House of Commons
Thursday 1 July 1999
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
MADAM SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Madam Speaker from this day's sitting, pursuant to leave given on 23 June.
Whereupon, Sir Alan Haslehurst, The Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
The Minister was asked--
Pet Passports
1. Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): If he will make a statement on the implementation of the Government's policy on passports for pets. [87914]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): A pilot project will be in place as soon as possible, and in any event, by next April. The main scheme will be in place by April 2001. Good progress is being made towards meeting those targets.
Mr. Colman: I thank the Minister for what I take to be a reaffirmation of his support for the pet travel scheme, which he announced to the House in March. I was concerned about some press speculation that there had been a change, so I am pleased to hear that the scheme is proceeding as planned. To move forward those proceedings, will he release information about improved vaccines, microchips and blood-testing laboratories so that owners can prepare their pets for travel to or from the United Kingdom?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has raised a very good point, which is at the heart of the scheme. Information about the microchips to be used is in the public domain now; for those who are interested, it can be found on my Department's website, where it was placed on 30 June. In the next few weeks we hope to be able to put in the public domain information on vaccines and the laboratories that are able to undertake testing.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): Having seen the mess that the Government have made of passports for people, we shall not hold our breath for the introduction of their passports for pets scheme. The Minister must
realise that allowing the story to be spun out in April in the run-up to the local elections raised the hopes of many, such as my constituents, the Prestons, who were in Japan at the time, that the scheme might be introduced promptly. Instead, we are to have a year of foot-dragging, denying those who are prepared to take part in the scheme the opportunity to do so. Hopes have been dashed and the Minister is responsible for that.
Mr. Brown: That is nonsensical; under the previous Government, we had 18 years of foot-dragging and no indication of any progress whatever. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), initiated the scientific inquiry. We analysed the results and then acted. We are proceeding in a measured and responsible way. The pilot scheme has been well thought through; it covers all possible modes of transportation. We intend to move from that pilot to full change and, once that change has been made, the scheme will be widely used and, from the information that is available to me, widely welcomed.
Research Expenditure
2. Mr. Derek Twigg (Halton): How much money will be spent by his Department on research in the current financial year. [87915]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Ministry's budget for research and development in 1999-2000 is £125 million. The House will be interested to know that an example of such expenditure is a report that is being published today by the Institute of Occupational Medicine on the effects of exposure to organophosphate sheep dips, which was commissioned by the previous Government in 1995. It is a very important report, about which I shall give a further, longer written answer later today.
Mr. Twigg: Will my hon. Friend pursue his analysis with the Government's scientific adviser at the utmost speed? Will he be talking to manufacturers of sheep dips?
Mr. Rooker: We shall immediately refer the report that has been published today, which is based on the research that we have funded, to the Veterinary Products Committee and the special sub-committee of the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. I am asking manufacturers of sheep dips for urgent meetings early next week.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): The Government have recently been forced to make significant cuts in the research budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in many other areas of its expenditure, as a result of the mushrooming of the Phillips inquiry, the very tight settlement on running costs which was accepted under the comprehensive spending review and the failure to sell Covent Garden market. Yesterday, the permanent secretary made it clear to the Select Committee on Agriculture that MAFF expenditure remains very tight. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be no further unforeseen cuts in the research and development budget or other important areas of the Ministry's programmes?
Mr. Rooker: We are not planning any more unforeseen cuts. The cuts have been regrettable. We are very much a
science-based Ministry--all the £125 million R and D budget is policy-driven; none is blue-skies research. Given our running costs of less than £700 million, hon. Members will realise the scale of MAFF's science base. We are not planning further reductions and will be very careful about those that we have had to make simply due to the comprehensive spending review. All key areas of MAFF's work in R and D will certainly continue.
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North): If the Institute of Occupational Medicine's scientific report suggests further investigation into the long-term adverse health effects caused by short-term exposure to organophosphates, will MAFF fund it, and to what extent?
Mr. Rooker: The report is very large. There is a suggestion of further research, although it is clear from volume 1 that the institute has discovered a source of problems with OP sheep dips that relates to farmers or users coming into contact with the concentrate, giving unexpected results. We shall pursue that urgently with our scientific advisers.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): As chairman of the all-party organophosphate groups, I very much welcome the report and the statement that the Minister has just made. However, will he address the very serious concerns of victims, who have been waiting for the report for many years? They and the all-party group very much welcome the proactive attitude of the Minister and his colleagues, which contrasts with that of their predecessors, who always seemed to find excuses not to do anything. Will he give us an idea of the proposed timetable? How soon will COT--the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment--report, and how soon after that will he be able to tell the House what action he proposes to take to help those whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined by exposure to those very dangerous chemicals?
Mr. Rooker: As I said in my initial answer--I want to be absolutely fair about this--the report that is published today, funded by MAFF, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Health, was originally commissioned in 1995 by our predecessors. Given that it has taken a while and that the research took place over several years, we have nevertheless set up a sub-committee of COT to consider the wider issue of OPs, well beyond their use in sheep dips. The report to be published today will be referred to COT urgently, but it is also being referred to the Veterinary Products Committee urgently for a preliminary assessment. In addition, I have asked to meet the manufacturers as quickly as possible.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): As a member of the all-party group, I also welcome the announcement but is it possible, without pre-judging the matter, to suspend the use of OPs until such further research has been commissioned and received?
Mr. Rooker: If we are to ban or suspend the use of OP sheep dips, I must have a really good reason--one that is judge-proof, so that some sleek lawyer does not run round the corner and unstitch what we have done. That is why we are sending the report urgently to our own scientific advisers on the Veterinary Products Committee
for an urgent pre-assessment, and speaking to the manufacturers. COT, which is considering the wider issue, will report before the end of the year. I shall not wait until the end of the year, however, for an assessment by our scientific advisers of the report published today to see whether they can recommend any preliminary action that we could take before that.GM Crops
3. Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): What progress he has made in (a) defining and (b) monitoring an effective quarantine zone around genetically modified crop trials. [87916]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Separation distances for GM crops were set out in the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops--SCIMAC--guidelines published last month. SCIMAC will enforce those through legally binding contracts, inspections and penalties for non-compliance. We are investigating the possibility of making those provisions statutory. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is monitoring gene transfer at selected GM trial sites.
Mr. Simpson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is he aware that in April, the National Institute of Agricultural Botany identified that there has been pollen transfer well beyond the SCIMAC guidelines of 400 m where a GM crop barrier is in place? Is he also aware that the Scottish Crop Research Institute identified a pollen transfer of 4,000 m in the same month--mainly where bees are the pollen vector? Has the Minister any plans for the introduction of effective no-fly zones around GM crop trials? If not, on the basis of the principle that the polluter pays, can he say whether aggrieved parties should now look to pursue actions against the farmer, the Government or the bee?
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend raised the issue of liability in an interesting debate yesterday. On recent research--specifically, the John Innes research, commissioned by MAFF, because we take the potential contamination of other crops by GM crops very seriously--we are considering the advice that we receive from the report.
SCIMAC set those crop separation distances on the basis of accepted and established practice in the agricultural sector in relation to seed transfers and potential cross-contamination between crops of different types, so one can understand the logic behind the separation distances recommended by SCIMAC. However, SCIMAC has made it very clear that it is prepared to review the position. Some sectors, such as the organic sector, are concerned about possible cross-contamination, and we urge it to discuss that with SCIMAC to see whether current separation distances are adequate.
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes):
I do not know whether the Minister knows much about this, because he is the Minister responsible for fish rather than for GM crops, but is he aware that if a multinational company obtains a licence to grow GM crops in Greece or any European country, it can bring the technology and the licence to
Mr. Morley:
Although sanction for release can be obtained in other European countries, we have to approve it in this country. If we recognise that there is a problem, we can take appropriate action within the United Kingdom. The issue has been recently discussed further within the European Union and agreed guidelines have been put forward, which tighten control at EU level as well as national level.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk):
Is the Minister aware that only two weeks ago English Nature reiterated its advice that no herbicide tolerant or insect resistant genetically modified crop should be grown commercially in this country for at least three and probably five years? Is he also aware that this is the view of the British Medical Association, the Science and Technology Select Committee, Friends of the Earth, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and of many other responsible organisations and individuals? Why will the Labour Government not say clearly, without qualification, that no commercial planting of those genetically modified crops can take place in Britain until the research into their environmental impact has been completed?
Mr. Morley:
That is exactly the situation now. There are no commercially planted genetically modified crops within the United Kingdom. There is a commercial moratorium, but research is being carried out. That is exactly what English Nature has been arguing for. If issues such as the effect on biodiversity are identified during that research and evaluation, appropriate action can be taken. There will be no planting of pesticide resistant crops within three to five years.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |