| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
- Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
Oral Answers to Questions
CABINET OFFICE
The Minister was asked--
GM Foods
1. Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): When he next intends to meet the members of the biotechnology presentation group to discuss Government policy on genetically modified foods. [86779]
4. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
What plans he has to make public the work of the biotechnology presentation group. [86783]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham):
In line with the practice adopted by successive Administrations, it is not the normal practice of Government to reveal details of internal discussions, a principle that is reflected in the code of practice on access to Government information.
Mr. Chope:
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he not agree that the mere fact that the presentation group was established shows that the Government are more obsessed with media manipulation--to try to make their policies taste better--than with serving the public?
Will the Minister confirm that, on 21 May, when he made his statement to the House, he omitted to refer to a quite significant point in the report from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, who both said that they thought it essential that there should be health monitoring of all who are consuming GM foods? Why did he choose to make no reference to that in his statement of 21 May, and why was that statement by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser played down in the so-called fact sheet issued by the Cabinet Office?
Dr. Cunningham:
I do not agree with any of that, because it is all rubbish. The reality is that all Governments have brought together Ministers, advisers and civil servants, the better to present the reality and facts of their policy; and that will continue. As for playing down the report of the Government's chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser, I published the report in full on the day that I made statement to the House, although I was not obliged to do so under the code.
Madam Speaker:
I call Mr. Norman Baker. [Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] Order. This is perhaps another occasion on which a letter has simply been put on the board by a Department, but the Member himself has not been informed. Perhaps the Minister will follow through on that. I call Mr. Williams.
Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr):
When will the Government realise that the problems with GM foods are not simply a matter of presentation? The public have decided that there is no need for GM foods, and are taking their lead--in showing
Dr. Cunningham:
I do not agree with any of that either. The Government have never believed that it was only a matter of presentation; we believed that it was also a matter of choice. That is why, unlike our predecessors, we decided to introduce labelling of all genetically modified foods, so that consumers could have a choice. As for being off message, the Government's position is absolutely clear: we want an open informed debate about the issues. However, as the Government's chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser concluded, no inherent danger is presented to the public from genetically modified food.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
It is a pleasure to be opposite the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and a pleasure that I hope to enjoy on several occasions in the future--[Hon. Members: "For years."] Not for years, no, I hasten to tell Labour Members.
The Minister will know that the biotechnology presentation group, in the minutes of its meeting of 10 May, took the view that it should revise the paper from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser. Subsequently, on 21 May, the Minister made a statement to the House and published such a document. Is the document that the Minister published precisely the document that was originally submitted to Ministers?
Dr. Cunningham:
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and welcome him to his new and important role on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he will do well and I hope that he will enjoy it. As for the paper from the chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser, let me be candid with him and with the House. A draft paper was presented to Ministers. It was then revised by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser to include some recommendations. No changes were made to the paper at any time by Ministers.
Mr. Lansley:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It is clear that the paper that was published was not the paper that was originally put to Ministers. Will he undertake to the House that he will publish, in addition to the paper that we saw on 21 May on the health implications of genetically modified foods, the paper as it was originally put to Ministers? Or does he have some reason for withholding that original advice as put by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser?
Dr. Cunningham:
No, I will not publish it, because after discussion with Ministers, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser decided to change the way in which the paper was presented, but none of their recommendations or conclusions changed the way in which the paper was presented. When it was presented, it included some recommendations from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser.
No changes were made to the paper by Ministers at any time. I cannot say that any more clearly or candidly to the House and the hon. Gentleman. The chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser have both made it clear
not only that Ministers did not seek to change the paper but that any such proposal would rightly have been resisted had it been made. It never was made.
2. Ms Claire Ward (Watford):
If he will make a statement on the progress of the better government for older people project. [86780]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle):
The annual report of the better government for older people programme was published on Monday. It showed how older people themselves are actively engaged in the design and delivery of the public services that they use and rely on. This is a key part of the modernising public services initiative.
The programme has also set up an on-line learning network to disseminate good practice and discussion and provide advice and guidance.
Ms Ward:
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Watford is one of the pilot projects and that there has been much success in setting up new services for older people and consulting them about what services they would like? Will he provide information to the House on how we can ensure that those projects and the benefits from them are available in the longer term to many more older people?
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
That is a tricky one.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
It is certainly not tricky for my side of the House. I will answer directly. I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent project in Watford. There are 27 other pilot schemes around the country. I stress that they are pilot schemes. They have been running for one year, and one of the objectives is that they will roll out after two years. We are looking at ways of finding seed funding to ensure that we can extend the good lessons that have been learned from the projects to other areas. We are looking at ways in which lessons on good practice can be disseminated. I am happy to report to the House that, on the basis of the first annual report of the programme, I have every expectation that there will be widespread take-up of the lessons learned.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
If the hon. Gentleman wants better government for older people, why did he make no representations whatever to the Treasury against the abolition of tax credits on dividends, given the peculiarly damaging effect that it had on thousands upon thousands of relatively low-income elderly investors the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Kilfoyle:
The Government recognise that older people come from different points. That is what underpinned the pensions review. The appointment of a royal commission to examine the funding for long-term care for the elderly is another way in which we are approaching the wider needs of older people.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |