| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman calls on me to be candid, and I always try to be candid with the House--as, deep in their hearts, Conservatives Members know. I shall therefore share in full with the House the note that has just been given to me. It says that officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at that meeting gave no instructions to Advanta not to contact farmers or merchants. Nor did officials say they were going to do tests--Advanta was going to do further
tests. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just for the sake of absolute transparency, I am quite happy to cross the Floor and give this note to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Yeo: I welcome this new spirit of candour.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): Will my hon. Friend give way?
I note that the Minister has contradicted specifically the report in today's edition of The Guardian, and I am aware that the reporter concerned gave an opportunity to spokesmen from both MAFF and DETR to comment last night on that report. I believe that this sequence of events makes it even more important that the Minister should place in the public domain the contemporary records of the meetings concerned. Given that he is willing to share with me the scribbled advice given by him to the civil servants in the box, I trust that he will publish those minutes as soon as possible after this debate.
I repeat my last two questions: when did the Minister or his officials warn Advanta that the situation was more serious than first thought, and when were lawyers first consulted? If the Minister is unable to answer those questions fully, the suspicion will grow that he and his officials may indeed have been aware that there was a risk that a crime was being committed. In case anyone believes that that crime was just a technicality--a sort of environmental parking ticket--let me point out that contradicting the relevant section of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, if tried in a Crown court, carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and an unlimited fine.
I hope that the Minister will explain both his actions and his inactions in this matter. I hope that his statements will be supported by documents available to the public. He must understand that his previous statements have reduced trust and increased suspicion. The Government's abject failure to keep their promises about not allowing commercial planting of GM crops until the trials were completed, their dithering and inaction in the face of knowledge that the law might be being broken, their lack of openness and candour in dealing with farmers, the public and Parliament, mean that if the Minister confines his reply today to announcements about yet more advisory bodies, future random checks on seed imports and consultation over separation distances, he will be admitting his own negligence. He will be condemning himself as a man who cannot be trusted, whose weakness and incompetence put farmers and the environment at risk and who, even by the abysmally low standards of this Labour Government, is not fit to hold office.
I commend the motion to the House.
4.43 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
- endorses Her Majesty's Government's approach to the development of GM technology in agriculture; believes that the Government has responded in a responsible, open, considered and proportionate way to the recent discovery of the adventitious presence of GM seed in conventional oilseed rape seed; supports the priority the Government
- has given and continues to give to the protection of public health and the environment, and its continued determination to act on the best available scientific advice; applauds the creation of the new, independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on GM issues; welcomes the announcement by the seed company Advanta, following discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that they will provide a fair and equitable compensation package to affected farmers; and commends the Government for the action it is taking at both national and international level to minimise the risk of a similar incident occurring in the future.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be familiar with the plays of Robert Bolt, particularly "A Man for All Seasons", in which Thomas More is framed by his enemies. After a particularly indefensible and implausible charge is put against him, More says:
- That's a horse that won't run, Master Secretary.
- There will be others.
We have had a succession of complaints from the Conservative party, suggesting that the Government are doing things wrongly. Only a few months ago, all the hedges were going to be ripped up in this country and farmers would be denied their arable aid payments, pork chops would have to be de-boned, the shepherds' crooks industry would be closed down, the beef on the bone ban would be reintroduced, our pets would have to be boiled before going abroad, and so on. This is the latest attempt, and it is more pathetic than most. The over-riding point that the Government established early on, and which the hon. Member for South Suffolk has not challenged, is that there is no risk to public health or to the environment in this accident.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to The Times, because on Wednesday 7 June it contained a very good commentary on GM crops issues by Nigel Hawkes. He observed, although it was not his main point, that the hon. Gentleman
- was raising fears rather than addressing the issue.
Mr. Brown: I will give way in a moment, but let me just finish my introduction.
It is very telling that the key charge made by the Opposition, as I pointed out on 18 May, is about process, not substance. The Government have responded in a responsible, measured and proportionate way to this incident. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman referred to an article in The Times. He will be familiar, as we all are, with the consequences of being quoted out of context. The quotation referred to in the article was taken from a
remark I made to explain the difference in concept between genetic modification and ordinary plant breeding. It was taken out of context by the journalist concerned.
Mr. Brown: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. Nevertheless, the point remains that his attack on the Government is about the process, not the substance. [Interruption.] It is impossible to interpret his speech this afternoon any other way. So let me remind right hon. and hon. Members of the key facts as I set them out for the House in my statement on 18 May.
The Government were advised by Advanta Seeds on 17 April that some of its supplies of conventional rapeseed sold and sown in 1999 and 2000 might have contained a small proportion of genetically modified seed. This seed had been sold and sown in several European Union member states, possibly including the United Kingdom. The full facts were not known at that time.
It now appears that the seed was sold in France, Germany, Sweden and Luxembourg, as well as the UK. This is a problem with EU-wide and international implications, and it requires a common solution.
On learning of the potential problem from the company, the Government took action to investigate the implications for public health and the environment, as well as to assess the legal implications, so that appropriate action could be taken. The Government established that the genetic modification in question--RT73--had previously been approved in the UK for food use in 1995 and for field trials in 1997.
The expert committees specifically tasked with examining the food and environmental safety of genetically modified products--the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes--had both cleared it. The Government asked both ACRE and the Food Standards Agency to look at the circumstances of that specific incident.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) rose--
Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Brown: I want to make my presentation. If Opposition Members think that it is incomplete, I am willing to take interventions at the end. I ask the House to hear me first. I shall take interventions later.
Those committees confirmed--initially and subsequently in formal advice--that the product presented no risk to human health or to the environment. That advice has been placed in the Library.
Having established those facts, the Government were in a position to provide balanced and proportionate advice on the implications of the incident and on how to deal with it. My Ministers of State accordingly did so in both Houses on 17 May, when they set out the steps that the Government are taking to address the wider issues on seed purity highlighted by the incident.
The Government have been criticised for delay. However, as I have already made clear, our approach throughout has been to establish as many of the facts as
possible so that we can give accurate and responsible guidance to farmers and consumers. Given the uncertainties of the incident when it was first reported to us, it would have been premature and potentially alarmist to have published incomplete information. In any case, we were reassured at an early stage--that is a crucial point--by the knowledge that the GM product in question did not pose a threat to health or to the environment. Of course, we had the 1995 and 1997 technical assessments to guide us.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |