| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gray: The Minister heard from Advanta on 17 April. On what date did he first consult English Nature and the Food Standards Agency?
Mr. Brown: The FSA was consulted at a very early stage--almost immediately. I shall come to the point on English Nature in a moment.
Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) and then I ask the House to let me make the presentation.
Mr. King: The Minister is making a clear and understandable case that, when Advanta produced that information, there were good reasons to investigate the matter further so that it would not give rise to concern. On those grounds, it would have been extremely sensible for officials to advise that Advanta should be asked not to say anything at that time. Yet the Minister strenuously denies that they did any such thing. It seems to me that the matter could easily be cleared up. In the interests of openness, do I understand that he is undertaking to provide the minute of the meeting between officials and Advanta, so that we can read what was actually said?
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has served in government. He knows the position on providing written records of meetings. I have to rely on the assurances given to me. I was not at the meeting. I do not even know whether there was a written record.
Sir Robert Smith: Obviously that matter creates some concern. The Minister talked about not publishing the information. Will he explain why he could not share it with other rural affairs Departments in the United Kingdom? When Members of this place write to MAFF about certain issues, their letters are passed to those other Departments for reply. How can we have confidence that those Departments know what MAFF knows when they write such replies?
Furthermore, although the Minister minimises the risk to health and to the environment, there was certainly a commercial risk to those people who bought the seed.
Mr. Brown: The territorial Departments should have been drawn more fully into the discussions at an early stage. For that, I apologise on behalf of the Government.
Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Brown: I should like to make some progress, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman later.
Consideration of all these issues takes place against a background of already heightened public concern about GM products. Our approach, which was paralleled by other affected countries--the decisions are not unique to the UK--was first to seek the advice of our experts. Because the matter is complex, that includes legal advice as to the legal situation, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) hinted in his intervention on his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk.
Officials from the FSA and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were involved in discussions as soon as the incident was reported to the Government. The process of consulting the expert committees was, of necessity, a continuing one, because the early information we received was incomplete. The Government obtained early and informal reactions from the secretaries to the committees on the basis of the first and incomplete information. Subsequently, the secretaries consulted committee members and were able to convey their advice to the Government.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk tried to make much of the fact that English Nature was not consulted by the Government. The fact is that English Nature advises on nature conservation issues. The key questions in this incident related to environmental and human health implications. Those are for ACRE and for the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, whose specific remit is to look at the implications of genetic modifications.
Efforts have been made to portray English Nature as being at odds with the Government over this incident. That is simply not the case. The chairman of English Nature has confirmed that English Nature does not think the affected crops need to be destroyed. English Nature has offered advice on the nature conservation aspects of the incident--as would be expected, because that is its statutory function. An English Nature expert, Brian Johnson, said publicly--on the BBC--that any risk of GM pollen from these plants pollinating native plants was "vanishingly small". The hon. Member for South Suffolk referred to dangers to the organic farm movement. He did not say where the organic oilseed rape was located and he did not say whether there was any; it would be extraordinary if there were. The advice that Brian Johnson has given is consistent with the advice that we have received from ACRE.
The Government have been accused of allowing farmers unwittingly to plant the crop by delaying an announcement. If there were anything in that charge, it would be a serious one.
Mr. Brown: Let me deal with this issue before I give way to the hon. Gentlemen and to anyone who may be queuing up behind me. I see that at least part of the House is satisfied.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): The right hon. Gentleman has no support from those behind him.
Mr. Brown: Come the Division, the hon. Gentleman will find that he is wrong.
The fact is that the Government were first notified by the seed company once the planting season for the variety was already well under way. I have already explained, exhaustively, that we needed to establish the facts and the technical and legal implications before we could make any sensible announcement. If anyone doubts my motive before I made the announcement, let me make it clear that I wanted to find a workable way forward for this country's farmers who, after all, are the innocent party in this case. That is what we were striving to do. I shall have something to say that will interest those who care more about our farmers rather than making political mischief.
The Government have followed up the announcement of 17 May with further action on the practical and legal implications. The legal advice to Ministers is that we have the power to order the destruction of a crop in specific circumstances. Let me make this clear: if there were a threat to human health or the environment, we would order the destruction of the affected crops. There is not such a threat, so the legislation cannot be invoked. That is the legal advice to Ministers.
Therefore, as the advice I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment published on 28 May made clear, it is for individual farmers to decide whether to destroy or to maintain the crops. However, the disposal options for the harvested crop are likely to be extremely limited--this point was perfectly properly raised--as there is no consent for the GM element of the crop to be marketed.
To offer farmers greater flexibility in this difficult situation, I negotiated a special derogation to the rules for EU crop subsidy payments. That allows farmers to claim subsidy payments on crops planted up to 15 June, instead of 31 May, as normal. Farmers therefore have two options as the position stands. Thanks to the extended EU planting deadline, some farmers may have the option of destroying the affected crop and planting another crop in its place. Others will wish to maintain the crop as normal to qualify for EU subsidy payments.
The expert advice to Government is that these crops present no danger to the environment. However, in discussion with the National Farmers Union and the seed company Advanta, I have explored the possibility of negotiating a further derogation to the EU subsidy scheme rules to allow farmers to mow or destroy the crop straight away rather than to maintain it to maturity. They will still qualify for the subsidy payments.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): Will my right hon. Friend explain why farmers need to look to European subsidies to make up for the losses that they may incur? Why is the company not liable? It sold a product that was not what it was claimed to be.
Mr. Brown: This issue is fraught with legal peril, including points about the mitigation of loss, and it has taken time to find a way through it. I hope that we have found a clear-cut way and I shall explain it to the House.
I must stress that what I am about to explain is not legal as things now stand, but my officials are in urgent discussion with the European Commission to see whether it is a possible option. I believe that it is the most desirable way forward. I and Ministers in other member states are pressing for the outcome and a decision is due to be voted on today.
If we have a clear outcome by the end of today or tomorrow, the House and the industry, including the farmers affected, will be told. I believe that the proposal offers the best way forward, which is also the view of Advanta and the National Farmers Union.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): Does the Minister's legal advice include an analysis of the damages that could become liabilities under the principle that the polluter pays in both the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and arrangements in Community law that are being extended under the proposed directive on environmental liability? Yesterday, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny voted for a debate on the Floor of the House on the directive, but, regrettably, that decision was overturned by the Leader of the House this morning.
Does the Minister agree that if the Government are to be open and transparent, we should be able to see all the legal advice and have access to all the material in the Library? The Government should be more candid and open in debating such questions, so that the British people and the farmers--whom we rightly say are innocent--do not find themselves at a severe disadvantage.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |