| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Genetically Modified Crops
8. Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth): If she will make a statement about the findings of the public consultation on GM crops. [133789]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We are currently considering the findings of the public debate on GM issues. The Government hope to publish their response in the new year in the light of all the available evidence, which includes not only the findings of the specific debate itself but the other components: our science review; the costs and benefits study; and, of course, independent advice on the results of the crop trials.
Mr. Edwards : In view of the public unease that has been expressed about GM at public events throughout the country, including two in my constituency in
Monmouth and Abergavenny, the evidence of the farm-scale trials showing an adverse effect on biodiversity, the decision of the Co-op, and Monsanto's decision to throw in the towel in Europe, is it not time for the Government to change their position from being neither for nor against GM to having a presumption against?
Margaret Beckett: No, I am afraid to say. The whole point about the extensive process that the Government have undertaken since we were elected in 1997 has been to endeavour to get as much sound science and understanding as we can. If I may refer my hon. Friend to what appeared to come through from the results of the in-depth discussions with the public, they showed that what people wanted most of all—I am talking not about campaigners, who have a perfectly legitimate point of view and express it, which is fine, but about many ordinary members of the public—was firm regulation, to which we are absolutely committed; evidence that there would be clear benefits, which again is something that we are all interested in; and much more information.
With respect to my hon. Friend, the results of the trials were not uniform. We shall await the advice from the committees, but the effects of the trials were quite mixed. They were extremely interesting as a matter of fact and have much more relevance for agriculture as a whole than just the issue of GM.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's role in respect of GM crops should be to assess the safety in terms of health, and the safety of those crops or their growing in terms of the environment, and to inform the public accordingly to allow them to make their decisions? Does she agree that issues of consumer demand are a matter for the marketplace? However, does she also agree that the biggest problem in informing the consumer about environmental issues is the fact that the field-scale trials did not address one of the most fundamental questions: gene escape from GM crops into native species? Until that issue is properly addressed with field-scale trials, no one can be properly informed on the subject.
Margaret Beckett: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, and he is absolutely right: the Government's overriding objective is, and always has been, to safeguard human health and the environment. But with respect, he has mistakenly identified the purpose of the trials, which were set up specifically to address a gap in our knowledge. Other work already exists, and additional work recently published outside of the field-scale trials does address gene escape, gene transfer and so on. The field-scale trials were designed for the specific and single purpose of addressing a gap in our understanding of the impact of herbicide use on wildlife, which is why we have emphasised throughout that this single piece of evidence is not the determinant. It is important, new and extremely relevant, but it is not the only evidence; there is much more that we need to take into account.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): May I urge the Secretary of State to treat with some scepticism the views of the scaremongers, particularly those of ex-Labour Ministers? [Interruption.] I said, "The scaremongers." After all, had we listened to Lord Melchett and the protesters, we would not have had field-scale trials. May I ask the Secretary of State to take account of the fact that, because GM technology means the use of less pesticides and chemicals, we can have much higher yields, which will help to feed the hungry in the third world?
Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the potential importance of this and other technologies to our capacity to feed the hungry in the third world. I do not myself hold a particularly greater grudge against ex-Labour Ministers than against anyone else, but he is certainly right that we should always give careful thought to the views of others. It is not often appreciated that GM crops have to go through five separate sets of approval procedures before any question can arise of their being grown—a scale of precaution that we do not apply to anything else. One of the trials' most interesting outcomes was their demonstrating that we should perhaps examine other things that we do, and not just GM crops.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): May I follow up the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)? In the light of the fact that, as the Secretary of State said, the commercial crop trials just reported on dealt with biodiversity and environmental impact, can she indicate whether the Government intend to publish a similar authoritative statement of scientific advice on gene transfer and the possible impact of GM pollen on conventional and organic crops? This matter needs to be resolved, and we need conclusive scientific evidence in order to take an informed decision on the possibility of large-scale commercial growing of GM crops in this country. Can the right hon. Lady also say when she expects to be able to share with the House the Government's proposals on matters such as separation distances between GM and non-GM crops? Such questions are being asked not just by politicians, but by many farmers, growers and consumers.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right and I do not disagree with him at all. Many important questions arise, and a great deal of information—far more than people realise—is now in the public domain, much of which has had little publicity.
On separation distances, the hon. Gentleman will recall that we are awaiting advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which is the independent body that advises the Government on such issues. When we receive it, we shall have to take it into account, along with the other issues. He also asked whether work similar to that undertaken through field-scale trials has been carried out on gene transfer, pollen
transfer and so on, and the answer is yes: the Royal Society and other researchers have published such work comparatively recently. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) reminds me that some eight studies—I was certainly conscious of four or five—have been published outside of the trials on which publicity has focused. Those studies give a great deal more information on these issues, so a huge amount of scientific evidence is available.Horticultural Development Council
9. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): What representations she has recently received about the operation of the Horticultural Development Council. [133790]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Representations have been received recently on the requirement for growers to pay a statutory levy to the Horticultural Development Council, on the commissioning of research and development by the council, and the statutory review of the council.
David Taylor : The HDC does some excellent work in the top-class research that it commissions for horticulture, but is the Minister happy about the equity and impact of its levy on some specialist growers who receive little or no benefit from its work? Will he see me to discuss the concerns of a large-scale mushroom grower in my constituency, whose levy is more than 10 times higher, relative to turnover, than that of others in its industry sector? Where is the value for money in that?
Mr. Morley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. As a general principle, there is value in a statutory levy on industry groups to finance near-market research and development. I understand that the HDC has three strands of funding, including a separate strand of funding for the mushroom sector. Those who grow exotic mushrooms feel that the calculation works against their interests. If memory serves, the levy is 8p a litre on mushroom spawn and the exotic sector requires much more spawn. The HDC is sympathetic to that point and it can be considered in its statutory review, but if my hon. Friend would like to discuss the matter in more detail in relation to his constituency concerns, I would be only too happy to arrange that.
Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent): The HDC is, of course, intimately involved in the national fruit show, which has been taking place yesterday and today in my constituency. Fruit farming is something that we should all support, because the orchards are good for the environment, the produce is of high quality and delivered close to the marketplace, it forms part of the Government's five-a-day and fruit for schools programmes, and it is unsubsidised. Given that, will the Minister explain why no Minister has been to visit and support the national fruit show and why one of the organisers said to me yesterday that it is easier to get royalty along than a Minister from this Government?
Mr. Morley: I am sure that if a formal invitation were sent to DEFRA, it would be treated seriously alongside all the invitations that Ministers receive. We are very aware of the valuable work that Horticulture Research International has done in the past and that the HDC plans to do in the future. Of course we want to see the British fruit-growing sector supported, and to see it prosper and do well. We will do whatever we can to assist in our role as DEFRA Ministers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |