Select Committee on Agriculture Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witness (Questions 220 - 231)

TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000

RT HON NICHOLAS BROWN, MP

  220. What words of comfort can you give specifically to organic farmers?
  (Mr Brown) There is not any organic oilseed rape, and it is very difficult to see what this product, even if it could cross-pollinate—and the chances of it doing so at all are remote—would cross-pollinate with. Remember, there is no organic oilseed rape for it to cross-pollinate with.

Dr Turner

  221. Thankfully this has proved to be, I think, a storm in the tabloids in terms of its importance to health or the environment, but clearly there are some questions which would arise in terms of prevention of anything serious happening. One is what testing does take place of seed to see that we are getting is what we think we are getting? Secondly, I was impressed that on this occasion the technical explanation as to why we had a sterile seed depended upon an understanding of what had happened. I wondered if there were any tests that could be done on the seed we have got to check that the technical explanation is well founded, and whether your officials have ensured that those checks have taken place? Really I just wanted to know if there are any lessons to be learned. Have we checked the explanation ourselves in terms of testing? Secondly, are there any lessons to be learned in the testing of what we receive from overseas?
  (Mr Brown) I have received no advice to the effect that the technical explanation that I put in the House Library cannot be relied on, and it has not been challenged at all.

  222. Could I suggest that it should be challenged? Can we check it?
  (Mr Brown) The whole purpose of putting it in the public domain is that those who have a different view on the science—and remember, I am a generalist, not a scientist—can come forward and say so, and nobody has done so.

  223. But would you accept that it would be sensible at least to ask our scientists whether they can check from the seed whether the explanation fits what they find in the seed?
  (Mr Brown) I have not explicitly done that. If you would like me to do that, I will.

  224. I personally think we should check that explanation, because frankly, given the atmosphere of distrust of scientists and of explanations given by international companies in this area, it would seem to me—and it may not be possible, I accept, I do not know enough about genetics to know—that we should at least check that what we have got is consistent.
  (Mr Brown) The explanation that has been put in the House Library has been presented to Ministers without any warning caveat from officials, so the implication is that the specialist advisers to the Government accept that it is an accurate description. Nor has it been challenged by any independent specialist in this area, and, of course, it is now in the public domain. If you would specifically like me to seek the assurance—

  225. I would.
  (Mr Brown)—explicitly rather than implicitly—and I believe I have implicitly—I will do so.

  226. Then could I ask, has the question been considered in terms of a more general testing, sampling and checking of the seed that we receive?
  (Mr Brown) Yes.

  227. Is that something that does happen, or will happen?
  (Mr Brown) It will happen. Yes, it has been considered. Yes, it was being considered before this happened, and the Secretary of State for the Environment was anyway putting in place checking arrangements which will be in place by 1 June.

Chairman

  228. Minister, it is the Chairman's privilege to end at Mornington Crescent, as it were. You said in the House that you need to reflect upon segregation distances. You were asked a question, and I think you said, "You are on to a good thing", in response to a particular Member asking the question.
  (Mr Brown) Yes, that is exactly right, and I stand by that.

  229. What may flow from that remark, then? What did you envisage happening as a result of that?
  (Mr Brown) That there are discussions at official level, between my officials and officials at the Department of the Environment who have the lead in this area, because, of course, the purpose of segregation levels is for environmental protection purposes. Those, of course, are not the only elements. There is also now a seed purity question as well, which prior to the advent of GMs was not really thrown into sharp relief, but one could argue that it is now. So that is why I am reflecting on this and my officials are reflecting on this, with officials of the Department of the Environment. It is important for both of us.

  230. The last question is, in the light of this event, do you think perhaps that with the determination or the scientific fraternity volunteering that they would not persist in the technology of terminator genes, perhaps there is something to be said for terminator genes?
  (Mr Brown) There are clearly two sides to this question. Developing countries object to terminator genes, because it locks them into annual seed contracts and they cannot use the seed as renewables. That is the conventional agricultural objection to it. The case for, of course, has been demonstrated by this accident. It means that what has happened can be contained. So there are clearly two sides to this.

  231. Minister, thank you very much indeed. We have got you away in two hours and we are grateful. We always enjoy our sessions with you. We look forward to other sessions with you. I am afraid we are rather condemned to meet like this.
  (Mr Brown) I look forward to that too, Chairman.

  Chairman: On that note of mutual satisfaction, we can part till the next time. Thank you very much indeed.





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 28 June 2000