| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.32 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): I am pleased that we are debating this subject in the week in which the royal family have also decided to wade into it. I shall particularly refer to comments made by the Duke of Edinburgh, but I only wish that he had had an opportunity to listen to the wise and thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
What has happened reflects badly on us all, so it would be helpful if we were to begin by taking on board the shared responsibilities and history of neglect in which we have all played a part. Some of those matters were spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), but I would add that we cannot ignore the way in which the whole House drifted without criticism into endorsing the biotechnology patenting regime, under which it has been effectively presumed that people can sell the ownership of life itself. It has launched society into a gold-rush of greed in pursuit of the growing and ownership of crops that no one wants, which is seen as a way not to feed the planet, but to own the food chain.
I welcome the actions that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken. I also welcome the fact that we have signed up to the biosafety protocol, that we have introduced product labelling and that we are committed to zero contamination of non-GM crops and, belatedly, to the review of separation distances. I hope that that will result in our agreeing with the position taken by the British Bee-Keepers Association, which suggests that the separation distance should be six miles. Even so, we are still getting it wrong.
I want to make it clear that we are ill-advised to continue with the current GM trials as they are constructed. We are wrong to set standards for animal feed labelling lower than those for labelling food that goes direct to humans. We are wrong not to have introduced our own GM producer liability Bill. Nothing shows that more clearly than the experiences with Advanta.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on getting Advanta to come up with a compensation framework, but I must ask the House whether any of us are surprised that this crisis has been thrown up. Has any of us seriously doubted what has been going on? For almost a year, I have argued that an industry that failed to convince the public would seek to corrupt the food chain so that it could throw up its hands and say, "It's out there--there's nothing we can do." That was a guaranteed certainty, and it does not surprise me that Advanta has suggested a compensation scheme. Look at the wording; it came up with that scheme specifically to say, "But we accept no liability."
The compensation scheme has been suggested so that no cases go to court, because that would bring into existence a legal framework that would say to Advanta, "You bloody well are liable!" That is what it fears most and what the House ought to push forward. It is sad that the only people who appear to face prosecution are those young kids who go out in the fields and pull up the crops. In Austria, France or Sweden, they would do so under Government instruction. We have a topsy-turvy view of who is responsible for the things that are most damaging to our environment, our society and our long-term future.
I do not support the current trials because they are based on poor science or non-science and will not show up what the tests do not ask. They will not tell us anything about whether something is safe for human health and will tell us little about horizontal gene transfer. They will tell us nothing about what scientists refer to as biomagnification or of emergent characteristics. All those fundamental issues are central to the challenges presented by the technology, which is why I support the claims made for the five-year freeze programme.
It is bizarre that we are undertaking trials when there is no public support or demand for them and I read in The Times that so desperate are we to achieve co-operation in the process that the Ministry of Defence has had to resort to conscripting the tenants of its own farms to take part. That is the first occasion in peacetime on which the MOD has had to conscript its own farmers to take part in trials of products that no one wants. I am not sure how it will enforce no-fly zones around its farms, nor am I sure whether it is on the lookout for B52s or in fear of 52 bees.
The MOD has had to step in to fill the gap because the rest of society is running away from the issues and all that has stopped us becoming a laughing stock is the Duke's intervention. He has stepped in to create his own interesting distraction. It was up to him to make the decision, but he seems to be on particularly dangerous and thin ice in suggesting that there are dangers in cross-breeding with exotic foreign varieties. However, he was wrong to suggest that GM plant growing is no different from conventional plant breeding. Someone has to have a word with him. History does not bear out an analysis that a fish gene has not crossed with a soya bean because one likes polo and the other prefers rugger or one reads The Times and the other the Beano.
That sort of propagation--the ability of GM technology to produce new products--crosses all the frontiers that nature has ever set for us. That is the issue: not compatibility of interests, but the incompatibility of species. We have been presented with new challenges and we have to analyse the risk and consequences of new toxins being generated, new resistances being created and unexpected further transfers between species taking place. There is indifference to those threats. The Duke of Hazards has ploughed into the debate, leaping into his own car of convenience--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a member of the royal family, which is legitimate to an extent, but he ought to be careful with the words he uses.
Mr. Simpson: I shall confine myself to saying that we would all be wise to pause before pursuing ignorance into folly. The consequences for society will be profound if we get it wrong.
I shall set out the six challenges that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, must tackle if we are serious about the debate. First, we should stop GM trials and provide a breathing space for science to set the necessary new benchmarks, against which to measure the consequences of the technology. Secondly, until we have met the first challenge, we should reject the inclusion of GM crops in the national seed list. Thirdly, we should commit ourselves to seed purity standards which ensure that GM free means GM free--that is, zero tolerance. Fourthly, we should introduce compulsory labelling for animal feed that is no less exacting than that required for humans. Fifthly, we should prosecute the polluter, not the protester. Sixthly, we should introduce polluter liability legislation, which requires a compulsory insurance scheme to be put in place before consent is considered.
Those are challenges not only to the House, but all those outside who advocate charging into the technology. We should tell them to put their assets where there assertions are. Someone has to be held liable, whether we are considering the Crown estate, a personal estate or the House's estate. That person cannot be the farmer or the consumer. We have a duty to establish that as the moral high ground, which we are all willing to occupy.
6.41 pm
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): I want to repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) at the outset. The debate is not about the benefits or otherwise of genetic modification. Conservative Members accept that there are plenty of potential benefits to producers, the environment, consumers, and--as is already happening--health care. Each development has to be properly assessed and trialled. There should not be a blanket moratorium, because that ignores the different stages of each development. The debate is about ministerial competence.
It is not surprising that the Minister and his supporters have floated several red herrings. They are nothing to do with the debate. It was suggested that the fact that we had licensed the product for food use and for trials meant that somehow everything was all right. We would never suggest otherwise in relation to food safety. Oil does not contain DNA. There cannot therefore be any doubt about food safety. We licensed the product for trials, but that is not the same as wholesale release into the environment, which has happened. It has also been claimed that we told the Minister that he should order the destruction of the crop. We did not. It has been said that we suggested that the Government should pay compensation. Again, we did not.
I stress that we do not excuse Advanta. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) was right to say that Advanta has some important questions to answer and, I suspect, some liabilities. However, that is not the issue at hand.
The motion is narrow; it deals with the Government's competence. It was clear from the pained expression on the Minister's face throughout the beginning of the debate that he knew that he was already in serious trouble. I am not talking about his integrity or his personal honesty, but his ministerial competence. He took four weeks to listen to legal advice. We know what that means: he was being told, "You can't say this, Minister; you can't say that, Minister, because if you do, you will have to find the
money for compensation, and the Government will be liable." Ministerial interest was being put before that of the farmers who were growing the crops.The Minister made a most interesting concession. He said that he agreed with the view of the Minister for the Cabinet Office that the details should have come out earlier. He also apologised for not telling Wales and Scotland earlier. After that, I do not know how he had the gall to move the amendment. By making those two admissions, he was three quarters of the way to accepting the motion.
It is not as though the Government were not warned about the problem of seed purity. In May last year, the report that the Government commissioned from the John Innes centre stated:
- Seed obtained from outside of the UK or the European Union may have different seed production criteria. This may make it difficult to guarantee that it is absolutely free from any GM material.
- We recommend that the Government ensure that the separation distances set out in the SCIMAC guidelines be reviewed if there is clear evidence of cross-pollination.
The delay caused by the Government's inaction meant that farmers faced the problem of what to do when they were told on 19 May that they may--still only "may"--have sown some contaminated seed. No effort had been made to trace it. The Minister said in his statement that there was no need to trace it. Farmers were left wondering what to do.
A week later the Minister published some advice, giving farmers a couple of options. Today he announced a third option. However, as you well know from your own background, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the seasons wait for no man. Planting a crop in the middle of April is a very different matter from planting it in the first week of June. There is virtually no mainstream arable crop that can be planted at the beginning of June and expected to produce any saleable crop whatever.
If farmers had been told in mid-April that their crop could be a problem, they would have had the choice. They could have decided whether to go ahead and take the risk, or to plough it up and sow some other crop, in the knowledge that they would have obtained a harvest of that crop.
The Minister sings his own praises about his achievement today in Brussels, which will allow farmers to mow their crop and still to claim the whole IACS--integrated arable control system--payments. That is valuable, but it does not deal with the fact that farmers still had to carry all the growing costs and will get zero crop sales if they take that action.
We welcome the review of separation distances announced by the Government. I remind them that in three months, farmers will be planting next year's crop, so it is urgent that conclusions are reached on that.
I have some questions for the Minister. [Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] He is probably at the shredder, in view of the comment I am about to make. We need the documents to find out what was said. I do not believe that there is smoke without fire. When representatives of Advanta tell us that they were told by officials not to tell anybody else, something needs to be properly explained.
The Minister has not yet explained to us why he did not impose trial conditions on those crops. He has not explained why he said that it was not necessary to trace crops, when ACRE said that it was. He needs to answer those questions.
Two years ago, the Minister took office, with agriculture in its entirety facing a crisis. For a while, his self-effacing charm carried him through. Over the past 12 months, the country has begun to wonder what is behind the charm. His record of delivery has been abysmal--an emergency package here, another one there; £1 million dressed up as £500 million; regulations imposed and then costs deferred; give with one hand and take back with the other.
Only four weeks ago, I pointed out at the Dispatch Box that it took the right hon. Gentleman almost a year to implement any of the proposals that we put forward in May last year to help farming through its current crisis. [Interruption.] It is highly appropriate that the Minister should appear at this point. The debate is about the nadir of his performance. We know of his total inaction for four weeks--as we heard, like a frightened rabbit paralysed in the headlights. He did not even tell Scotland or Wales, and he has now admitted that he was wrong.
Did no one in the Ministry say on 17 April, "Minister, if we act quickly we will prevent many farmers from sowing the seed"? The fact that the Minister himself did not think to ask the question demonstrates his lack of true understanding of agricultural practice. Even when he did tell the world, he exhibited--as my hon. Friend said--astonishing complacency. Like his leader, he seemed to say, "Trust me; I know what I am doing". A week later, he gave farmers two options, and left it to the company itself to advise destruction of the crop. It is a record of delay and inaction.
For two years, farming has been in a worsening crisis. When the industry needed Action Man, it got Mr. Slowcoach. When the British landscape is under threat from unauthorised GM planting--against the law, as my hon. Friend said--who is in charge of the landscape? Incapability Brown.
We have suffered too long from a Government for whom words are everything and action is nothing. Today's debate is just one more example. It is time that they went.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |