Examination of witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
TUESDAY 18 JULY 2000
BARONESS HAYMAN,
MS SARAH
HENDRY, THE
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
and DR LINDA
SMITH
80. There is a clear relationship between those
two issues.
(Baroness Hayman) Of course there is. By implication,
you were suggesting before that I was not focusing on consumer
acceptability in terms of this issue. I am as committed as anyone
else to giving people choice and information about what is going
on, but I think it is important that we do not neglect the international
framework in which we are working. The directives about GM products
within Europe are designed to safeguard public health and the
environment. Without evidence of harm to those things, we cannot
ban people from, for example, lawfully marketing a product that
has been approved through the regulatory processes as a novel
food. People should be allowed absolutely to choose whether they
buy it or not, but it would be wrong of government to mislead
people into suggesting there are powers without evidence of harm
to take legal action. An illustration of this was in this particular
incident, where our clear understanding was that the government
did not have powers to order the destruction of this crop because
there was no advice of any risk to human health or the environment.
What I am trying to do is be honest about the international framework
of regulation with which we are dealing here.
81. In which the public at large appears to
have little confidence at present, and that is why one comes back
to the issue of how to engage the other stake holders in this
issue of safety and science and so on, which you have rightly
addressed, but to provide a framework in which there is some degree
of consensus.
(Baroness Hayman) Absolutely, and I think we need
to do that at a European level and at a world level, but there
are different attitudes. There are different attitudes in the
United States, for example, and different attitudes in China than
there are in the United Kingdom or Europe. We have to recognise
that in a world of international trade in seed as everything else.
Mr Mitchell
82. I wanted to ask about MAFF's role. Advanta
warned both departments on 17 April what had happened but there
was not a statement from MAFF and Mr Brown until 18 May. Why did
it take so long?
(Mr Meacher) Do you want me to start?
Mr Mitchell: You are not answering for Mr Brown,
are you?
Mr Jack
83. Who is going to spill the beans?
(Baroness Hayman) There are no beans to spill. Advanta
indeed went to a meeting at DETR, where both DETR and MAFF officials
were present. We have been through this and it is on the record
from the debate on 8 June. From our memorandum, you will see that
the factual situation about what was affected, how much seed was
affected, which years were affected, was not at that point clear.
The factual situation was not clear.
Mr Mitchell
84. Not fully clear but it was pretty clear.
(Mr Meacher) In one case, Advanta originally thought
the GM line was glufosinate-ammonium. In practice, that turned
out to be incorrect. There may be trace elements but it is in
fact herbicide glyphosate. At that stage, even the first factual
signs were—
85. The basic problem was absolutely clear and
yet you dithered around until 17 May. Why?
(Baroness Hayman) It did not feel like dithering.
It felt like establishing the facts, establishing whether there
was a risk to either public health or the environment. The initial
response was that there was not, that that was not the formal
advice of either ACRE or the FSA at that point. Equally, the legal
framework in which we were operating was not clear. It was still
not completely clear to me when I answered the question which
was also answered in the Commons. Establishing exactly what the
legal framework was took time. As soon as we were in a position
to be clearer about what the position was, what the position about
any potential risk was and some of the legal issues started to
emerge, as soon as too we saw what needed to be addressed in terms
of the regulatory framework in which this had arisen, we went
public on that. I now wish we had gone public earlier, not because
I do not think it was right to do that initial response, but because
the delay and the process became in itself an issue.
86. Advanta say—and the industry presumably
backs it—that the industry had warned about these issues
for some time; they had not been addressed by the regulatory authorities
and a regulatory framework would have at best prevented this incident.
What they mean by that is setting minimum thresholds for GM impurity,
standard testing methods and method of analysis. They have been
asking for this for some time; the government has done nothing.
All of a sudden, it panics.
(Baroness Hayman) I have no record whatsoever of the
seeds industry asking for a specific—
87. They are not telling the truth?
(Baroness Hayman) I am telling you. I am choosing
my words carefully. I have no record of the seeds industry approaching
the United Kingdom government about issues of setting thresholds.
I know that there has been work done within Europe and that came
out in the Food Safety White Paper. The issues on GM seeds that
I was addressing within MAFF were around national listing, which
was a major issue and how we dealt with GM varieties that came
through the national listing, and the issue about labelling requirements
for imported GM seeds. There were two European directives. We
were out to consultation on implementation. Those were the issues
that had been, if you like, on the top of my seeds GM agenda.
I obviously now wish that tolerances had been there but there
are lots of areas in which we have to deal with GM issues. I am
still conscious, although I do not now hold responsibility for
it, about the issues of GM in animal feed.
88. The Government's position on GM is shifting.
I always form my attitudes from the faxes that come to me every
morning and initially, for a year or so, these were, "GM,
marvellous technological achievement for Britain. Great British
advance." All of a sudden, because of a public row, the faxes
are now, "GM, terrible. Frankenstein foods. Monstrous stuff.
Great danger." Effectively the Department panicked. You made
a distinction earlier between contamination of seeds by other
conventional seeds and contamination by GM, which you regard as
more serious. You regard that as more serious because of the public
panic. The Department must have known for a long time that contamination
of conventional seeds was entirely possible and indeed that most
conventional crops would contain some GM material.
(Baroness Hayman) I did not know that and I do not
know today that most conventional seeds contain GM material. We
did a trawl which was published, which was announced in my answer,
about countries that export seed to this country, where there
is GM production of seeds alongside conventional seeds in order
to be able to look at the areas in which this potentially could
be a problem. I do not think you can extrapolate from that the
specifics. Of course, with 20/20 hindsight, one perhaps should
have been addressing this issue earlier on. I do not think it
could be addressed at United Kingdom level because it is a European
issue. I do not think you can say one was panicked into it. Why
do I say it is different from contamination by conventional seed?
It is different from it because the directive says that any deliberate
release into the environment is a contravention of the directive.
That is why it is different. I do not think I have said in my
opening remarks that I was in a panic over Frankenstein foods.
89. No; I said that, but it is different because
there is this public panic. That is the basic reason why it is
different. That is also why it is important in this country, as
well as on a European dimension. Had MAFF received warnings or
had the DETR received warnings that conventional seed could contain
GM?
(Baroness Hayman) There was a report published last
year which was published by MAFF from the John Innes Centre, which
dealt basically with organic farming and GM. I understand, because
it was mentioned when this whole event happened, that it contained
a section dealing with the potential for there being GM content
in conventional seed and I understand that that was the genesis
of the work that was put in place by DETR in order to have a testing
regime in their contract with CSL.
90. You knew in advance that it was quite possible?
(Baroness Hayman) Collective or personal? You can
blame me for it. I personally had not focused on the issue of
traces of GM seed in conventional seed. Corporately, yes, there
had been a report. It had been published by MAFF and action had
been taken, because responsibility on monitoring for GMs in the
environment is the DETR's, by DETR to follow up on that.
91. This involves the Baroness personally in
the sense that Advanta tell us that to devise a scheme to segregate
crops and harvest them for export would have been difficult, but
they devised this scheme. They tried to meet with MAFF to discuss
this but had no success. A meeting with Baroness Hayman was cancelled
by MAFF on 23 May. They put their ideas in writing and faxed them
to MAFF that day. Those ideas were still under active consideration,
according to the Baroness, on 25 May when she met industry representatives,
but not Advanta. Therefore, Mr Brown's announcement on 27 May
that he preferred a plough-in came as a complete surprise. How
did that mess arise?
(Baroness Hayman) The meeting that Advanta had asked
for with me I did not hold for two reasons. One was that I was
continuing to try and clarify the legal position, both in regard
to whether any regulatory action was appropriate, and in regard
to what the potential legal position about marketing at any stage
in the supply chain might be. It therefore did not seem appropriate
to meet at that time. When they faxed their proposals through,
I asked a senior official at MAFF to contact them, as he did,
to say that we would look at the viability of those proposals
and discuss them at a later date. We were getting legal advice
on the intricacies of this situation, if not hourly, certainly
during the course of the day and it was an evolving situation.
You asked me something else.
Mr Jack
92. Can you clarify one thing arising out of
what Mr Mitchell was saying about the requests which the industry
had made with reference to establishing standards? In paragraph
3.2 of Advanta's evidence to us, they say, "Seed industry
groups have long pressed Government and the European Commission
to establish such regulations." These were regulations dealing
with exactly the circumstances of the GM content of conventional
seed batches. You indicated in your evidence that you were unaware
that such requests had been made. Who is right?
(Baroness Hayman) I am honest in saying that I am
unaware that such requests had been made by the seed industry
to the United Kingdom government. I know that there had been discussions
at a European level by the European seeds industry with the Commission
on these issues. I did ask within the Department whether there
was any knowledge of such approaches and I was told not.
93. Advanta have put it in writing and I think
it would be helpful if the record could be re-examined to see
how early such pressure was applied.
(Baroness Hayman) Would it be helpful if I undertook
to trawl through records and write to the Committee on that?
Mr Jack: Yes. Thank you.
Mr Todd
94. Turning again to Advanta's evidence and
the calendar of events they supplied, the period leading up to
the eventual announcement publicly by MAFF, the previous two days'
record indicates that on the 15th Advanta's distributor in Sweden
discovered some contaminated seed had been sown there. The distributor
informs the Swedish government and then Advanta UK. Advanta UK
informs MAFF. The Swedish government then acts with peremptory
speed on the matter and makes a public announcement within 24
hours. One might contrast this to the one month's consideration
and thought given within the United Kingdom on the same matter.
We note that on the following day, perhaps a cruel person might
consider prompted by the Swedes' breaking cover on this one, MAFF
finally produces a public pronouncement which says what is going
on. Would that be a cruel and totally inaccurate interpretation
of events?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes.
95. Would you like to clarify the linkage between
what was happening in Sweden and what was happening here?
(Baroness Hayman) Absolutely. If you look at that
same piece of paper, you will see that on 9 May Advanta admit
that they were advised that lead responsibility was with MAFF
and that a press statement would be necessary. I can also say,
from our own memorandum, that from when I had taken lead responsibility
in this I had written out to colleagues in the appropriate Cabinet
sub-committee on 12 May, saying that we needed to be open and
I wanted to make a press statement about this. That was before
I had any idea that there was any seed in Sweden. I only knew
that there was seed in France and Germany, neither of which authorities
had gone public on the issue.
96. We merely draw the conclusion that, instead
of the contrast being 24 hours and one month, the machinations
of the Swedish governmental system perhaps move at a pace of 24
hours as opposed to eight days?
(Baroness Hayman) No. Their legislation is different.
Their environmental code has clear rules about these issues.
97. They are EU members as well as us?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes, but it is possible to gold
plate EU legislation, as we all know. I am not criticising what
the Swedes did. The Swedes decided to go public first and then
do the investigation and try and find out the situation that was
going on. We chose to try and find out and to be able to answer
some of the questions first. Both are legitimate ways forward.
Obviously, we are being criticised for doing that. There are judgments
to be made and people make their own judgments about the course
of this. The one thing I would like to get on to the record is
that it was not, as you suggested cruelly, any issue about knowing
that this was happening in Sweden and going to become public.
The decision to go into the public arena on this had been taken
before then.
Mr Opik
98. Turning back to the Advanta submission,
it says in paragraph 3.4, ". . . Advanta UK urged the Minister
of Agriculture to take action on threshold regulations when it
was finally granted a meeting with him on June 1st. It is lamentable,
with harvest of Winter Oilseed rape only days away, and planting
of the new crop starting at the beginning of August, that regulatory
guidance is still non-existent." Leaving aside the rather
strong description of Advanta's view of government action, do
you intend to offer guidance before the plantings in August?
(Baroness Hayman) This relates back to my earlier
answer about the EU interim agreement which I hope will be there
and in place before the planting season. That will be stronger
for being an EU-wide initiative and we hope to have it finalised
within a matter of days.
99. What assessment have you made of the implications
of this development in terms of field trials?
(Mr Meacher) On field scale trials, which is a DETR
lead, what we have been discussing very largely this morning are
the seeds regulations and thresholds of purity. The implications
for the field scale trials are the point at which the Chairman
started off, which was the isolation distances. We will be looking
to get a conclusive view from Canada about the cause of contamination.
It is possible that there never will be such, but we will have
to take account of that and that hopefully will be included within
the MAFF review. Clearly, the MAFF review is the central issue
which is going to impinge on the trials.
|
