| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.22 pm
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): The Minister is right to say that he has a reputation for openness, frankness and candour. That reputation is hard won, hence our disappointment in the Ministry's reaction to the episode that we are considering. The delay in making details available to the public does not reflect well on the arrangements in the Ministry or between Departments. Even if it does not reflect reality, an impression has been given of complacency, inconsistency and incompetence. That is a serious charge, which will damage the Minister's reputation for openness.
It was not acceptable for details to be released to the public through a written answer, which was characterised by its incompleteness. We strongly suspect that the written answer was provided only because the matter was about to become public through other means in other parts of Europe. It was unacceptable that important details were published in a press release, which was separate from the material available to hon. Members. I raised a point of order about that on the evening that the press release was sent out. It was also unacceptable that the Minister had to be dragged to the House the following day to make a statement. The initial delay, too, was unacceptable. I shall revert to the latter point.
The Ministry, and everyone who takes a serious and scientific interest in the matter, knew that seeds from north America had been contaminated at source. It was a matter of common discourse in the scientific journals. On the day of the Minister's statement, I drew his attention to an article by Dr. Phil Dale of the John Innes centre. That was hardly a secret document; it was published in The Times on 18 June 1999. The article made it clear that there was a problem at source with the seed, yet the Department did nothing.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with what he says about scientific articles. I asked the House of Commons Library to do a trawl of parliamentary questions, and I find that none of us, on either the Opposition or Government Benches, tabled any parliamentary questions at any time during this Session on such contamination of seed.
Mr. Heath: I cannot honestly say whether any question was tabled from these Benches--I was not responsible for this area at the time--but I hope that we have been consistent in our criticism of GM and its handling. I do not believe that anyone can challenge Liberal Democrat Members on that.
There was a widespread view that contamination had occurred. What worries me is that, while giving assurances in the House and to growers and consumers, the Department was not instituting precautions such as the testing of seed and investigation at source, or even talking to the Americans and the Canadians, as it has done since the Advanta Seeds episode has come to light. That suggests a laxity in procedures which I would not have expected, given the public interest in the matter.
When the firm information came in on 17 or 19 April--when it was known from Advanta that there was a potential problem--that strange discourse took place between Mr. Ruthven and the Department. I do not believe for a moment that we will get to the bottom of that today. What the Minister said is in flat contradiction to what Mr. Ruthven has said on record, as reported in newspapers and elsewhere. Mr. Ruthven has the advantage of having been at the meetings and been a party to the conversations, which the right hon. Gentleman was not. That must be weighed in the balance.
We must ask ourselves to whose advantage it was that nothing was said. Was it to the advantage of a seed company that was facing potentially large compensation claims--a liability? I suspect that it was not.
Mr. Nick Brown: If it was not to its advantage that nothing was said, why did the seed company not say something?
Mr. Heath: That is precisely my point. The only rational reason why the seed company stopped notifying the farmers at that point was that it received advice from some source or other to do so. We must wait and see what the reason was.
The next question is how the matter was managed within Government. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who has just left the Chamber, said earlier, the difficulty is that the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions all have a finger in the pie. It is not clear whether people were sitting round a table at an early enough stage to develop a strategy for dealing with a potentially difficult issue.What is clear--the Minister admitted it today and apologised for it--is that the territorial Ministers were not advised. That is extraordinary. We have a Cabinet Office and a Cabinet Committee whose job is to co-ordinate government. The one thing that it must co-ordinate is GM seeds, but it cannot be bothered to tell the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Surely somebody has that job--perhaps it should be the Advocate-General. We have never discovered what he does. Somebody should have been responsible for letting the departmental Ministers know, yet that did not happen. I find that extraordinary.
There is the argument--let us put it no higher than that--about whether an appropriate degree of consultation took place with ACRE, English Nature and other interested bodies.
Let us deal with what the Minister told us in his statement. I preface my comments by saying that I accept the general advice that there is no danger to public health or to the environment as a result of the contamination. I must, however, ask specific questions about what the Minister said. He referred to RT73 GM oilseed. He is right: the Conservatives gave licence for a part B release for trial purposes, and also for food use.
The Minister said that this variety of GM oilseed
- is one that had previously been approved in the UK under our strict regulatory regime for food use.
On 18 May, the Minister said that there was no risk to "health or the environment". He has moderated his view since then. He has said that there is no substantial or appreciable risk, and I accept that. But without clear advice beforehand and without the testing on site mentioned by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), how could he know? It was blanket advice, given on the basis of limited information rather than the exhaustive consideration and investigation that should have taken place.
On 18 May, the Minister said that the oil was
- indistinguishable from conventional rape oil; no modified DNA will be present.
- "some refining processes used by industry today may ensure that DNA/protein are efficiently removed. There is no guarantee however that these processes are commonly applied.
I found it curious when the Minister said that
- the GM variety is sterile.--[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 473.]
Mr. Nick Brown: The risk has been described by Brian Johnson of English Nature as "vanishingly small".
Mr. Heath: I think that we have to deal with risks that are vanishingly small in this context. As I say, I honestly do not believe that this is some form of trickery that will make its way across the country and destroy nature before our eyes. However, we claim to have proper precautions in place. Everyone knows about the release of oilseed rape; everyone knows that sports get everywhere in our countryside. Hardly a lane does not have a bit of oilseed rape in it. If we are seeing release, we are seeing release. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that this is conventional, as if this variety of rape will behave differently. Perhaps he will tell me why.
Mr. Brown: The genetically modified part of what is overwhelmingly a conventional crop will behave in a different way, because it is modified to do so.
Mr. Heath: That is an entirely baffling comment. Apparently, it is modified to behave itself to stay within its field boundaries. That is wonderful news. We now have well behaved oilseed rape as a result of genetic modification. I do not believe that. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade me later.
On that day, the right hon. Gentleman made a string of statements, all of which have a degree of validity, but none of which tell the complete position, which we need to know. Frankly, at that stage, if not before--I believe that we should have been told much earlier about the position--a completely candid view should have been expressed to the House. I do not criticise him because I am sure that he gave his statement in good faith, but the more we examine it and look at the detail, the more we realise that many questions still beg an answer.
A major concern for us all has been how the farmers--600 throughout the country are affected, we understand--who have grown the crop would be compensated. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has made announcements, which I wholly welcome, on European Union derogation and how that will work. That will be helpful. It does not solve the difficulties in relation to cancelled contracts, or deal with the fact that there should still be a liability on the part of the seed company. Nor does it answer another question: what role does the right hon. Gentleman feel his Department has, not in providing compensation--I do not think that it should provide it; the seed company should be liable--but in marshalling legal cases, assisting our farmers and ensuring that they are as well catered for as
farmers elsewhere in the European Union? That is absolutely the province of his Department. I would welcome more information on that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |