enriched potatoes because vitamin C is destroyed by heat and by light. It dissolves in water. How do we capture the vitamin C? Do we need to drink a whole tattie pot of water? Stephen Kerr Emma Harper I invite Emma Harper to join me on my forthcoming visit to the James Hutton Institute, and we can ask these questions to the people who know the answers. Combining secure food production with more nutrition as food will result in a healthier population and food security in the world with increasingly unstable food production. That is an economic imperative, as well as a security imperative. The opportunity for a Scottish business to be at the forefront of these developments is huge. A monopoly exists in the world where gene-edited crops are limited to a small number of large global companies, and we can change that by creating the conditions for new innovative disruptor companies to develop, test and deploy those new products in this sphere. If crops fail or other countries embrace this technology before us, we risk losing a great deal not only financially but in terms of our self-reliance as a nation, and we can secure Scotland's food and drink industry into the future. This is a debate that is often attracted to the great deal of scaremongering, cries of Frankenstein foods and or politically opportunist spreading of false information. All of that is unhelpful. Now there are legitimate concerns, however. I will take a little time, such as I have left, to address those. First, there is the issue of cross-contamination. That is not a problem unique to gene-edited crops. It is a problem throughout agriculture. It is why there will need to be a robust and rigorous set of tests before approval is given to any new crops. The evidence from the scientific community is clear that high standards of testing will make gene editing safe. Another concern is cost to farmers. Monopolistic practices that I have already outlined need to be challenged by government. Having four companies owned 70 per cent of all the gene-edited seeds allows these companies to set their prices high, so we need competition, innovation as well as better regulation. The third concern that we should address is just how expensive research is in this area. This is a new industry, and as such, the development costs of the new products will be high. They will become cheaper as research continues. We always build on that which has come before. More research means cheaper research. There is a spin-off as lessons learned in the agricultural gene editing that will likely advance into other areas, such as medicine, such as the CART or CART-T therapy. It is currently being developed for use in treating some forms of cancer. Those concerns are legitimate, but my biggest concern would be if we fell to grasp this great opportunity for Scotland. At a time when we have seen what can be achieved with enough effort to develop the Covid vaccines, is it not time for us to put our faith in scientific progress? At a time when we accept the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, is it not time to embrace the consensus around gene editing? Scotland's people are innovative. We embrace, we accept change, we are cautious when we need to be cautious, but we are brave when we need to be brave. As policy makers, this Parliament must send the signal that we are ready to be bold and seize the opportunities of being a world leader on this issue. Scots have always been at the forefront of every global technological revolution, and we should let our people be free to be at the forefront of this technological revolution. Let's be ambitious. Build on our tradition. Make Scotland's name heard globally in the field of ethical and pragmatic gene editing. I move the motion in my name. I wish that I had more than four minutes for this. I know that we need to be more canny about how we proceed with the science, technology and everything. I am passionate about evidence, passionate about proceeding, and obviously Stephen Kerr is very passionate about what he speaks about as well. I welcome that. The use of genetic technologies is now complex and it is a very emotive subject. It is abundantly clear that there are issues that need to be addressed if GM or gene editing or CRISPR, which is CRISPR, is to be used in our food system. The UK Government has brought forward its controversial genetic technology precision breeding bill, which aims to see the expansion of gene-edited crops and livestock across the UK. Although the intended scope of the bill may be England-only legislation, the bill documentation itself is clear that it will have a significant impact on areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It will allow gene-edited products into Scotland for sale aided through the internal market act. The bill makes clear that the UK Government's intent to divert from the common UK-wide GM regulatory regimes through various relevant common frameworks. Any Government-shared discussions of this nature should have taken place prior to the introduction of the bill to enable consideration of potential policy divergence. However, that was not the case. Indeed, the UK Government only invited the Scottish Government to join discussions on this bill the day before the bill was introduced to the UK Parliament, despite numerous requests from the minister and the Welsh Government to see a draft of the bill and to discuss it. Let me turn to gene-editing itself. We know what is proposed as the benefits of gene-editing technology, increased crop yields, increased disease resistance, increased nutritional qualities and adapting to the increased temperature as we continue with climate change. However, the necessary views of stakeholders in Scotland will be central to decision making in this devolved area of responsibility. That encompasses views and evidence from the scientific community, views from across the spectrum of industry interests and, crucially, the views of consumers and the public as a whole. Of course, I will take an intervention. Stephen Cairn. If that consensus says that we should go forward with this scientific technological breakthrough, will Emma Harper support it? I would support any ways that we can innovate and move forward, but we obviously need a cani approach. We need to make sure that the research is evidence-based, and that is how we take things forward. The UK Government's own impact assessment on the bill makes clear that the market for precision bread products ultimately depends on prevailing consumer attitudes to products that are genetically engineered material and the public's acceptance of GM and similar products remains an area of uncertainty. I will take a wee brief one. I apologise profusely, Presiding Officer. I thank the member for giving way. It is an interesting conversation that we are having here. What my question is is would the member consider, Presiding Officer, to allow gene editing to cure human diseases but not allow gene editing to allow humans to be properly fed? Emma Harper, I will give you one more minute, because you are now almost into your four weeks. Thank you very much. I am really interested in all of this. As a type 1 diabetic, if a gene could be put into my body to allow my pancreas to produce insulin, that is worth supporting. Again, it is about proper measured research and technology taken forward. We need to look at everything appropriately. I am interested in the sentiment of many across the UK, including NFU here in Scotland, England and Wales. They have stated their opposition to the UK's preferred option of not requiring labelling to precision bread products. That means that consumers will absolutely have no way of knowing which products are genetically modified, and yet the UK Government remains on course to implement that change. Last week I had a similar question with Food Standards Scotland in our health committee, one of our meetings that we had. It is interested in looking at how the products will be labelled as all of this goes forward. I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer. I think that what we need to do is make sure that the Scottish Government is involved, that the stakeholders in Scotland are involved and that I am interested in the impact assessment that the UK Government has proposed but do not have time to talk about it today. Again, gene editing is a really important and emotive issue. If it is pursued, it must be pursued properly, and the UK Government must not impact on devolution through its gene editing bill. We need to use the best science and evidence. Thank you, Ms Harper. I now call Finlay Carson, who is joining us remotely. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate my good friend and colleague Stephen Kerr for securing this timely debate. I reassure him that he should be proud of his new social media tag of Mr Patatio. Particularly given my two children, Rowan and Leo, two and three, are currently obsessed with a cartoon character called Super Tato, and maybe that is the nickname he should aspire to achieve. However, Scotland is rightly proud of its position as a world leader in agriculture and bi-technical science, hosting internationally renowned centres of excellence such as the Roslyn Institute, the modern SRUC and the James Hutton Institute, underpinned by a vibrant university sector. We absolutely punch well above our weights as a global centre for agricultural R&D. However, if Scotland is to maintain its reputation for scientific leadership and if our farmers and growers are to have access to the tools that they need to deliver their productive, sustainable and climate-resilient farming systems of the future, the Scottish Government must urgently rethink its hostile and outdated policy towards the use of more precise genetic technologies such as gene editing. Dr Rowan Russell, the lead researcher at the newly established international barley hub in Dundee, recently shared her personal views that her research would benefit enormously from greater access to genetic technologies such as gene editing. Dr Russell explained that there are over 400,000 different barley sessions in the gene bank around the world, and that the solution to many of the biotic, abiotic and climate challenges for the barley crop lies somewhere in that genetic diversity. Access to technologies such as genome sequencing and gene editing will potentially dramatically improve the chances of identifying and exploiting beneficial traits in the barley crop. Against a background of war, climate change and rising food and energy costs, we must ensure that research in Scotland does not get left behind, but there are many fears that that might already be happening. In March this year, a simplified regime for experimental field trial research of gene-edited crops was introduced in England, and within months the system is already supporting more field trials than under the previous GM regime. My question to the minister is, and one I hope she will consider in her summing up, will she consider the introduction of such a scheme to ensure research currently found to the laboratory can progress to the field and prevent our researchers being left behind? Scottish ministers have said in their preferences to remain aligned with the EU on this issue and that they are monitoring EU developments closely, but I wonder just how closely they monitor the conclusions of the September EU Farm Council in Prague, with the Czech presidency summarising as follows. I quote, Ministers agreed that the EU must react as quickly as possible to the development of modern trends and not hinder innovation. It is therefore important to change the outdated legislative framework by which the EU regulates the use of modern plant breeding methods. This framework not only restricts European farmers, but also leads to an outflow of experts to countries outside the EU. Perhaps Mary McCallan has also followed recent EU public consultation, which found that 80 per cent of participants considered existing GMO rules as not fit for purpose to regulate plant variety development using techniques such as gene editing. The European Commission has said that genomic techniques can also contribute to a more resilient and sustainable agrifood system by developing crop varieties that are more resistant to pests, disease and the effects of climate change that require less natural resources, fertilisers and pesticides and can improve the nutrient content of food and feed and reduce harmful subsidies such as toxins and allergens. In view of the positive statements from EU ministers, is this not the time for the Scottish Government ministers to acknowledge the potential of these technologies and as EU ministers are doing and move on from the tired rhetoric that gene editing threatens the clean green image of Scotland's food and drink industries? Finally, ministers are often referred to needing the social licence to move forward, a classic kick it down the road strategy. However, the ministers should be aware that the Government's own research has shown that consumers in Scotland are very open to technologies such as gene editing. Ms Harper might also be interested to hear that research that was published last month by Food Standards Scotland shows that around two in three constituent consistently say that we did a precision bread product if it had health benefits, was better for the environment, improved animal welfare, was safer for people with allergies, tasted better, was cheaper and more resilient to climate change. Surely the cabinet secretary must agree that this is a remarkable thumbs up for a technology that has not yet reached the marketplace and a good basis for the Scottish Government to embrace the potential for technology with so much promise for Scotland's world-leading scientific farming and food and drink sectors? I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue of critical importance and considerable interest. I suspect that we would not ordinarily be debated in this Parliament without an opposition member's debate, so I very much thank Mr Kerr for tabling his motion. To be fair to the Scottish Parliament's Twitter account, it does not just describe him as a potato but one with more vitamin C than a lemon. I am sure that he has been called an awful lot worse, but Mr Kerr is to be congratulated in bringing forward a serious matter that deserves a serious debate. I do think that when the issue has been raised in this Parliament in the past too often gene editing has been interchanged with genetic modification and responses from ministers, but as the motion very much states gene editing does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species and I think that that is an important distinction. So whether to decouple gene editing and genetic modification is a debate that we need to have. Labour is unashamably pro-science and we are pro-innovation, so we have had a long-standing commitment to having that debate, but we also believe in good regulation. That is the key to public safety and the key to public and investor confidence. We have heard members talk about the potential benefits that gene edited crops could bring, including creating plants resistant to extreme weather conditions and disease. That, in turn, could reduce the need for pesticides, create higher yields to address food insecurity driven by climate change and it could improve the nutritional quality of food. Farmers, for example, could have the tools to beat virus yellows without recourse to neo-neco-tenoids. That, Presiding Officer, would be a price worth having. But we do need to recognise that any new technology also carries risks, risks of unintended consequences, risks of technology being misused and risks of commercial pressure being exerted that is not in the public interest. Those risks need to be recognised and they need to be addressed because unless we have public and investor conference, research will stall and those potential benefits would be lost. That debate is particularly relevant given the fact that the genetic technology precision breeding bill is currently passing through the UK Parliament. Labour, I certainly will yet. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Does he share the Welsh Government's concern that the UK Government have ridden this bill through without any consultation to the devolved Parliament? One of the concerns I have and certainly something Labour are seeking to achieve as that bill goes through Parliament is a more consistent approach between Scotland and the rest of the UK. At the very least, we want to see enshrined in that bill, transparent information and clear labelling, given the implications for Scotland of any changes in England. I agree that better consultation would have been beneficial to that bill. Labour is also seeking to amend that bill because we do not believe that it goes far enough on regulation, on safety and, crucially, on animal welfare, we have particular concerns. Presiding Officer, I am in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. I recognise that laws that were designed decades ago for genetically modified products do not reflect advances in understanding and in technology. Many countries are already considering whether gene editing should be treated differently from genetic modification and how they are regulated. That is something and a debate that Scotland needs to have. However, the one lesson for this Parliament from the current debate in the UK Parliament is that we need to have that debate, but we cannot leave that issue simply to the market. Scotland's reputation for high-quality food produce is far too important to do so. Any changes that we make will need a strong regulatory framework, a framework that puts safety and the confidence of investors, researchers and, most importantly, the public at its very heart. Thank you, Mr Smith. I now call on Mary McCallan, Minister, to respond to the debate up to seven minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by congratulating Stephen Kerr on his member's debate and also on the good humour with which he has approached having been, I think, what I could call, memed this afternoon, but, yes, very good humour. Presiding Officer, as has been narrated today, genetic, gene edited products currently fall within the definition of genetically modified organisms, or GMO, and that in the regulatory regimes across the UK and in European legislation. The debate has highlighted significant differences between the original GM techniques and a range of newer techniques. We call it gene editing, we call it precision breeding, as the UK Government's Bill does, or we call it new genomic techniques, as the European Commission has described them. Stephen Kerr is right that technology advances, and I believe that it is right that we continually assess whether regulations are fit for purpose in light of that. However, that requires meaningful engagement across all parts of society. That means recognising that science and technology, as important as they are, do not exist in a vacuum, and they must be assessed for their appropriateness to our society, to our environment and, indeed, our place in the world, because although Scotland is an island geographically, we are not an island in terms of our values, or, indeed, our trade arrangements or aspirations. It is on this important point that I believe that the UK Government's Bill fails to recognise. I believe that, in its haste to find ways to distance itself from the European Union, the UK Government has shown very little concern for the impacts of introducing a different regulatory regime for England from those enforced across the UK, and, as my colleague Emma Harper alluded to, I know that colleagues in the Welsh Government have expressed similar concerns. The UK Government is rushing through this Bill, despite being aware of the impacts on devolved decision making both through avenues such as the UK-wide national listing process for seeds and plant varieties and through the internal market act, which, of course, this Parliament rejected and which the Scottish Government remains wholly opposed to. I am grateful to her for the reply that she has made to my debate, but she also accepts the European Commission. It sees positivity in gene editing. It sees that gene editing crops, for example, might be a means to helping the EU to achieve its sustainability and food security goals. I have long held the position and shared it with Stephen Kerr in the past that I am watching closely the developments that the EU is making about the assessment of the decoupling of gene editing from GMO, and I will continue to watch that closely as the results of that unfold. However, back in the UK, in June, 32 groups, including the RSPCA, the Soil Association and Nourish Scotland, jointly stated that the UK's Precision Breeding Bill has huge implications for farming, food, animal welfare, the environment, the UK's internal market and its trading relationship with key global partners. They went on to say that it is, and I quote, clear that, in haste to deregulate, the Government has not adequately considered these implications. That is before you even consider that the UK Government's own regulatory policy committee reviewed the bill's impact assessment twice and found it not fit for purpose. Our concern at the UK Government's haste and failure to recognise devolved competence should not be mistaken for opposition to innovation and technology in the farming sectors. On the contrary, the Scottish Government support enthusiastically innovation and technology and we remain key partners with leading institutions such as the James Hutton Institute, which receives significant funding through our strategic research programmes. I am happy to assure Mr Carson that he is well under way in his speech, but I know that Finlay Carson is trying to intervene with the system and the new system does not seem to be working. I will try to check that very briefly, Mr Carson. Okay, we will give this a go. I call Finlay Carson, who is seeking to make up. Mr Carson, there you are, please intervene on the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My intervention may become slightly greater than I would have liked, but I wonder if the members, Emma Harper and Jim Fairlie and the minister, for once, would concentrate on putting constitutional grievance to one side and do what is best for Scottish farmers. That is absolutely to accelerate the move to allow the researchers, the world-leading researchers in Scotland to use gene-editing methods. Presiding Officer, I am quite happy to confirm to Finlay Carson that my focus almost on a day-to-day basis among other things is on supporting Scotland's farmers. I think that that is evident from a great deal of the work that the Government is doing, not least the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs' statement earlier this afternoon. Prior to Mr Carson's intervention, I was going to assure him, having mentioned James Hutton Institute, that the Scottish research institutions remain very much at the forefront of scientific development globally, and it is in my view very important that they continue to do so. However, the progress that we make must also support trade. The EU, our biggest international trade partner, has consulted on changes to its own regulations in the area of gene-editing and is expected to propose policy options in the spring. It is only right that I take those into account, because the EU is a beacon of environmental progress, because the Scottish Government is committed to a policy of EU alignment where appropriate. We want to ensure that our farmers, food producers and businesses can continue to trade with the EU without the risks of additional barriers beyond those that have already been imposed on us by Tory Brexit. The precision breeding bill is entering the House of Lord, but there remains many unanswered questions. One of them that is particularly important to me is the views of the public. In addition to practicalities, we must get principles right. The use of genetic technologies is, as Emma Harper said, complex and emotive, and there are many issues to be addressed if they are to form part of our food system. I firmly believe that we need to take into account the perspectives of the public and the consumers alongside that of academics, food producers, farmers and environmental groups. I know that Finlay Carson thinks that public trust and taking the public with you is a matter of kicking the can down the road, but I tend to disagree. I see that Mr Carson's name is appearing again on the screen. I do not know if that is a delayed prompt from the first intervention or whether Mr Carson is seeking to make a second intervention. Can Mr Carson please clarify? I would like to make a second intervention. Will the minister agree that, with the Food Standards Scotland research, which showed that two and three consistently said that they would eat precision-bred products, and she appears to be ignoring that fact? I do acknowledge the recent research by Food Standards Association. I also know, and I think that the figure is 78 per cent of respondents said that they would wish to know when they were consuming gene editing products, which, of course, the bill does not account for. Forgive me, as Scotland's environment minister, for wanting to make sure that the detail of that is right and scrutinised. I want to briefly mention the ethics of animals before concluding, because it is hugely important that we are cautious when the health and welfare of our animals is at stake. The Scottish Government shares concerns expressed by stakeholders on the ability of the legislation as proposed to protect animals and their welfare from the use of genetic technologies, although I know from discussions with scientists that some uses could be targeted at improving animal health. I also note that the EU has said that it considers that the necessary scientific knowledge is still limited or lacking for the application of new genomic techniques in animals, especially in safety aspects, and that is very important to me. However, with time in mind in conclusion, as I have said, our concerns about the UK Government's approach to precision breeding bill, rushing to change regulations without regard for devolved competence or the impact on food supply chains and consumer choice should never be mistaken for opposition to innovation and technology, particularly in the farming sector. Instead, I urge the UK Government to take the opportunity of ever-changing ministers to review the bill, to do so in slower time, to engage meaningfully across the UK, and, importantly, with the public. For our part in the Scottish Government, we will continue to strive to make decisions for Scotland's environment in pursuit of the highest standards and taking the people of Scotland with us as we do.