 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 5127 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to today's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request to speak button, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore, the question is that motion 5127 be agreed, are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is topical questions in order to get in as many members as possible. I'd appreciate short and succinct questions and responses. At question number one I call Ariane Burgess. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how avian flu is affecting bird populations. Cabinet Secretary, Mary Cushall. Winter of 2021-22 has seen the UK's largest outbreak of avian flu with commercial and backyard captive flocks and wild birds affected. As of 21 June, 10 captive bird premises in Scotland have been infected with highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1. In the same period, the virus has been detected in 1,253 dead wild birds across Great Britain, with 467 findings in Scotland in 24 different bird species. While the impact of outbreak on wild bird populations is currently unknown, there have been reports of significant mortalities in Scottish seabird colonies. I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Gannet and great school of populations in Shetland are being guesimated, as we speak. Gannet colonies are strewn with dead birds and fishers are seeing carcasses floating at sea. They are all washing up around Shetland's coastline. What actions can the Scottish Government take to limit the threat to internationally important breeding grants in Shetland and elsewhere? I want to assure the members across the chamber that the Scottish Government is taking the situation very seriously. Of course, we are working with a range of different partner organisations to monitor and respond to the situation where action can be taken. Avian influenza is a highly infectious disease, with the current strain causing significant mortality in seabird colonies across the UK. Even though there is little that can be done to limit the spread within the colonies themselves, yesterday NatureScot announced that it was going to suspend all ringing activities within seabird colonies for the remainder of the breeding season, essentially to try to reduce the risk of onward transmission from infected colonies to uninfected colonies in other locations and to minimise additional stress on potentially infected birds. The Scottish Government has also published advice for local authorities, for landowners, for wildlife rescue centres and members of the public regarding how to report also with information about the collection and the safe disposal of dead wild birds. We will keep that guidance under continuous review as the situation continues to develop. Ariane Burgess Thank you for that response. I would like a little bit more detail. Seabirds across Scotland are now being affected by avian flu, and I am particularly concerned by the news that it has reached the world's largest ganit colony on the Bass Rock. The RSPB is calling for better monitoring of the virus and greater clarity about how dead seabirds are being collected and disposed of to avoid further spread. Can the cabinet secretary provide clarity on those points? Cabinet secretary? Yes. NatureScot are monitoring the numbers of dead wild birds that are reported by the reserve manager. They are carrying out where it is possible for them to do that in surveys of the affected colonies. However, as it stands at the moment, it is not possible for us to assess with any certainty the extent of some of the population level impacts. We are working in collaboration with NatureScot, with the JNCC, the RSPB and BTO Scotland, to look to try and collate that with that colony-level demographic data and identify how that data can be analysed to offer information on population level impacts. However, I would also just want to take this opportunity to emphasise that the current advice that we are giving is that wild bird carcasses should be left in situ unless landowners consider it necessary to remove them. As I have just said in one of my previous responses, we have published updated guidance about the safe removal and disposal of carcasses when that is required, because the disease is spread mostly through live birds, but rather than through dead birds. As I know, the cabinet secretary is aware that there are seabird populations of international significance within my region of the Highlands and Islands. Where are we with implementing the Scottish seabird conservation strategy? The Scottish seabird conservation strategy is currently undergoing amendments, essentially to try to ensure that the actions that are derived from it are timely and that they are going to be effective to help to optimise the conservation prospects of seabirds in Scotland from both existing and emerging threats. That includes the disease threats, such as avian influenza, and we are aiming to consult on that in the autumn of this year. However, I also want to point out that, even though the strategy has not been implemented yet, it would not be restricting the Scottish Government from responding to this issue, as well as making plans for any future instances of HPAI. The images from the Basterock in East Lothian, home to the largest colony of northern Gannots in the world, are truly shocking. The Scottish seabird centre in North Berwick says that it feels powerless watching avian flu spread across the colony. East Lothian countryside rangers have the heart-wrenching job of cleaning up dead birds washing up on our popular coastline, and I would like to pay tribute to the rangers. Can the minister confirm whether any additional government resources are going to be made available to the East Lothian countryside rangers and other similar services and agencies in other parts of Scotland hit by avian flu? Will the minister now redouble her efforts and support the call from the Scottish seabird centre for an acceleration of the national seabird conservation strategy, because the need has never been greater? I welcome that question from the member, and he rightly points out just how horrendous some of these images are. Again, I know that the rangers have an enviable task of trying to dispose of some of these carcasses, which I know will be a horrendous task in itself. I hope that my previous response to Emirodic answers the latter point that the member makes about the conservation strategy and where we are with that. As I say, we are consulting on that, but even though that has not been implemented, it does not prevent us from taking action in dealing with some of the threats that we currently face. We really want to give them that assurance and emphasise the points that I have made today about the importance of gathering that data. We take that threat particularly seriously, and that is why we are also working with all our partners to do what we can to tackle some of the issues that we are seeing arise from that. Colin Smyth Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the avian flu outbreak has been particularly devastating for overwild wintering geese, killing the next third of the world population of Svalbard barnacle geese in this hallway. Sadly, more and more of my constituents are now commonly finding dead birds strewn along paths on the shore. Given the devastation that the cabinet secretary has to accept, there is a need for more action to build resilience in the long term, with measures such as looking again at, for example, restrictions on sandale fisheries and properly ending by-cats, so that we can build resilience and better conserve our seabirds. I recognise that all of those points are really important. Both myself and the Minister for the Environment, Mary McCallan, I had a meeting with some of the organisations last month to discuss what other action we can look to take. I would just want to emphasise that we take that very seriously. That is why the partnership working and the collaboration that we have with other organisations is so critical, because we want to do everything that is within our power to do to try to tackle some of those issues. Of course, they give close consideration to the points that the member has raised. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported warnings from a leading scientist that its opposition to gene-edited crop goes against the scientific consensus. We are committed to maintaining the highest environmental standards in Scotland, and we remain opposed to the use of GM in farming and that to protect the clean green brand of Scotland's £15 billion food and drink industry. The use of genetic technologies is a complex and emotive area. Indeed, the UK Government's own public consultation last year saw the public reject the changes that it is now pursuing. While I am closely following scientific and other considerations on the decoupling of genetic modification and editing, our position has not changed and the UK's bill does not change that. I thank the minister for that answer, but she continues to miss the point. Yet again, she deliberately conflates the two issues of gene editing and GMOs. That is disingenuous and only weakens her untenable position on that. The minister would seemingly prefer to wait for the EU to tell them what to do, but surely when their former chief scientific adviser says that they are out of kilter with scientific evidence, does the minister not agree that she should have a serious rethink on the SNP's position and stop holding our farmers back? First and foremost, I am more than happy to confirm to the member that I am absolutely up to date on the issues. I am not deliberately conflating GM and gene editing, although I would remind her that she is in a Parliament in a country in which gene editing is still part of the definition of genetic modification. I absolutely welcome and hold in the highest regard the views of our scientific community, including Professor Dame Glover and our academic institutions and, indeed, our food and farming and food producers. What I also value are the views of the public. That is an emotive and complex area and matters have to be considered very closely. In fact, in that regard, I agree with Professor Dame Glover when she said on the 9 yesterday evening that, as a scientist, I think that it is a very interesting technology, but I think that, at the end of the day, it is up to politicians to decide using all the evidence available. Some of that will be scientific evidence, some of it is economic, some of it will be ethical and some of it philosophical. Those are exactly the issues that I am considering, unlike the UK Government, who are hurriedly pursuing this post-Brexit deregulation. Farmers in my constituency are extremely worried that if the SNP-Green Government does not give their backing to gene editing, they will be at a major disadvantage compared with their neighbours just south of the border. That concern is shared with the NFUS, it is shared by the James Hutton Institute, it is shared by the Roslyn Institute. Gene editing technology would give our farmers a much-needed boost to help drive down food prices, help our food security issues right now, and support climate change goals. I think that the minister needs to look at what her priorities are here. Are they constitutional obsessions and grievances? Will she listen to the experts and work with the UK for positive change? Conversely, I think that it is the member's constitutional obsession and her and her colleague's desire for unity at all costs, which is the problem here. I wonder if she has read the joint statement, which was issued by 30 groups on 10 June, including the RSPCA, Friends of the Earth Scotland, the Soil Association and Compassion in World Farming among others, who said that the bill represents a significant change in the law and has huge implications for farming, food, animal welfare, the environment, the UK's internal market and its trading relationships with key global markets. It is clear that, in haste to deregulate, the Government has not adequately considered those implications. I do hope that Rachel Hampton and her colleagues will consider that joint statement. Equally, she talks about the threat to Scotland's farmers. The real threat to Scotland's farmers, of course, is an ideological Brexit, the hardest of possible Brexit, pursued during the second wave of a deadly virus and, of course, made worse by trade agreements that undermine standards in welfare and the environment and undermine farmers' livelihoods. Where was Rachel Hampton's concern for farmers when her colleagues were negotiating that? Jim Fairlie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I set aside the science of this matter for just a moment. On a practical level, the fact is that Scotland was invited to participate in this legislation the day before the bill was introduced at Westminster. Request for a site of the draft of the bill was ignored until the afternoon before it was introduced. This is disrespect verging on thinly veiled contempt from a Tory Government that is encroaching and devolved competencies within the remit of this Parliament. Does the minister share my view that the Tories in London want Scotland to consider its legislative proposals and they must learn to treat our Parliament and this Government with some respect? Minister, briefly, we are very quickly running out of time. That is fine, Presiding Officer. Jim Fairlie is absolutely right. There is substance here and there is process and both are important factors. I have expressed my disappointment with the timing of the UK Government's letter regarding the bill with the invitation for Scotland to join the legislation coming the day before it was introduced to the UK Parliament and they were briefing the media at the same time as doing that. Discussions of this nature should have taken place prior to the introduction of the bill to enable the consideration of any divergence. If the UK Government was genuine about its commitment to devolution, it would be serious in its co-operation with Scotland and with the other devolved administrations. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome what the minister said about being led by evidence. I think that it is wrong to set aside the science, as Jim Fairlie just suggested. We should be looking very carefully at what the science offers us as potential benefit. NFUS Scotland believes—this is a statement of theirs—that GE offers the potential for Scottish farmers to meet the challenges such as climate change, plant and animal health and market competitiveness. When will the minister next meet NFUS and will she engage in a conversation, a positive conversation with them and read to the UK Government about the potential benefits that will be accrued to Scotland because of this science? I will meet NFUS when I attend the Royal Highland show this week and I have no doubt that this issue will come up when I look forward to discussing it with them.