Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Holyhead-Crewe-Euston Rail Route

7. Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): What discussions he has had on the prospects for the Holyhead-Crewe-Euston rail route; and if he will make a statement. [85785]

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Office of the Passenger Rail Franchising Director has had regular discussions about improving direct services on the Holyhead-Crewe-Euston route with Railtrack, Virgin West Coast, which is the current service provider, and First North Western, which has made a commitment to provide services from 2000 in addition to the services currently being provided by Virgin.

Mr. Jones: For a generation, that service has been substandard, and quite intolerably so. What new investment, rolling stock and timetables will there be, to the benefit of north Wales users who look to the service to help to attract new industry to the area? Today, my constituency celebrates an £800 million defence contract, which will bring new, high-quality work to the area, and my Raytheon aerospace workers are grateful, but does my right hon. Friend accept that we could attract many more such projects if we had a first-class rail service?

Mrs. Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his imminent elevation to the Privy Council, which is fair recognition of his service to the House and to his constituents. The point that he raised about the Holyhead to Euston route is valid. There has been fragmentation on the route over the past 18 years, but, because of the development of the west coast main line and the services that are to be provided by Virgin West Coast and the other developers, there will be through services which will benefit the economic development of the area.

My hon. Friend's point about the £800 million investment in his area is well taken because, as my colleagues in the Welsh Office have repeatedly said, transport infrastructure in and out of Wales and from north to south Wales is critical. I commend him for raising this matter.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): Will the Minister redouble her efforts? I ask that because a group of Japanese potential investors who recently came to north

15 Jun 1999 : Column 145

Wales by train arrived two hours late and decided, "That's enough; we are not going to invest in north Wales." Travelling on an early train from north Wales is like playing Russian roulette--the service is appalling.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman's point is valid. If we are to improve our economic performance, we must make sure that our transport infrastructure is second to none. The developments on the west coast main line and the spur developments coming off it are critical and, because of that, I have invited Railtrack and the Association of Train Operating Companies to see me in the next few weeks. I want to talk about issues such as that which he has raised; it is vital to all of us and to the economic performance of our country.

Regional Assemblies

8. Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central): If it is the policy of the Government to plan for directly elected regional assemblies in England. [85786]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): We remain committed to directly elected regional government in England where there is demand for it. Meanwhile, the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom continue to be properly covered by the present organisation of the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Cousins: Is it not plain that once the people of regions such as the north-east, Yorkshire, the north-west and the south-west see assemblies in Wales, Scotland and, in due course, London discussing their needs and budgets with central Government, the demand for directly elected assemblies in their own regions will be very strong? It is a time for leadership; there must be leadership, and the Government must indicate clearly what plans and what sort of timetable they are considering, so that we can ask our people to support the proposals in a referendum.

Mr. Caborn: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the Government's position. We have set up regional development agencies, which are there to address the economic deficit that, unfortunately, exists in our English regions. We are now establishing regional chambers, which, in the main, will be in the public sector. The legislation governing regional development agencies will mean that they must cross-check with the regional chambers, and that proper consultation must take place.

We believe that we are managing the changes involved in devolution very effectively. I hope that the RDAs and the regional chambers will gain the confidence of people in the regions, and that when those people are given an opportunity to say whether they want further devolution, they will say that they do.

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): How far has the Government's enthusiasm for regional assemblies been diluted by the disastrous turnout in the European elections?

Mr. Caborn: Not at all.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk): Not only is this positively my last appearance, but it must be clear to the House that this afternoon I am on borrowed time.

15 Jun 1999 : Column 146

I am glad to take the opportunity to wish the Minister for Transport well in her new post. I also thank the Secretary of State for his generous remarks to me during the last Environment questions, and for the impeccable way in which, throughout the past year, he has observed the parliamentary procedures and courtesies. I wish him interesting encounters with my successor, who will respond to today's statement on London Transport.

Do the Government intend a system of proportional representation to be used to elect regional assemblies? Given that, if a first-past-the-post system had been used in the recent European elections, the Labour party's performance would have been even more disastrous than it was, do not the Government face a dilemma? Would they not be better advised to abandon their ill-conceived notion of imposing on the electorate yet another reason for Labour voters not to turn out?

Mr. Caborn: We have no reason to go back on the decisions that were made, which the British electorate supported at the 1997 general election. We will come through. We are not a "here today, gone tomorrow" party, moving around the political spectrum as some Opposition Members do. We do not know what their policies are, because they alter them from day to day, let alone from week to week. We will manage the change--a change that we believe to be in the country's interests, because it addresses both the economic and the democratic deficits.

I wish the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) well. I think, however, that not a new face but a very old one will be taking over from her.

Genetic Modification

9. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): What steps he is taking to ensure environmental considerations identified by his Department are recognised within the ministerial group on bio-technology and genetic modification. [85787]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Environmental considerations are at the forefront of all our decisions on genetically modified organisms. They are fully taken into account by the ministerial group on biotechnology and genetic modification.

Mr. Baker: I hear what the Minister says, but is he aware of the fear that the new committee is being used not to strengthen the protection of the environment, but to shut down opposition from his Department in the face of the fanatically pro-GM lobby? Perhaps the isolation distance that has been eradicated has led to some cross-contamination from some of his rather less environmentally friendly colleagues.

If the Minister is serious about the issue, which I believe him to be, will he arrange for the publication in full of the minutes of the sinister biotechnology presentation group, along with its remit? Does he accept that, until that is done, the Government have no credibility in this regard?

Mr. Meacher: We have made it very clear that we wish to be wholly transparent in the manner in which we deal with the issue. We realise that public opinion is seriously concerned about it--very seriously concerned--

15 Jun 1999 : Column 147

and, indeed, highly polarised. The Government are trying to advance the prospects of the technology, which is certainly important and has potential consumer benefits, in a manner that secures that any risk with regard to the human food chain or the environment is fully taken into account.

The biotechnology and genetic modification Cabinet sub-committee looks at all the evidence. We have openly published almost all the evidence that has been before us. We know that the only way to restore public confidence is by being completely open.

Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): Further to that reply, my right hon. Friend will be aware of reports of the indirect effects of genetically modified crops on organisms such as lacewings and the larvae of monarch butterflies. Has the committee received, or will it receive, such reports? Have the Government commissioned their own laboratory research into such indirect effects?

Mr. Meacher: My Department's committee, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, certainly watches very carefully international research on the issue, particularly with regard to lacewings and the monarch butterfly. Recently, the chairman of ACRE made it clear that it is looking at the full implications, particularly for the latter. However, it was a laboratory study and we need to take account of UK environmental conditions. In addition, the BT--bacillus thuringiensis--maize, the plant concerned in the experiment, is not released in the UK either commercially or experimentally; but we are looking at what are serious scientific results which may have a major effect for the future.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden): What measures has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that the resulting products of farm-scale trials of GM foods do not contaminate the environment?

Mr. Meacher: That is the purpose of the farm-scale evaluations. Over several years, there have been several hundred--I think 600 to 700--small trial plantings of GM crops in this country, but to examine the impact on the environment generally, it is necessary to advance those to farm scale. That is why, this year, we have seven to nine fields which will be planted with oilseed rape and maize and, next year, 20 to 25. We want to get a nationally representative sample, precisely so that we will be able to see the impact that GM crops, as compared with non-GM crops, have on the environment, on invertebrates, on field margins, on insects and on bird populations. Again, we will do that completely openly with independent research contractors and an independent scientific review committee. We will make clear the evidence wholly and transparently before we reach a conclusion.

10. Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr): How many representations he has received during the last 12 months (a) in favour of and (b) against the development of genetically modified crops. [85788]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): During the past 12 months, about 4,000 letters have been received. Almost all expressed concerns on various aspects of genetically modified crops.

Mr. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his sober and rational response to the article by Prince Charles

15 Jun 1999 : Column 148

on 2 June containing his 10 questions. Those are the very questions that the general public want answered. Why are GM foods necessary? In view of the enormous public concern and hostility to these technologies, do we really need GM foods?

Mr. Meacher: The honest answer is that we do not need GM foods, but the technology has some potential benefits. It enables products to have a longer shelf life and to be able to withstand saline or dry conditions in developing countries. There may well be additional benefits that are not yet known. However, we need to be extremely careful in developing the technology to ensure that there is no damage to the food chain or the environment. That is why I have made it clear that we will not allow commercial planting of GM crops until the Government have completed the farm-scale evaluations and have sufficient evidence to reach an authoritative judgment about the impact on the environment.

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): Given the level of alarm that the Minister has expressed, given the fact that people are starving in the world not because of a shortage of food but because of distribution problems, and given the environmental risks that we must inevitably be taking, does the Minister agree that there is no rush to develop these foods?

Mr. Meacher: Indeed, I have made it clear that we will not be rushed into an early decision. I repeat that it would be wrong in my view and that of the Government to turn our back on this technology. It has mainly producer benefits at present but it could have some significant consumer benefits in the long run. However, we should not be stampeded by industrial or commercial interests to take a decision in favour of this technology until we know--and can produce the evidence for everyone to look at--that it is wholly safe.

Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth): My right hon. Friend will have received representations from Monmouthshire about applications to grow genetically modified crops in the area. One of the major concerns has been expressed by organic farmers. What assurance can the Minister give me that there will be no cross-contamination for organic producers?

Mr. Meacher: That is an important issue to which the Government are giving great attention. There have been discussions with organic farmer representatives at official level in my Department and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They are, quite rightly, concerned that their organic products should not be cross-contaminated. The Government wish to protect their interests and to see an increase in organic products in this country because consumer demand is considerably in excess of domestic supply, with consequential balance of payments problems.

The issue is largely one of isolation distances, about which there has been considerable public controversy. Indeed, in regard to the Lushill farm, the Soil Association recently changed its view about the adequacy of isolation distances for oilseed rape, from 200 m to six miles. Thus there needs to be a good deal of further discussion between representatives of GM crop growers and organic farmers in order to try to reach an acceptable accommodation that protects the interests of both.

15 Jun 1999 : Column 149

Next Section

IndexHome Page