House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Apr 1990

Mr. Trippier : I welcome the comments that have been made in the debate. I have no doubt that it is only the beginning, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, and that the debate on this specialised matter will continue for some time, especially in the upper House, not least because it includes two distinguished members of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who believes that this is such a technical and complicated matter that it could have been considered by not just a Standing Committee but a Standing Committee with special powers to interview or hear witnesses before deliberating--along the lines, perhaps, of the procedure followed on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill in 1982. I wonder how far we would have gone in that direction. I have the greatest admiration for the members of the Royal Commission, although the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was right to point out that there were some matters--only two--on which there was a difference of opinion between the Royal Commission and Environment Ministers. I must confess that the bulk of the legislation that has been introduced either was suggested by the Royal Commission or has been amended to meet its concerns. We have amended the Bill on Report in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) because we have met some of the constructive points raised in Committee by the Opposition. Hon. Members should not be worried about the issue of advice given to the Secretary of State. I still believe that it is better for the final decision in these matters to be made by a Secretary of State rather than by some faceless panel. Whatever one says about any Secretary of State, Secretaries of State are subject to incredible scrutiny not only in the House but outside it, as are the junior Ministers under them. I do not want that changed. I think that that meets the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about moral responsibility.

I accept that there is a moral responsibility. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will remember that we discussed that matter at length in Committee. I understand that Ministers change roles. I am sorry that the party of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey

Column 821

did not exist in those days, for reasons which I understand. I urge him to look at the debate again, when pertinent points were made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I still want the responsibility to be left in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment, whoever he may be. I am convinced that we have got that right.

I like the point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen about members of the advisory committee. Everyone seems to have welcomed the idea, with perhaps one reservation about the idea of having more consumers. The members are all consumers. I do not want to start altering these provisions again, although I have no doubt that certain suggestions will be made in the upper House.

I am happy to confirm that we intend to set up registers of information, which again meets the point made in new clause 22. We have considered the proposal made in Standing Committee that provision should be made for the Secretary of State to send a copy of GMO consents, as appropriate, to local authorities and the National Rivers Authority. We believe that it is not necessary to make this a statutory requirement because we already do exactly that. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe touched on a number of amendments. Amendment No. 101 seems unnecessary because the Bill provides in clause 93, for example, for obtaining further information such as data from risk assessments carried out abroad and because we will not ask for unnecessary repetition of risk assessment work done overseas. Amendments Nos. 131 and 134 would make all GMO releases subject to consent, but it surely cannot be right not to allow the flexibility of having risk assessment notification or consent, depending on circumstances. Given that part VI will cover all releases of GMOs--even innocuous GMOs--in waste from contained industrial operations, and given that we are seeking in part VI to develop an anticipatory approach that would allow us to exempt organisms which, over time, came to be seen not to threaten the environment, amendment No. 308 is unnecessary. As I said, we shall pass consent information to local authorities and the National Rivers Authority.

Article 19 of the directive that I have already mentioned on the contained use of GMOs imposes requirements on the competent authority concerning the disclosure of information. The Secretary of State is the competent authority and he will, of course, comply with those requirements. No additional powers are required in the Bill to allow him to do that. That is in contrast with other parts of the Bill, in which the competent authority is the chief inspector. Chief inspectors' powers need to be set out in statute ; those of the Secretary of State do not.

It is left to the discretion of each member state to decide what arrangements will be made as regards insurance and liability. I do not think that West Germany should serve as a precedent. We consider that new clauses 38 and 39 adequately address the position and bring it into line with part I of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen asked about the decisions that will be made by the committee under Professor Beringer. He and I have both welcomed the fact that the committee is at least broadly based. The committee's decisions do not need to be unanimous, but I hope that the committee will proceed on the basis of

Column 822

consensus. Ultimately, its role will be to give advice to the Secretary of State and that it will do. There is no escape from making that final decision and, as I have explained several times, the Secretary of State is answerable to this House.

I think that I have dealt with the principal points. I was interested in some of the technical points raised by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I should like time to consider them seriously as I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge I have done in respect of arguments that the Opposition advanced in Committee. If I think that it is necessary, we shall of course return to them in the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 36

General duties relating to importation, acquisition, keeping, release or marketing of organisms

.--(1) A person who--

(a) is proposing to import or acquire any genetically modified organisms, or

(b) is keeping any such organisms, or

(c) is proposing to release or market any such organisms, shall, subject to subsection (5) below, be subject to the duties specified in subsection (2), (3) or (4) below, as the case may be. (2) A person who proposes to import or acquire genetically modified organisms--

(a) shall take all reasonable steps to identify, by reference to the nature of the organisms and the manner in which he intends to keep them (including any precautions to be taken against their escaping or causing damage to the environment), what risks there are of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their importation or acquisition ; and

(b) shall not import or acquire the organisms if it appears that, despite any precautions which can be taken, there is a risk of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their importation or acquisition.

(3) A person who is keeping genetically modified organisms-- (a) shall take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of any damage to the environment which may have been caused as a result of his keeping the organisms and to identify what risks there are of damage to the enviroment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them ;

(b) shall cease keeping the organisms if, despite any additional precautions which can be taken, it appears, at any time, that there is a risk of damage to the environment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them ; and

(c) shall use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost for keeping the organisms under his control and for preventing any damage to the environment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep the organisms ;

and where a person is required by paragraph (b) above to cease keeping the organisms he shall dispose of them as safely and as quickly as practicable and paragraph (c) above shall continue to apply until he has done so.

(4) A person who proposes to release genetically modified organisms--

(a) shall take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed, by reference to the nature of the organisms and the extent and manner of the release (including any precautions to be taken against their causing

Column 823

damage to the environment), what risks there are of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released ; (b) shall not release the organisms if it appears that, despite the precautions which can be taken, there is a risk of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released ; and (c) subject to paragraph (b) above, shall use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost for preventing any damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released ; and this subsection applies, with the necessary modifications, to a person proposing to market organisms as it applies to a person proposing to release organisms.

(5) This section does not apply--

(a) to persons proposing to import or acquire, or to release, any genetically modified organisms, in cases or circumstances where, under section ( --risk assessment and notification requirements --) above, they are not required to carry out a risk assessment before doing that act ;

(b) to persons who are keeping any genetically modified organisms and who--

(i) were not required under section ( --risk assessment and notification requirements --) above to carry out a risk assessment before importing or acquiring them ;

(ii) have not been required under that section to carry out a risk assessment in respect of the keeping of those organisms since importing or acquiring them ; or

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 37

Prohibition Notices

(1) The Secretary of State may serve a notice under this section (a "prohibition notice") on any person he has reason to believe-- (a) is proposing to import or acquire, release or market any genetically modified organisms ; or

(b) is keeping any such organisms ;

if he is of the opinion that doing any such act in relation to those organisms or continuing to keep them, as the case may be, would involve a risk of causing damage to the environment.

(2) A prohibition notice may prohibit a person from doing an act mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above in relation to any genetically modified organisms or from continuing to keep them ; and the prohibition may apply in all cases or circumstances or in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the notice.

(3) A prohibition notice shall--

(a) state that the Secretary of State is, in relation to the person on whom it is served, of the opinion mentioned in subsection (1) above ;

(b) specify what is, or is to be, prohibited by the notice ; and (c) if the prohibition is not to be effective on being served, specify the date on whch the prohibition is to take effect ; and a notice may be served on a person notwithstanding that he may have a consent authorising any act which is, or is to be, prohibited by the notice ;

(4) Where a person is prohibited by a prohibition notice from continuing to keep any genetically modified organisms, he shall dispose of them as quickly and safely as practicable or, if the notice so provides, as may be specified in the notice.

(5) The Secretary of State may at any time withdraw a prohibition notice served on any person by notice given to that person.'.-- [Mr. Trippier.]

Column 824

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 40

Consents : Limitations and conditions

(1) The Secretary of State may include in a consent such limitations and conditions as he may think fit.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the conditions included in a consent may--

(a) require the giving of notice of any fact to the Secretary of State ; or

(b) prohibit or restrict the keeping, releasing or marketing of genetically modified organisms under the consent in specified cases or circumstances ;

and where, under any condition, the holder of a consent is required to cease keeping any genetically modified organisms, he shall dispose of them, if no manner is specified in the conditions, as quickly and safely as practicable.

(3) Subject to subsection (6) below, there is implied in every consent for the importation or acquisition of genetically modified organisms a general condition that the holder of the consent shall-- (a) take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of any risks there may be of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their importation or acquisition ; and

(b) if at any time it appears that any such risks are more serious than were apparent when the consent was granted, notify the Secretary of State forthwith.

(4) Subject to subsection (6) below, there is implied in every consent for keeping genetically modified organisms a general condition that the holder of the consent shall--

(a) take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of any damage to the environment which may have been caused as a result of his keeping the organisms and of any risks there may be of such damage being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them ; (b) if at any time it appears that any such risks are more serious than were apparent when the consent was granted, notify the Secretary of State forthwith ; and

(c) use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost for keeping the organisms under his control and for preventing any damage to the environment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, there is implied in every consent for releasing or marketing genetically modified organisms a general condition that the holder of the consent shall--

(a) take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of any risks there may be of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released or, as the case may be, marketed ;

(b) if any time it appears that any such risks are more serious than were apparent when the consent was granted, notify the Secretary of State forthwith ; and

(c) use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost for preventing any damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released or, as the case may be, marketed. (6) The general condition implied into a consent under subsection (3), (4) or (5) above has effect subject to any conditions imposed under subsection (1) above ; and the obligations imposed by virtue of subsection (4)(c) or (5)(c) above shall not apply to any aspect of an act authorised by a consent which is regulated by such a condition. (7) There shall be implied in every consent for keeping, releasing or marketing genetically modified organisms of any description a general condition that the holder of the consent

(a) shall take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of developments in the techniques which may be available in his case for preventing damage to

Column 825

the environment being caused as a result of the doing of the act authorised by the consent in relation to organisms of that description ; and

(b) if it appears at any time that any better techniques are available to him than is required by any condition included in the consent under subsection (1) above,shall notify the Secretary of State of that fact forthwith.

But this general condition shall have effect subject to any conditions imposed under subsection (1) above.'.-- [Mr. Trippier.] Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 41

Onus of proof as regards techniques and evidence

.--(1) In any proceedings for either of the following offences, that is to say--

(a) an offence under section 101(1)(d) above consisting in a failure to comply with the general condition implied by section ( --Consents : limitations and conditions --) (4)(c) or (5)(c) above ; or

(b) an offence under section 101(1)(e) above consisting in a failure to comply with section ( --General duties relating to importation, acquisition, keeping, release or marketing of organisms --) (3)(c) or (4)(c) above ;

it shall be for the accused to prove that there was no better available technique not entailing excessive cost than was in fact used to satisfy the condition or to comply with that section. (2) Where an entry is required by a condition in a consent to be made in any record as to the observance of any other condition and the entry has not been made, that fact shall be admissible as evidence that that other condition has not been observed.'.-- [Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 38

Power of court to order cause of offence to be remedied

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 101(1)(a),(aa),(d),(e),(ee) or (f) above in respect of any matters which appear to the court to be matters which it is in his power to remedy, the court may, in addition to or instead of imposing any punishment, order him, within such time as may be fixed by the order, to take such steps as may be specified in the order for remedying those matters.

(2) The time fixed by an order under subsection (1) above may be extended or further extended by order of the court on an application made before the end of the time as originally fixed or as extended under this subsection, as the case may be.

(3) Where a person is ordered under subsection (1) above to remedy any matters, that person shall not be liable under section 101 above in respect of those matters, in so far as they continue during the time fixed by the order or any futher time allowed under subsection (2) above.'.-- [Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 39

Power of Secretary of State to remedy harm

(1) Where the commission of an offence under section 101(1)(a), (aa),(d),(e),(ee) or (f) above causes any harm which it is possible to remedy, the Secretary of State may, subject to subsection (2) below--

Column 826

(a) arrange for any reasonable steps to be taken towards remedying the harm ; and

(b) recover the cost of taking those steps from any person convicted of that offence.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not exercise his powers under this section, where any of the steps are to be taken on or will affect land in the occupation of any person other than a person convicted of the offence in question, except with the permission of that person.'.-- [Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Product Audit Agency

(1) The Secretary of State shall establish, within 12 months of the coming into operation of this Act, a Product Audit Agency. (2) The Agency's duty will be to review any product referred to it to see if the product is produced in the most environmentally friendly way, whether alternative products could be substituted which are more environmentally friendly and to publish reports on such reviews.

(3) Any government Minister or local authority may refer products to the agency.'.-- [Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this we may take new clause 2-- Import Controls --

It shall be an offence to import into the United Kingdom any product produced anywhere else in the world, if that product is produced in conditions which would be in contradiction of any provision of this Act were that production to have taken place in the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Bennett : I shall not detain the House for long, but we need to get some information from the Government on the progress that they are making in relation to one or two subjects that came up in Committee. Tabling the idea of a product audit agency gives us the opportunity to probe the Government on what point they have reached on green labelling, whereas new clause 2, dealing with import controls, was tabled to enable us to ascertain whether the Government propose to consider skeleton labels to warn people. We should then have labels to tell people that a product was genuinely environmentally friendly and a system to protect people from certain products or warn them that they are produced in other countries by methods that would not be allowed in Britain because of the dangers that they would cause.

Mr. Pike : Is my hon. Friend aware that last Thursday the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment drew attention to a propellant whose label indicated that the container was environmentally friendly but failed to mention the fact that the substance that it was designed to propel was not environmentally friendly? Such cases must be a matter of concern.

Mr. Bennett : I accept that point. It is worrying that people are making claims that products containing CFCs or alternatives to them are environmentally friendly when they are not. If consumers have a choice of product, they are often willing to choose one that is environmentally friendly. Clearly there is a great deal of misleading information.

Column 827

In Committee the Minister said that the Government were seriously considering green labels to make it clear which product is environmentally friendly and which is not. I hope that the Government can tell us today how far they have progressed with green labelling and will not tell us again that we must await for the Tory party conference and the White Paper, which looks increasingly more like the Tory party manifesto than something important for the country that is to be unveiled.

To give some illustrations of the problems that people face, if one goes to the supermarket looking for detergents or soap powders one finds a whole range that claim to be environmentally friendly and have "green" somewhere in their packaging and often in their title. However, as far as I can make out, it is necessary to look carefully at each one, what they claim to do and what is in them. One has to make a sophisticated judgment about which is environmentally friendly and which is not.

From the amount of space that toilet rolls made from recycled paper take up on supermarket shelves, it seems that companies manufacturing them have had considerable success in taking part of the market share. However, I understand that most toilet rolls made from recycled paper are made from high grade recycled paper. That is not particularly useful to the environment. It would have a much better environmental impact if they were made from the poorest grade of recycled paper.

I am curious about another point to which no one will give me an answer. Many people who sell kitchen furniture push the advantages of having a pulveriser in the kitchen sink. I can see the attraction of getting rid of some of the kitchen waste down the sink rather than via the dustbin. However, I am not sure whether that is environmentally friendly or not. It might simply increase the problems of the sewage authorities and reduce those of waste disposal authorities.

There are many other problems. In Committee we made great play of the problem of plastic sacks which increasingly litter the countryside. I hope that the Government will soon suggest ways in which we can eradicate the problem, perhaps by making plastic sacks returnable. Certainly we should look for an environmentally friendly solution.

The last point that I wish to raise is that of bottled water. Ten years ago one had a choice of tap water or perhaps soda water on the bar. It is amazing how the amount of bottled water sold over the past 10 years has increased. Clearly people have their own view about taste, but I should have thought that the Government could provide guidance about which bottles were environmentally friendly. Is it glass bottles, plastic bottles or plastic ones with metal tops? It is disturbing to see bottles bobbing about on beaches and on river banks.

It is time that we began to check out the environmental claims made for all sorts of products. If the Government intend to introduce green labels on products, they should tell us how soon and how they will organise it.

As the Bill sets out, it is important that we should protect the environment of people in this country and protect the health of workers in factories. However, it is not satisfactory simply to drive an industry out of this country to some Third world country or other part of the world. The product could simply be made there and reimported here. That would be completely unsatisfactory. If, rightly, we have strict regulations on products made in this country, we should also insist that products from

Column 828

abroad conform to those same high standards. It would be wrong if my constituents were protected from pollution only to find that the product was made to the detriment of people in the Philippines or Nigeria.

I hope that the Government will tell us their thinking on the two issues that I have raised in this brief debate.

Mr. Adley : The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I shared a number of debates in Committee. He referred a moment ago to supermarkets' trading methods in green products. As I was unable to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, a few moments ago, may I in passing give a strong welcome to Government amendment No. 314, and to the introduction of penalties for errant supermarket trolleys that disappear to railway stations? That is an example of the changes that have crept up on society without anyone being consulted. Huge supermarket lorries appearing in small towns and the increase in shoplifting--it would be out of order to discuss that now--are similar changes.

9.30 pm

The Government are to be congratulated on amendment No. 314, which grasps an important nettle and establishes a welcome principle to try to control some of the giants who so reorganise our lives. The new clause moved by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is an attempt to establish on the statute book a body to enable us to keep up with changes to contemporary life. The hon. Gentleman mentioned plastic sacks ; he will recall that, even before he tabled an amendment in Committee about those huge plastic fertiliser sacks that have appeared in the countryside, I had done so. I should not be able to look my wife in the eye when I go home tonight if I had not at least made the point, in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, that those sacks are environmentally unacceptable. They are a classic example of how an industry--the jute industry in Dundee in this case--can be decimated purely at the behest of the plastics industry. Even if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot accept the new clause, he should recognise that the House, on behalf of the people, expects to be able to keep up with changes taking place before our very eyes. I hope that he will be able to say something about the Government's thinking on those evolutionary changes.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : New clause 1 would create a new public agency whose job would be to assess a wide variety of products and to try to grade them according to their environmental friendliness. I ask the House to reject the measure, not because I disagree with the need to encourage environmentally cleaner products but because we are taking this forward by other means.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned our environmental or eco-labelling scheme. On 9 January we announced proposals for developing a scheme of positive labelling which, when it is up and running, will provide reliable information to consumers and encourage environmentally cleaner products. It will also assist trade, because we hope that the environmental labels will be recognised and accepted throughout the European Community. We want the scheme to be as voluntary and flexible as possible and we want it to work with the grain of market forces whenever possible. We also want it to assess products from cradle to grave, which means that it will take account of their environmental impact right through

Column 829

from raw material state, to manufacturing, through distribution and use and right up to disposal. The scheme will also cover a wide variety of products, including, I hope, packaging ; perhaps there should not be separate environmental labels for packaging, but I hope that in assessing the environmental friendliness of a product the committee administering the scheme will take into account the quantity and type of packaging.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) introduced the very different issue of what to do with plastic sacks, especially those in use on farms. He will know from the debates that we had in Committee that the plastics recycling industry is very much in its infancy, but we are doing what we can to increase the low percentage of plastic that is recovered and recycled. We are always looking for a cycle or loop. It exists in glass, in the normal doorstep delivery of milk : the same person who delivers the milk takes away the empties. That practice could be followed with plastic sacks, and the delivery of bags full of fertiliser could be extended to encompass the removal and reuse of empty sacks. I certainly undertake to consider further my hon. Friend's suggestions.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned bottled water.

Mr. Devlin : My hon. Friend spoke about plastic sacks. He may not be aware that I have introduced a Bill for the recycling of plastics at the behest of the plastics industry, which is substantially based in my constituency. The industry wants to encourage the recycling of plastics throughout Britain and would look favourably on a deposit or collection scheme, especially for agricultural plastics and plastics used in the packaging industry. There are only five main types of polymer, all of which can be reused time and again. It is important for the industry and for the public to recycle as much of that plastic as possible.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I congratulate my hon. Friend. No doubt where his constituency proceeds the rest of us will follow. Certainly we want to make a concerted effort to increase the percentage of plastic that is recovered for recycling.

I was speaking about bottled water. The campaign organised last year against water in our taps was perhaps aimed at sabotaging water privatisation. It was unsuccessful in that, but it has a most unfortunate environmental side effect in that it drove some people to drinking a great deal more bottled water. It is by no means clear that the consumption of bottled water is more environmentally benign. The water has to be collected at source, bottled and transported. It then has to be sold and drunk and somebody has to take the bottles away. There is also the danger of some bottled waters containing small quantities of benzene. As some of the bottled waters are more expensive than petrol, there may be some irony there. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish makes the serious point that judgments on those matters are difficult to make. I hope that when we have the eco-labelling scheme in place, it will assist consumers to make the right choice.

Next Section

Home Page