 Siw par紅 er United States Procedure and Preeding Bill UNTC's bill proposes to remove from GMO geneticly modified organisms—regulations in England—plants and animals produced using modern biotechnologies and the food and feed that's derived from them i nhw hyn sy'n ddquiw ychydigol ei wneud hynny o gymrydol o'i ein pethau.� gyda erydd ni yn gweithio Ie щоб ei ddorol i fyfynol cymdeithasol o gweithio y byw, maen nhw'n i gyrfa gyrhaf yn nhw'n iawn Choose to Provision. Llyfr angen â ddysgu cyflawnol, ac mwy o'r byw o'r byw o'r byw o'r byw, nid na fydd o'n meuch o'r byw o'r byw o'r byw o'r byw o'r byw o'r byw o'r byw o'r byw o targets. Clause 42 enabels y Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make, and I quote, supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in connection with any provision of or made under this act. That permits legislation, including devolved legislation, to be made or amended by the UK Government in areas related to so-called precision breeding techniques, broadly gene-editing techniques and in related areas, including food, agriculture, animal welfare and more. Those are devolved policy areas. Since Clause 42 permits the making of regulations that amend existing legislation in devolved areas, it is a provision within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. However, as the clause is currently drafted, there is no requirement for Scottish ministers to consent to regulations being made by the Secretary of State, nor for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise them. We have therefore lodged the legislative consent memorandum on that basis. Clause 42 presents an erosion of devolved competence, and the Scottish Government therefore recommend that the Parliament vote to withhold its consent to it. I discussed those matters with the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee this morning when they invited my officials tonight to give evidence on the matter. I thank the committee for publishing their report this afternoon, and I note their conclusion that they agree with the Scottish Government's position to not recommend consent to the bill. I also note the committee's stated disappointment that the UK legislation would give the Secretary of State regulation making powers without oversight of the Scottish ministers and therefore the Parliament, and I share their disappointment. I said at the beginning that the LCM consideration of it is not a question of whether the Scottish Parliament supports the policy purpose of the bill, nor strictly is it a question of the impacts of the bill and its interaction with the UK Internal Market Act. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the pervasive attack on devolution, which is represented by the Internal Market Act, creates an extremely complex landscape, serves to erode policy divergence and it fundamentally undermines devolution. The Scottish Government remains wholly opposed to that act, which has been imposed against the stated will of this Parliament in contrary to the Sewell Convention. Of course, we have concerns about the interaction of the Internal Market Act with this bill and how, together, it could see gene-edited products sold in Scotland, unlabeled and unauthorised by Scottish ministers, consumers in Scotland not having been properly informed or consulted on how they feel about this. However crucial, though those issues are, they are not part of today's LCM. That is because an LCM considers the four corners of a bill and its effect and does not extend to the impact that other acts may have on them, however undemocratic that may be. Today, we are seeking to ensure that Scotland's devolved competencies are protected in relation to clause 42. Before concluding, I would like to highlight to members that we may have been in a different position with regard to today's LCM. If the UK Government had engaged with us on the drafting of the bill, my officials first received sight of the UK's bill only late in the afternoon, the day before it was presented to the UK Parliament. That was despite multiple requests to see the content, and I understand that it was around the same time that the details were shared with the media. It is very regrettable that no discussions on the bill were held, not least with us but via the common frameworks that are supposed to manage this divergence. Since then, both my officials and I have sought to engage with the UK Government on potential amendments to clause 42, which might, if accepted, have meant that we were able to ask that consent be recommended. However, that was not forthcoming, and I am still awaiting a response to my letter to DEFRA Minister Mark Spencer MP, which I wrote on 8 November. A decision to disregard the stated view of the Scottish Parliament would represent another example of the UK Government's refusal to respect the devolution settlement. I therefore welcome the chamber's consideration of the LCM on the UK's genetic technology precision breeding bill and move the motion in my name. This bill is about the UK Government taking a pragmatic approach to policymaking, which allows legislation to better keep up with the speed of scientific advancement. Something that is a great deal of existing legislation fails to do. Scottish Government motion, however, is symptomatic of the Scottish Government's continual desire to create difference between Scotland and the UK at any opportunity. We have some sympathy with the desire to clarify the scope of clause 42, but the Scottish Government's approach to addressing that, introducing an unnecessary LCM, seems to be more about posturing than principle, and we cannot support the motion as it is drafted. The very first line in the motion has the Scottish Government demanding that the Parliament not support the bill. There is no way that we can get past that, because it is a decent bill that supports research, much of which happens here in Scotland, and ensuring that our food producers are not put on an uneven playing field when supplying to our biggest market the rest of the United Kingdom. Other Scottish Government really suggests that we throw the Scottish food producers under the bus because of a clause that they question. The Scottish Government has stated that it would back off if the bill is amended as it progresses through the UK Parliament. That, is of course the correct route to developing good legislation, not scouring every piece of draft legislation to see if there is a way to create further discourse and division. That brings me to clause 42. Clause 42 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make supplementary, incidental consequential provision by regulations in connection with any provision of or made under the bill. Powers to make the consequential provision are common to most bills. Scottish Government officials proposed amending wording for clause 42, which would require Scottish Minister of Consent for any consequential amendments, which the Scottish Parliament would also be competent to make. The UK Government's position is that clause 42 does not trigger an LCM and that an amendment to clause 42 is neither desirable nor necessary. That is because the convention to seek an LCM only applies when legislation makes provisions specifically for a devolved purpose, not when legislation deals with devolved matters only incidentally to or consequentially upon provisions made in relation to reserved matter. Reserved includes matters that apply substantively in England only. The UK Government's view is that clause 42 does not trigger the LCM process nor does it engage the Sule convention. Devolution guidance is clear. Consent need only be obtained for legislative provision, which are specifically for devolved purposes and the bill is England only. The UK Government has updated the delegated powers memorandum and explanatory notes of the bill to reassure the devolved administrations and illustrate the intended use for and the limits of clause 42. Of course, I cannot rule out that the Scottish Government approach has been driven in part by the SNP's wider opposition to gene editing. Despite the urging of farmers and researchers alike, the Scottish Government remained firmly on the fence insisting that they will wait to see what the EU does instead of delivering the guidance that the sector in Scotland has been calling for. Aside from the fact that this approach is likely to put Scotland's farmers at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the UK by far its largest market for agricultural goods, it is almost certain to me that our life sciences sector misses out on the opportunity to be ahead of the pack in the growing gene editing sector. The SNP will ignore an opportunity for Scotland to lead the world and take advantage of new technologies, but it cannot ignore any opportunity for a constitutional spat. It has progressed, sacrificed on the altar of process, Presiding Officer. Setting aside for the moment and the somewhat more controversial question of genetically modified organisms, any halfway balanced assessment of gene editing, which does not involve the introduction of new genetic material, will tell you that its potential benefits for Scotland's agriculture and, indeed, the wider planet are substantial. The potential to increase crop yields, enhancing nutritional qualities of food and reduce the use of chemicals in agriculture alone should make it an attractive prospect. That is before we consider its potential to help us to deal with climate change, both as a means of improving the resilience of staple crops to climatic conditions and reducing CO2 production and farming. Had the Scottish Government written that motion in a more pragmatic fashion that looks specifically at questioning on modifying clause 42 of the bill, you may have found us more likely to help you to seek a resolution to the issue. However, as is the Scottish Government way, why work to develop the optimum legislation to protect Scotland's food producers in our life sciences, when we can manufacture a full-blown constitutional storm in a teacup to further their own narrow agenda? As I have often said before, they act less and less like a Government and more and more like a radical protest group, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call on Colin Smyth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Is it correct that the legislative consent memorandum before us asks us to consider just one discrete aspect of the genetic technology process in Bredenbill, currently before the UK Parliament clause 42, which would provide the UK Secretary of State for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs with the power, as the minister said, to make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in connection with any provision of or made under this act should it become law? That would mean that there would be no requirement for Scottish ministers to consent to secondary legislation relating to Scotland under this power, and it would mean that there is unlikely to be any opportunity for this Parliament to properly scrutinise regulations made under this power, even if they are on devolved matters. That, Presiding Officer, is not acceptable. I agree that allowing UK ministers to legislate in devolved areas without consent of this Parliament infringes on the powers of this Parliament. Therefore, Labour supports the position taken by the Rural Affairs Committee unanimously this morning and the Government motion before us proposing that this Parliament does not give consent to the bill. We also support the call on the UK Government to either amend the bill to restrict the geographical application of clause 42 or make it a requirement for the UK Government to seek the consent of Scottish ministers when making any provision on devolved matters. We also share the disappointment of the minister at the failure once again of the UK Government to properly consult with the Scottish Government over the bill, which could well have avoided the position that we now find ourselves in through amendments to clause 42 of the bill. We really need a change of approach from the UK Government on such matters. I am confident that we will get that change of approach when we get a change of UK Government, one that understands and supports devolution. In the meantime, I know that my Labour colleagues in the UK Parliament are pursuing concerns from devolved Governments over the implications of the bill, such as the need for clear labelling. Presiding Officer, it is not clear to me in what way the UK Government envidges using the powers in clause 42 or even the reasons why they feel they need this power, but it is one that I do not believe they should have. I understand that we are not here today to debate the policy aims of the bill before the UK Parliament or indeed the interaction with the Internal Market Act, which means that the Scottish Government will not have the power to limit the sale in Scotland of precision bread products from the rest of the UK. However, I do wish to repeat one point that I made during Stephen Kerr's debate on gene editing technology in November, that we need to debate in this Parliament our approach to whether we decouple gene editing and genetic modification. I appreciate that the Scottish Government's position is to await the outcome of the EU Commission's review of future regulation of gene editing before deciding how to proceed. I am conscious of the implications for trade if we do not continue to align with the EU position. Equally, however, there are challenges over the fact that the position in England may soon not align with Scotland. However, it is difficult to argue the importance of the scrutiny role of this Parliament in relation to revisions in the UK bill that impinge on devolution if we are not debating beyond a member's debate our approach to gene editing in Scotland. Labour is unashamably pro-science and we are pro-innovation, so we do not shy away from exploring—I do not know if Mr Carson wants to make an intervention. Can I ask members to ensure, please, that when another member is speaking, they give them the courtesy and respect of listening? I do not know if Mr Carson is aware, but Labour is supporting the bill in the UK Parliament at the moment, but we are proposing a number of sensible amendments that I hope his colleagues there will support. We do not shy away from exploring how we can find ways to maintain and improve the supply, security and safety of our food systems. We also believe in good regulation. That is the key to public safety and the key to public and, indeed, investor confidence in any future changes. We need to have that debate on the opportunities, but also the risks of gene editing here in Scotland. I hope that that is a debate that we will have sooner rather than later. However, in the meantime, Labour will support the Government's motion today. I thank the members for their contributions. It is important that, as a Parliament, we take the time to consider those matters. Of course, we are not the only national Parliament across the UK who are grappling with those issues, with the Senate recently agreeing to withhold consent. In its comments, the Senate also criticised the delays in proceedings. I understand that an LCM should normally be lodged with the Scottish Parliament two working weeks after the introduction of the bill in Westminster. However, as I explained to the committee this morning, that delay, while it is regrettable, has been unavoidable in this case. As I said, the Scottish Government received sight of this complex bill the afternoon before it was introduced into the UK Parliament, and that despite repeated requests for preview. Equally, the UK Government's position has, and has remained to be, that this does not require an LCM. Therefore, it took time for my officials to analyse the bill and to determine that it did, in fact, engage devolution guidance note number 10. Furthermore, my officials spent time engaging with DEFRA on the possibility of amending the bill, to restrict the wording of clause 42, and to reflect the devolution settlement and to seek a way forward. So, while DEFRA initially indicated their willingness to do this, when they were presented with proposals, they informed us that no such amendment would be made. I regret the delay, Presiding Officer, and it is why I am grateful for the chamber's attention to the issues today and why I hope that it will agree to refuse consent. Presiding Officer, some members took the opportunity to mention policy content today, and I understand why they have done that. Genetic modification is a complex and emotive issue, and the speed with which the UK Government has sought to make change has been very alarming for many. However, I did say that those matters were a discussion for another day, and I will be glad to have that. I would, however, just remind Brian Whittle that this LCM has been brought in accordance with the Parliament's standing orders, not in accordance with something that, as he would characterise it, the Scottish Government has created. It is always astonishing to hear members come to this Parliament, a Parliament in which they were elected to serve in by the people of Scotland, and happily see the powers utterly eroded. For my part, Presiding Officer, I would like to be clear our concerns about the UK Government's approach to genetic technology to the bill, to the issue generally, and its haste to change regulations without regard for default competence or the impact on food supply chains and consumer choice. That should never be mistaken for opposition to innovation and technology, particularly in our farming sector and particularly in a climate emergency. Instead, I would urge the UK Government to take a more considered approach, which involves engaging meaningfully across the UK, including, very importantly, from my perspective, with the public as well as with our key international trading partners. The views of stakeholders in Scotland, including the scientific community, industry interests and crucially consumers and the public as a whole, must be central to how regulations apply to new genetic technologies such as gene editing, and so, too, must the integrity of the Scottish Parliament. That concludes the debate on genetic technology precision breeding bill, UK legislation. It is time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of a legislative consent motion, and I ask Keith Brown to move motion 7617 on the Public Order Bill UK legislation. The next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent motion, and I ask John Swinney to move motion 7616 on the UK infrastructure bank bill UK legislation. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question on the motion will be put at decision time, and the next item of business is consideration of business motion 7643, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. I call on Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment 7643.1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Scottish Labour Group, I would like to thank the parliamentary staff for all of their hard work in supporting us and ensuring the smooth running of our democracy. Their work is essential, their work is a vital public service, and we cannot thank them enough. We also must recognise the decision by PCS Members in this Parliament to take part in industrial action next Wednesday, as is their right, and we should all respect their decision to do so. In light of this industrial action, we propose to move parliamentary business next Wednesday. We are proposing to move the electoral reform consultation debate, members' business and the portfolio questions to the Tuesday and Thursday. This is all business that can be easily done on different days, and I am sure that there are lots of members who can be working on in their constituencies and regions, including engaging with trade unions. This is the course of action being taken by the Welsh Parliament, as proposed by their business committee, and agreed by all parties with the exception of the Welsh Conservatives. We should be doing the same here. There are a number of reasons why it would not be appropriate to go ahead with parliamentary business, not least with solidarity with our colleagues, but we should not be meeting in this Parliament when it is not safe for the public to be in the gallery. The idea of us sitting without the people who elected us having the opportunity to join us contradicts key fundamental principles that the Parliament was founded on. So, too, the prospect of committees not hearing from witnesses in person. We believe that the principles of openness and transparency should not be cast aside lightly. We do not believe that it is right to suspend standing orders in this case, which would be a proposal to come forward should that motion be agreed. Public access to this Parliament is essential. Our staff's role in ensuring public access is essential. Any other course of action here sends a message that they are not essential. For those reasons, we will oppose the suspension of standing orders tomorrow and I move the amendment in my name this evening. Thank you. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the parliamentary bureau. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I take on board the member's point of view on what you said, but I propose the business as already put down earlier on by the bureau. Thank you. The first question is that amendment 7.643.1 in the name of Neil Bibby, which seeks to amend business motion 7.643 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed to, therefore, we will move to a vote and there will be a brief pause to allow members to access the digital voting system.