| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the trebling of yields--for example, of cereal crops--since the last war is at least 50 per cent. the result of the work of breeders? Is that not worth the efforts that he is decrying and disparaging? It is in the farmers' interests, as well as the breeders'.
Mr. Baker: I acknowledge that breeders have rights, and we seek not to take away those rights, but to modify them so that there is a balance between the right of the breeder and that of the farmer.
Mr. Boswell: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), does the hon. Gentleman accept that stringent safeguards on the release of genetic material to the environment are already in place and that those are designed to meet--and in my view substantially do meet--exactly the fears that he has expressed? Material is not loosely let out into the environment without proper consideration of the possible dangers, including any long-run dangers from genetic escape.
Mr. Baker: I do not accept that. I remember being a researcher in this place when the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was produced, and I know how little coverage was given to clauses relating to genetically engineered material. I am also aware that there is controversy over imported maize and the inability to separate maize that is genetically engineered from that which is not. I am not happy with that, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
My third environmental concern is that there is a danger of increased pesticide residues in our food. Crops can be drenched with pesticides--perhaps they even need to be drenched with pesticides to grow under the genetically engineered arrangement. That increases the prospect of residues remaining on the finished product.
Fourthly, there is the danger of increased resistance in target insects on crops. At present, pesticides are applied in bursts, whereas an insect-killing gene in the plant will destroy susceptible insects daily. Constant exposure could lead insects to evolve resistance even more quickly than they already do.
Fifthly, there is the question of marker genes, which are attached to what might be called the genetic payload to be inserted to find out how quickly it has arrived at its destination. One popular type of marker, as the Minister will know, is the gene that makes plants resistant to antibiotics. Instead of waiting for the plants to grow, researchers can simply test them with the antibiotic. The direct concern is that genes conferring resistance to antibiotics might find their way into bacteria when the crops decay in the ground or in the stomach of animals. That must encourage a build-up in resistance to antibiotics, which is already a significant problem.
Sixthly, there is the possibility of unwanted reactions in health terms from eating genetically altered material. Already there has been the case of one type of soya bean that has had to be abandoned because the inclusion of a gene from the Brazil nut generated in some people the same allergic reaction as comes from eating Brazil nuts themselves.
There is the further objection that the private ownership of genetic material which is encouraged by the Bill is, in my view, ethically questionable. We are increasingly moving towards a patenting of life in all its forms, which I find profoundly worrying.
Such private ownership exacerbates the gap between the rich north and the poor south. We heard from the Prime Minister today and from the Secretary of State for International Development on a previous occasion that the Government are keen to close that gap. I believe them, but the Bill will not help. The resources are predominantly in the south, whereas the technology is in the north. The north therefore wants to claim the south's resources as common goods, but to charge the south for the modified result.
Biotechnology developments promote the move of genetic resources from goods that are freely available to all into goods that are privately owned. Some hon. Members may feel that the risks and objections that I have outlined are overstated, but if only one or two of them are justified, that merits concern. I have listed several objections. If only one or two are worth while, that is a matter of concern.
These concerns are held not only on the Liberal Democrat Benches. There has been much greater public debate about these matters in other European countries. Governments in Italy, Austria and Luxembourg have banned their farmers from growing genetically modified maize. The European Parliament recently demanded a halt to the sale of such maize throughout the European Union, pending further investigations into its safety. In April, 1 million Austrians signed a petition calling for a total ban on genetically altered foods.
Hon. Members will know that in Britain the NFU has expressed concerns about genetically altered crops in some respects and about key aspects of the Bill. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon emanate from the NFU and have Liberal Democrat support.
Particular concern has been expressed by the National Farmers Union for Scotland. Scottish farmers tend to grow older varieties of wheat, barley and potatoes as newer plant varieties often produce inferior crops under Scottish growing conditions. At present, farmers are exempt from payments on older plant varieties, but the Bill puts at risk the agreement reached on exempted varieties that were granted protection prior to 27 April 1991. Will the Minister address that specific point when he responds to the debate?
Mr. Dalyell:
I represent a potato growing area in Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House the problem to which he refers?
Mr. Baker:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to a letter from the Scottish branch of the NFU, of which I am happy to
English farmers are also unhappy with the Bill. I have received a letter from a Kent farmer, who states:
Mr. Hayes:
Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the studies and the research that suggest that the incidence of disease in farm-saved seed is greater than that in certified seed? That must concern him, given his anxiety about the health risks associated with seed and plant varieties.
Mr. Baker:
I was not aware of that problem, but it is clearly an important point. However, the answer does not necessarily involve handing over power to transnational companies that will deal with the matter differently.
I sympathise with the points made by the farmer from Kent and I do not believe that the Bill is entirely good for farmers. We must strike a balance between the legitimate interests of seed producers and those of farmers and consumers. We are not trying to say that plant breeders have no rights and do not make an important contribution to agriculture--we recognise their valuable contribution--but we recognise that farmers and consumers have rights also. The regime presented in the Bill is based on the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, which was enacted long before genetically modified organisms had been heard of and reduces further the freedom of farmers in law in respect of saved seed. That freedom has already been eroded by technological advances that make them more dependent on chemical giants than is healthy.
It seems to me that the plant breeders have got everything they want from the Bill. For example, why is the Minister willing in clause 4 to countenance transnationals' claiming ownership of plants that occur naturally? The Prime Minister was able to amend one clause IV, so perhaps the Minister could help on this occasion. The Minister has explained why the Bill goes beyond the requirements of EU regulations. Why does clause 11 give the Minister the power to extend the duration of plant breeders' rights beyond 30 years? These and other questions must be answered, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response when the amendments are debated.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have gathered that my colleagues and I have considerable reservations about the increasing powers of transnational companies and the detrimental effects that their acquisition of seed companies and their billions of pounds of investment in biotechnology may have on our farmers and consumers. We accept that EU regulation must be reflected in domestic legislation, but we remain very unhappy about where the legislation is leading. We do not believe that
sufficient weight has been given to the dangers and the downsides associated with the move towards genetically altered crops that the Bill effectively endorses.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
I thought that it was Liberal Democrat policy to see European directives and regulations transferred directly into United Kingdom law.
Mr. Baker:
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon drew attention to an attempt to go further than the European regulation, and the Minister has clarified that point. We accept that EU regulation must be reflected in domestic legislation, but that does not necessarily mean that we agree with every decision that comes out of Europe.
"The main proposal under this Bill is to enable the cartel of international seed producers to levy a sum on all farm saved seed. At a time when it is Government policy to promote free enterprise and let market forces prevail it is the exact opposite of this."
The Minister may dispute that point, but that view is shared throughout the farming community.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |