House of Commons
Thursday 23 October 2003
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked—
Biofuels
1. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): What assessment she has made of the potential value to rural economies of producing biofuels from crops. [133781]
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The impact of the UK meeting the reference target in the European Union biofuels directive for the substitution of 5.75 per cent. of fossil fuels by biofuels by 2010 would be to create or sustain some 6,000 jobs in the agriculture sector. Production at this scale would require a mix of feedstocks, including a contribution from waste oil and crop production from up to 1 million hectares of land.
Mr. Blizzard : I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that if we are to reap the full economic benefits from energy crops such as rapeseed for biodiesel, we need to kick-start the industry in this country? The Treasury advised me that a simple duty rate cut would risk sucking in imports from established industries in other countries, so will my right hon. Friend hold urgent discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury to find out what can be done to kick-start an industry in this country that would be good for farmers and towns such as Lowestoft in which people want to set up biodiesel factories?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend's constructive question partly answers itself because, of course, we want to stimulate the industry, which requires creating the market and enabling growth in production. I can certainly assure him that we shall continue to talk to colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury about those issues.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): The Government must decide what they want from this policy. It is quite reasonable for different Departments to have different expectations and aims, but when the Government make a collective decision they must decide where their priorities lie. They have not done so at the moment. The Treasury and the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seem to have different objectives and argue that different methods are needed to reach whatever the objectives are. May I urge the Secretary of State and her Department to hold urgent discussions with the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry so that we may have a clear idea of where the priorities lie? We could then decide whether the mechanisms, including the tax mechanisms that appear to be at the front of the debate, will get us there.
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for first criticising and then encouraging dialogue in government, which is what we have. He should remember that the Government are promoting the production of liquid biofuels through the existing 20p per litre cut in duty for biodiesel and the intention that was announced in the 2003 Budget to reduce the duty on bioethanol by a similar amount from January 2005. I assure him that we will continue to discuss with colleagues in the Treasury and other Departments how best to ensure that we pursue the issues.
Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): The Minister may well know that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been examining biofuels. In his deliberations, will he ensure that there is at least a differentiation between the value of a biofuels market and the implications of a biofuels industry? One of the issues that the Committee was asked to address was the environmental impact of crop growing—the fuel growing—on the environment itself. It was asked to consider the impact of footprinting on the environment as a broad picture of the costs involved, including the relative costs of producing crops for biomass rather than biofuel.
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend gives us a valuable reminder that our approach must be based on sustainable development and that we must consider the environmental, economic and community issues that are involved in promoting the sector. However, as I said in my first answer, there are obvious benefits for jobs and the economy, which I am sure that he wants us to pursue.
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the 20p per litre reduction in biodiesel duty, and what effect has that had on the industry?
Alun Michael: The cut in biodiesel duty has already brought forward the production of biodiesel from recycled vegetable oil, about 2 million litres of which are sold each month in the UK; half comes from that source and the other half is finished product that is imported from elsewhere in Europe. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is an important step forward.
Genetically Modified Crops
2. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): What plans her Department has to work with the Department of Health to improve public awareness of genetically modified crops and foods. [133782]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): There are no plans for any specific initiative with the Department of Health to improve public awareness of genetically modified crops and foods. The recent GM public debate has already contributed toward the understanding of GM technology. The Food Standards Agency has also recently completed a series of activities with consumers to explore their concerns relating to GM issues.
Mr. Cunningham : Given the great public concern about genetically modified foods, does my hon. Friend think that at least something should be done, and that talks should take place with the food industry, to ensure that food labels clearly advertise the fact that food has been modified?
Mr. Morley: I accept my hon. Friend's points. It is important that people have proper consumer information. A number of GM products that were approved some years ago are on the UK market. They are labelled. The recent EU agreement that sets thresholds for labelling is a helpful step forward. Whatever the outcome of the debate on GMs in this country, the fact is that they exist globally; there is a global GM market. It is important that consumers have the relevant information so that they can choose whether to buy GM products.
Andrew George (St. Ives): Notwithstanding all that, does the Minister accept, on the basis of the evidence of the Government's own inquiries, that it would be significantly irresponsible to move swiftly to the irreversible decision of licensing GMs now? Would it not be better for the Government to set out a timetable so that there is an opportunity to assess properly and investigate further the science, the liability issues and the commercial reality? That could be followed by a re-run of the public consultation, because it is clear that the public did not have all the information that is now available to the Government.
Mr. Morley: I do not agree with the latter point. The GM debate was on the wider principles of GM crops and products. No country has done as much detailed research as us. In addition to the three strands—the public debate, the economic review from the strategy unit and the scientific review—we conducted a three-year study of the field-scale evaluations, the results of which have been published for all to see. The results will go to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which will hold two open meetings to allow stakeholders to respond to the results of the FSEs. They will be able to put their points to ACRE in an open debate with open access. ACRE will consider the results in detail and make recommendations to the Government in spring next year. That is not rapid progress. We have given all the regulatory authorities the adequate time they need. The process has been going on since 1997. It is not rushed; it is a proper, thorough and science-based process. The issue has been approached cautiously, looking at the arguments in great detail in an open and transparent way. No other country has put that in place.
Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West and Royton): In view of the growing public awareness of, and hostility
to, GM crops in this country, is the Minister aware that agreeing the GM thresholds for the vote on the seeds directive in Brussels next week would allow GM into the country on a massive scale through the back door? Will he therefore instruct the British representative on that committee to oppose the 0.3 to 0.7 per cent. thresholds and insist that any GM threshold above the level of detectability, which is 0.1 per cent., is not acceptable?
Mr. Morley: There will not be a decision on the seeds directive next week. Further consideration is being given to the legal process—the way in which it is being handled in the EU—and to the position that we take in the UK. We have not come to a final conclusion on the thresholds. The opinion that we take will be based on good scientific advice and the practicability of the measurements that will be applied to ensure that we enforce the regulations when they are finally agreed.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): Will the Minister confirm that after six years and with 6 million farmers worldwide growing genetically modified crops, supplying hundreds of millions of consumers, there have been no reported adverse health impacts of GM products? We cannot pursue the issue in a luddite manner. We must look forward and seize on science, sensibly assessed with sensible political judgments being made.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point on the whole GM issue, but we cannot ignore public concern and opinion. The "GM nation?" debate made it clear where those concerns lie. It is beholden on us as the Government to address those public concerns and listen to the opinion that came out of the debate. People were worried about the science. There are issues of trust. Of course, that has not been helped by problems such as BSE, which damaged the credibility of assurances given at the time. It is important to consider all issues—health and the environment—thoroughly, scientifically and openly and transparently. That is what we are committed to as a Government.
Diana Organ (Forest of Dean): The GM debate was an innovative experiment in participatory democracy, but for people to have real faith in it they need reassurance that Government policy will take note of the outcome of the consultation. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give me on that, and when do the Government intend to respond to the consultation on GM?
Mr. Morley: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will give a full written response to the GM debate, and we hope to do so in a matter of months. It was a detailed debate, as she knows, which we had the opportunity of discussing in the Select Committee. We want to give due weight to the opinions that were expressed and to respond in a thoughtful and detailed manner to a very useful exercise. It will influence the kind of work we do, and it may influence the kind of scientific research we have to commission—on health effects, for example. We have two detailed studies under way through the Food Standards Agency—the GEO-1 study, which started in 1994, and the GEO-2 study, which has a £6 million budget. They are taking place in response to legitimate public concern, which we must
address in a rational and scientific way. We need to make sure that the information is in the public domain, so that people can see it, question it and, if they wish, raise issues, to which we will try to respond.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), the Minister, while he is in thoughtful mode, may want to think about Professor Malcolm Grant, the chairman of the public debate steering board, who said yesterday at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—I paraphrase what Professor Grant said, but I think the Minister will find that this is pretty accurate—that if the Government policy does not reflect the outcome of the debate, it will have been a failure. Was Sir Malcolm right or wrong, and if he was wrong, why was he wrong?
Mr. Morley: May I put on record our acknowledgement of and thanks for the work that Sir Malcolm did as chairman of the steering board? We can see from the report that was commissioned that the people who attended found it a valuable exercise. With reference to Sir Malcolm's comments, of course we recognise that we must take seriously the opinions expressed in that exercise. It was made clear from the beginning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that "GM nation?" was never designed to be a referendum on GM. It was designed to address the issues and to discuss the science behind GM and the background to potential commercial applications of it. I made it clear in previous answers that we will take the concerns seriously and address them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |