---

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on the matter--he has frequently aired them in the House--but perhaps he did not notice that, if it had not been for the system introduced, the Conservative party would not have had any representation in those bodies. Various conclusions could have been drawn from such an outcome.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): The right hon. Lady has announced another Opposition day for next

13 May 1999 : Column 431

week. When considering future Opposition days, will she be able to take any action to ensure that those occasions are used for their proper purpose--to oppose the Government--and not to attack the official Opposition? Indeed, should not future Liberal Democrat Opposition days be in Government time, not Opposition time?

Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly not prepared to give an undertaking that I shall find extra Government time for such debates. Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's feeling, it is a matter of private grief on which I feel disinclined to intrude.

13 May 1999 : Column 432

Opposition Day

[12th Allotted Day]

American Food Exports and European Trade Policy

Madam Speaker: We come now to the main business, and I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

1.21 pm

Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh): I beg to move,

That this House notes that the EU ban on hormonally-modified meat must end on Thursday 13th May 1999 under World Trade Organisation rules and that the USA is threatening massive retaliatory trade sanctions against member states unless this is adhered to; is concerned that the latest scientific evidence raises serious doubts over the safety of these and genetically-modified products, further undermining consumer confidence; deplores the failure of the EU and the USA to pursue agreed research criteria into the efficacy of introducing such products into the food chain, threatening established World Trade Organisation agreements and ignoring the impact on global biodiversity in the long term; and urges the Government to recognise its responsibilities at the forthcoming Millennium Round and ensure that food safety, the protection of biodiversity and assistance to the economies of developing countries are integral to negotiations on the liberalisation of trade.

Today is the day on which, under a World Trade Organisation judgment, Europe must either lift its ban on imports from America of hormonally modified beef or face massive retaliation in the form of trade sanctions. This morning's news has been that the Americans intend to press for sanctions against the European Union. Let us make no mistake about it: if the billion-dollar package of trade sanctions threatened by America starts to hit British exporters, the so-called banana war will seem to have been little more than a skirmish.

The trade war over hormonally modified beef is just a sideshow, however, compared with trade disputes looming over milk products from dairy cattle subjected to the hormone additive bovine somatotropin--or BST--and the proliferation of genetically modified crops and food products.

Unless the world's two major trading blocs--the United States of America and the European Union--start to take seriously their international responsibilities for sustainable trade liberalistion and the protection of global diversity, the trade war could go nuclear. We must not underestimate the seriousness of the issues--which affect consumer confidence in the food on supermarket shelves and the risk of cancer from the milk that we drink, and threaten the diversity of plants and wildlife in our countryside and the economic survival of tens of millions of subsistence farmers in the Indian sub-continent.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider what he has just said? He said that the trade war would go nuclear. Does he really mean that?

Mr. Chidgey: I am using a figure of speech to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. A few weeks

13 May 1999 : Column 433

ago, there was great debate and concern about the banana trade war, but this issue is massively more serious. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Britain is in a unique position to take a world lead in formulating new guidelines, forging new international agreements, and linking trade liberalisation with the protection of biodiversity and the support required in developing economies.

The Government claim the credit for the United States and European Union transatlantic economic partnership agreement, which was set up while the United Kingdom held the presidency of the EU. The Government claim to be leading EU policy from the heart of Europe. Considering the apathy that is oozing from the European Commission on issues relating to trade in modified food, Britain seems to be not so much at the heart of Europe as in Europe's back pocket. From their belligerent response, the American agrochemical giants seem to think that they have the Government in their corporate wallets. Until the Government set out clear policies and take a lead in resolving the conflicts and the concerns about international trade in genetically modified crops and hormonally modified meats and milk, as well as biodiversity and developing economies, the EU will continue to muddle along and the multinationals will use their muscle to dominate world markets.

The current hiatus over American beef imports is a case in point. It should be no surprise to anyone that the United States is threatening massive trade sanctions if the ban on beef with hormone additives is not lifted. The EU ban was introduced more than 10 years ago in the face of opposition from north America. Instead of putting its house in order and undertaking scientific research to justify the ban, the EU has marked time, dragging its heels while spinning out the Byzantine disputes procedure of the WTO. The EU was given 15 months by the WTO to conduct the additional scientific risk assessments. With only weeks to go before the deadline--today, 13 May--the best that the EU could do was produce an interim report on the 17 new studies that it found that it needed to prove its case. The upshot is that the EU is calling for a further extension of the WTO ruling until the end of this year, to complete its studies. Not surprisingly, the United States, Canada and Australia oppose any extension. The United States is threatening Europe with $1 billion of trade sanctions.

I do not know whether the situation is best described as a tragedy or a farce. The inept, laissez-faire actions of the EU are farcical. Should the massive trade sanctions threatened by America be imposed, it will be a tragedy for the hundreds of British firms whose livelihoods depend on exports to America.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that under the precautionary principle, delay is the best way forward. We do not know the harm that the products might cause. It is right to delay and look at how we could introduce them properly in the future.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I strongly support. My criticism is that the EU allowed the situation to drag on without investing resources in the necessary scientific research. With food,

13 May 1999 : Column 434

public safety must come first. Europe has left itself with three options: to maintain the ban on imports and hope to be able to pay compensation to America and Canada through trade concessions rather than suffering sanctions; to transform the ban into a provisional one, which could be argued under WTO rules on the basis of the scientific evidence so far, although that would meet with a host of objections from the United States; or to lift the ban on imports and introduce a labelling scheme to allow consumer choice.

Lifting the ban is clearly not an option. That would ignore the risks to the consumer that the latest round of scientific studies is attempting to quantify and would set a precedent for the wholesale importing of milk products laced with hormone additives, and of GM crops and their products. We need strong action from the EU and strong leadership from the Government to reach agreement on the trade dispute under existing WTO rules. The rules of engagement should be over measures of compensation, not retaliation.

The dispute over the import of beef with hormone additives is merely a forerunner of more far-reaching trade issues coming down the track to meet us. So far, the Government have been singularly silent on their policy regarding consumer choice, food safety, biodiversity and economic developments in developing countries. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will take the opportunity to set out clearly where the Government stand on the issues, what their policies are and what action they propose to take--for example, on the monitoring and management of GM crop cultivation. What action are the Government proposing to allay public fears over the safety of such food products?

With no clear lead from the Government, the public have voted with their feet--or, more accurately, with their wallets. Ten days ago, Unilever--the most powerful player in the global food industry--capitulated to consumer pressure. The company announced that it would stop using GM ingredients in what have become known as Frankenstein food products. Over the following week, just about every other major food company withdrew support for GM food ingredients, removing them from their shelves. Just about the only support left for the products is from the bioscience companies--Monsanto et al--and the Government. The Government have failed to read the public mood, to show leadership and to gain the people's trust as an independent guardian of food safety.

---