Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 114)
WEDNESDAY 22 OCTOBER 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
MR LUCIAN
HUDSON
Q100 Mr Mitchell: Your response will
take a view on GM?
Mr Morley: The response will certainly
cover the points which were raised. The Government does have a
view on GM and the Government's view on GM is that the case for
GM must be examined on a scientific basis and that the arguments
for and against must be examined.
Q101 Mr Mitchell: It is a bit like
the euro?
Mr Morley: The euro is very clear.
We all know exactly where we are on the euro. As far as GM is
concerned, it is important to examine the claimed potential benefits
of GM. The Government has put what I would argue is probably the
most sophisticated processes in place to do just that in terms
of its scientific review, in terms of its economic review from
the Number 10 Strategy Unit and in terms of its FSEs. I might
just say on that point, Chairman, I do find it very surprising
that because the Government, not unreasonably in my view, is prepared
to look at the arguments for and against and not to automatically
rule out new technology, it is presented as some kind of rabid
enthusiast for GMs. I think that is the responsible position to
take. I do believe that we should be cautious about new technology
but, nevertheless, I believe that we should give it a fair hearing
and we should respond, also, to people's legitimate concerns about
it and that is what we are doing in the processes that we are
putting in place.
Q102 Mr Mitchell: I have no argument
with that. I agree with the point, certainly, that Professor Grant
made about the value of the debate, I thought that was an impressive
point, but it puts you in a very difficult situation when it comes
to making a decision because so far as I can see the consumer
does not want GM, there is a pressure group campaign against GM,
the outcome of the consultation was the majority—the overwhelming
majority I think, it was about five to one at the meetings and
eight to two at the general consultation—does not want GM.
That makes it very difficult for the Government to take the position
if the scientists are saying GM is okay.
Mr Morley: That raises two issues
which are a bit wider in the debate. The two issues are first
of all the Government has a responsibility to ensure any new technology
of this kind is safe and does not have a detrimental impact on
the environment, those are the processes we have in place. With
the bodies that we have like the Advisory Committee on Releases
to the Environment, the Pesticide Safety Directive, the National
Seed Listing, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes
we have a very sophisticated process to do that.
Q103 Mr Mitchell: Whatever the consultation
says you are not going to use it?
Mr Morley: That is a second issue.
Our responsibility in the process is to examine the consequences
of this new technology. In relation to whether people buy it or
not, that is an issue of consumer choice. We have another responsibility
on that, to ensure labelling, flexibility and regulation so people
really do have that choice, that is very important. In the end
if people do not want to buy it, if people do not want to grow
it, then it is not likely there will be a market. That is a matter
for the market in that sense. Our responsibility is one of regulation
and control.
Mr Mitchell: It is a market and service
matter, is it not? We had a perfectly innocuous Zeneca tomato
puree which was actually cheaper and tasted better than tomato
puree and in the panic it disappeared and I have been trying for
months now to get that tomato puree just to defy people.
Q104 Chairman: We will see if there
are any stocks left over.
Mr Morley: I guess it lasts a
very long time, Chairman.
Mr Drew: I cannot wait for the fish paste.
Q105 Paddy Tipping: I was tempted
after the euro comment, Elliot, to ask you what the five economic
tests were.
Mr Morley: I have no idea. I am
glad you did not.
Q106 Paddy Tipping: I think this
has been an important process and, as Lucian told us, it is a
process to be learnt from, not just from the Department but across
Government.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q107 Paddy Tipping: You are as a
Department consulting, a long consultation, on the disposal of
nuclear waste.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q108 Paddy Tipping: What has this
exercise told you that will help that nuclear waste process?
Mr Morley: That is a very interesting
question, Chairman. You do not necessarily have to have a consultation
of this type and this scale in relation to every single issue.
Disposal of nuclear waste is certainly an important issue. You
are quite right to say we are embarking on a public consultation
on this.
Mr Hudson: Could I chip in? We
are developing some thinking here. What I would say is quite interesting
from my perspective, having been exposed to the arguments on the
Steering Board and then discussed them within the Department,
is there is certainly an issue around information for people is
not enough. You can give people more and more information and
that does not convince. I think if you can look at any contentious
area, I am aware, much more so than I was a year ago, that it
is not just a matter of giving people information, there are other
things which count for people as well: the trust in institutions,
the trust in the processes. I cannot really comment on what it
means for radioactive, even though that is obviously something
the Department has got to do. I would be surprised out of all
this process we have not formed a view, of course you are going
to get engagements, of course you are going to get people with
a lot of heat, if you are going to get light, how are you going
to get that light and how are you going to get people to look
at the issues who are not just those who are following the issue
most closely. Now in all of that I think there will be lessons
and thinking, all right, if we are to avoid falling into this
or that trap what are the mechanisms to ensure you reach more
people, that you take into account not just information but people's
strongly held views, some of which will not be necessarily well
founded but nonetheless you will want to listen to. On the other
hand, you do not want a Government sidetracked by opening up the
gates to views which do not have any foundation at all. That is
the trickiness of it and I think that will be taken into account
in whatever we do by way of any consultation.
Q109 Paddy Tipping: One of the conclusions
of the report is the distrust of politicians which may be well
founded and the distrust of science. There is a big issue there
for Government as a whole about how you put scientific material
across in a way which is not perceived as coming from mad men
in white coats, as it were.
Mr Morley: You are absolutely
right and, of course, that issue has not been far from the back
of our minds in this debate on GM. It goes back to BSE and the
kind of problems when people were given assurances which turned
out to be not right. Some of the science at the time was proved
to be inaccurate. Now this does not help public confidence, it
does not help public confidence either in science or Government
structures. We have tried to address that by putting in place
independent bodies: the Food Standards Agency, for example, in
relation to food safety, the bodies I have mentioned, such as
ACRE, even the nuclear waste board, CORWM, which is a new body
we have put in place, these are all independent bodies. We are
trying, also, to be much more open and transparent in the processes
than existed in the past. I really do think we have moved a long
way in relation to Government processes, consultation processes,
the fact that we put everything in the public domain these days
in a way which certainly it was not in the past. I think that
is trying to address the issue of trust and confidence. It is
not easy, we know that very well, but I think the answer has to
be independent bodies which are not necessarily Government bodies
and also an open and transparent process so that people can see
how the decision making process has been put in place and working
along every stage of the decision making process.
Q110 Patrick Hall: Minister, the
Government's comments on GM, and certainly the Prime Minister
repeatedly over some years, have emphasised that any decision
made by the Government will be based on the science.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q111 Patrick Hall: Professor Grant's
evidence earlier and also the contents of this document shows
the public's contribution through this exercise has not centred
solely on science at all but has taken on a number of other issues.
He mentioned the ownership of technology, there is consumer information,
labelling, you mentioned, Minister, consumer choice, trust in
biotech companies and Government and also the impact on developing
countries. Those are legitimate concerns the public hold.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q112 Patrick Hall: Given the prior
emphasis on the decision being based on science that the Government
has made does that mean that those other legitimate issues will
not influence the Government's decision or will the Government
be able to take on those other issues alongside science, as has
been raised by the public?
Mr Morley: The answer is some
of them. Some of them go beyond the duties and responsibilities
of Government. There are arguments about lock-in, for example,
in relation to chemical use and whether that is desirable. These
are decisions for farmers about whether they want to have that
lock-in in relation to the kind of crops they use. There is certainly
an issue in relation to developing countries which overspills
into world trade positions, positions of information, the globalisation
of GMs, the fact that whatever happens in our own country we are
having a debate about what we are doing in our own country but
GMs are a reality globally. In that sense you need structures
to ensure that seeds that we import are not GM seeds, if we are
importing conventional seeds we have to have those kinds of controls
in place, some of these stem from the kinds of concerns that people
have and the discussions that they have. Also, I think, it reinforces
in my mind the bottom line that GMs are a reality globally. People
have been debating the issue around them on all these points which
you quite rightly refer to. These are choices in the end for individuals
as well about whether they want to buy and eat GM products. I
think one of the most important things that we have to do as a
Government in response to that concern is to make sure people
do have that choice so they do not have to if they do not want
to. They can make the choice. Austin can buy his GM puree if he
really wants to do that but if people do not want to buy GM products
then we need to ensure they do not have to.
Q113 Alan Simpson: Paddy mentioned
the five tests, actually I think that is a serious point which
I wanted to come back to. One of the things which has come out
of this whole consultation process, specifically from the science
report and the Farm Scale Evaluations, is that they have raised
really important questions about science and uncertainty. We are
having to move into a new approach to the regimes about risk assessment.
Can I just ask for an assurance from you that in the response
you are working up one of the areas that is going to be pro science
is a willingness on the part of the Government to fund research
precisely into the areas of doubt and risk that the debate was
not able to reach. I am just anxious that Professor Grant acknowledged
that in the nature of that debate we had no meaningful debate
about the risks in relation to the horizontal gene transfer, about
the impact of growth promoters on cell functions, on the use of
antibiotic marker resistence. There have been no national or international
studies of any significance about allergenicity. We now know there
are big implications about the environmental impact. Will the
Government be coming back with assurances that we will take a
proactive line in funding that research which needs to take place
before the next stage of the debate?
Mr Morley: That is a very reasonable
point and already I think that we are looking at the results of
the FSEs, for example. One thing which struck me very much, Chairman,
in the results of the FSEs is the variation from conventional
crops in relation to the biodiversity. There are some important
lessons for us to learn in relation to management and application
in relation to conventional farming. It is worth saying that we
are concentrating on GMs but conventional farming is not without
its problems and we should not forget that. I think this whole
debate, the whole science programme that we have had in place—and
we have looked at issues such as pollen spread and there have
been studies on gene transfer in various ways—does throw
up a range of issues which do require further research and do
require further work. We do have independent advisory panels which
advise the Department in relation to areas of research that we
shall be looking at and, of course, people like Professor Pollock,
who is the chair of ACRE, I am sure he will have some views in
relation to the FSEs when they have had a chance to look at that.
I am sure those are issues which would require following up in
terms of research programmes which we will have to direct some
of our research budget to. I am sure that is inevitable.
Q114 Chairman: Minister, that is
a good note on which to conclude. I have never been sure whether
consultations liberate or imprison governments, and I am still
not sure but that might be a subject for debate, no doubt, in
a different committee. Thank you very much indeed and no doubt
we will see you again in the normal course of events. There is
a long way for this particular saga still to go.
Mr Morley: There is, Chairman.
Thank you very much.
| 
