| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Underpinning all this is the inescapable fact that the seed business is international, and if we intend to regulate it, standards must be set. There are currently gaps in European Union and international law.
The incident has highlighted the importance of putting in place up-to-date regulatory systems to reflect the implications of the worldwide development of GM technology for the seed industry. That includes the need for clear and explicit product descriptions for consumers. An important objective of the British Government is to protect consumer choice. As my hon. Friend says, the seed trade is international.
The regulation of seed purity is an EU and international issue, and action is required at EU and international level. That is why we have raised the subject as a matter of urgency with the European Commission and our EU partners, and in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I have written to Commissioner Byrne urging him to accelerate the setting of new EU standards for seed purity. I have discussed that matter with my colleagues at the recent informal meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers, and there was general agreement that it should be addressed urgently. Technical work has already begun, and Ministers will discuss it again at the June Council.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): On the consultation and the inquiry, can the Minister confirm that farmers will be given a brief resume of the findings
whenever they are finally made available? Many farmers would be grateful for the kind of guidance that could result.
Mr. Brown: As soon as we have something further to say to farmers, we will ensure that they are notified as fully as we can, but I do not know where the affected farmers are, so we will put the information in the public domain. I am sure that by doing that, and also through their union, we will get the information to the farmers.
On agreed international standards, we have taken immediate action in the United Kingdom to minimise the chance of the problem recurring. My Department is carrying out a study into seed sourcing and the possibility that GM presence may occur in seeds. The report of the study's preliminary findings is being published today and has been placed in the Library. Members will have a chance to consider it.
The report will inform the system of seed import spot checks that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has introduced as part of the existing inspection and enforcement arrangements for GM organisms.
Officials in my Department and in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are working with the UK seed industry to develop an industry-wide code of practice on issues relating to the sourcing of seed and monitoring GM presence. I am glad to say that the industry has responded positively to that initiative.
It is unfortunate that Opposition Members are trying to make political capital out of an accident. Of course that accident is worrying for the farmers who, unfortunately, have been caught up in it, but I am trying to resolve their fears without their suffering financial loss.
Mr. Yeo: Damage to the farmers is what the Opposition are concerned about; that is why we tabled the motion. The Minister said that he might not be able to publish a minute of the meeting that took place between his officials and Advanta, because it might not exist. If a minute does not exist, it is difficult to understand how he can be so sure that certain things were not said. Be that as it may, he told the House that his officials were in continuous contact with the company for a month. There must be some minutes of some of those meetings. For the purpose of clearing up the doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) rightly raised about the difference between advice and an instruction, will the Minister at least undertake to publish all the minutes that exist of those meetings, so that the House and the industry can be clear about exactly what advice or information was passed to and from Advanta?
Mr. Brown: Subject to advice that I receive from officials once this exchange is over, if the information exists and if I can put it in the public domain, I am willing to do so. However, there may be some reason why I cannot keep that pledge. If there is such a reason, I shall explain it. A good explanation would be that there is no written record, for example. I want to be open and candid,
and if there is something that I can put in the public domain I will do so, although there are no precedents from the previous Government to guide me in that direction.
Mr. Paterson: Following on from that point, if there are no written records, can we see a diary of the telephone conversations in which each of the other Departments and the devolved Departments were informed of these events?
Mr. Brown: Those Departments were first informed at official level--but as I have already told the House, the devolved territories should have been involved earlier. I apologise for the fact that they were not. My Department's involvement with the devolved Administrations is greater than that of many others, and we have developed good working relationships with the devolved authorities in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I want to maintain relationships built on candour, and I regret that we did not get the information to them quickly enough.
Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that it would be worrying if the company and/or the Government were aware of the problem, but let farmers go ahead and sow the seeds, causing all that damage and cost, which could have been avoided? Is not that one of the most serious aspects? Can he assure the House that that is not what happened and that the Government did not say, "Oh, let's keep this quiet while we do the tests."? Logic seems to suggest that that might have happened, so can the right hon. Gentleman give us the clear facts?
Mr. Brown: I can do better than that. As well as confirming that I can put the minutes of the early meetings in the public domain--I understand that there is no reason why I should not; therefore I shall do so, as I want to be candid--I can also announce to the House that the European Union committee has met, voted on the scheme that I described and approved it. As of now, a new option is available to UK farmers, and, indeed, to farmers in other parts of the EU. It is now possible for farmers to take the tops off the affected crop and still claim the arable aid payment under the rules. That is the best way forward, and I am pleased to tell the House that that option is available, because it will go a long way to resolving the issues. All Members, whatever their political point of view, will be pleased with what I have said, as it is welcome news for the farmers affected.
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall): That is welcome news, but has there been any discussion of the potential for consequential loss and damages--not specifically for those who have sown the rape, but because the destruction of so much rape, and the consequent lack of it in the market, may push up the feed price?
Mr. Brown: Many perils threaten the common agricultural policy, but an immediate lack of oilseed rape is not one of them. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
It is my contention that the Government have acted throughout in a responsible, balanced and proportionate manner. We have investigated the facts and the legal and scientific implications, and have issued information and advice accordingly. We have taken the lead in pressing for action at EU level and have secured the result that we
were looking for. We have made our representations at international level and have also taken interim measures in the UK to minimise the possibility of recurrence, pending EU and international agreement on the wider issues.The House will have taken a hard look at the motion and the amendment, but before hon. Members make a final decision, I invite them to take a hard look at the latest eco-warrior, the Swampy of South Suffolk. The hon. Member for South Suffolk has tried to present himself as a green consumerist, who is anxious only to discover the facts. Before falling for his words, I ask the House to consider his contribution on a different matter. It displays a different swing of the famous Tory "yeo-yeo" on a debate about a real public protection issue: BSE.
On 25 March 1996, the hon. Gentleman said to the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who was then Secretary of State for Health:
- Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been an act of gross irresponsibility on his part to overreact to the hysterical demands coming from Labour Members?
- Does he further agree that if the British beef industry is destroyed as a result of that hysteria, voters in the rural economy, which will have suffered a devastating blow, will know whom to blame?
- Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if billions of pounds of extra public money were suddenly to be available for the purposes of protecting children's health, it would certainly not be sensible to use that money to pay for the slaughter of millions of healthy British cattle?--[Official Report, 25 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 720.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |