| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Whittingdale: As the Minister was not present that day, he is perhaps unaware that one of his colleagues was directly responsible for what happened. It was one of his colleagues who moved the motion that the House do sit in private, which often results in the business being lost. The Minister has told us of the many opportunities to debate GM in recent months, and he mentioned such debates taking place in Standing Committees and in Westminster Hall. But on the one occasion on which this issue reached the Floor of the House of Commons, the debate lasted just 13 minutes because one of his colleagues killed the Bill off.
Gregory Barker: I should make it absolutely clear that my Bill was killed off through the direct connivance of Labour Whips, who whispered in the ear of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and got him to do their dirty business. Far more than 40 Members were present in the House that day. One or two very honourable exceptions defied the Labour Whips and entered the Lobby, but the others sat on their hands at the direction of the Labour Whips. That is a matter of record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The record has now been made clear; perhaps we can proceed with the debate before the House.
Mr. Whittingdale:
I entirely accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. But the point is an important one, because the issue at stake—liability and compensation—is absolutely central to whether GM cultivation takes place in this country.
5 May 2004 : Column 1433
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: At the risk of vexing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Minister was not present when the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) was killed off, it is inconceivable that the Government Whips acted as they did without first consulting the Minister?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on this matter. I see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's point, but we have well and truly aired this subject.
Mr. Whittingdale: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, tempting though it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) down that path.
I want to say a little more about the important issue of liability. As has already been pointed out, in her statement to the House the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government are not willing to accept liability or to pay compensation for any contamination of conventional crops by GM. Indeed, the industry has made it clear that it, too, is unwilling to accept liability. A survey last year of principal underwriters in the UK found that neither farmers considering growing GM crops nor non-GM farmers seeking to protect their businesses from contamination by GM crops would be able to find anyone willing to give them insurance. So as the Select Committee says in its response to the Government,
"it appears that the Government is happy to leave conventional and organic farmers exposed to the possibility of severe financial losses and the GM industry free from mandatory inclusion in any scheme to establish proper liability".
That failure is enough on its own to prevent commercial cultivation from taking place. So in effect, having given a green light to planting, the Government have immediately erected a road-block to any further progress.
There is one other obstacle to the introduction of GM that is perhaps even more insurmountable: public opinion. All the polls continue to show a clear majority who say that they would refuse to eat GM food, and almost all the major retailers regard assuring their customers that their products are GM-free as a marketing necessity.
In her statement to the House, the Secretary of State was refreshingly honest. She admitted that the "GM Nation?" debate showed widespread opposition to the commercialisation of GM crops. What is more, as people learned more about it, their hostility deepened. The truth is that, as with other safety issues—the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine; nuclear power stations; mobile telephones—people do not trust the assurances that they are given. Until that changes, there is little likelihood of there being a market in this country for GM foods.
Mr. Challen:
A certain degree of party-political disputatiousness—if there is such a word—has crept into the debate. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not been able to determine from what he said his party's exact position on GM. It seems to reflect a desire for more scientific discovery of
5 May 2004 : Column 1434
the quality or otherwise of GM, but will he say clearly—so that no one can accuse his party of being populist by saying in its manifesto before the next election that it is against GM, when that may not actually be the case—what exactly he is calling for? Is he, for example, calling for an extended moratorium on GM?
Mr. Whittingdale: I would hate to be accused of disputatiousness and I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I have already made it clear that we keep an open mind, but wish to proceed cautiously on a case-by-case basis and having regard to clear scientific evidence. My concern—it is also the concern of many—is that the scientific evidence is not clear and that there has been no proper assessment of some of the serious concerns expressed about farm-scale evaluations. It is also important to take account of the experience of other countries that have had a much longer history of GM cultivation. Until such evaluations have taken place, we would not support the introduction of commercial cultivation in this country.
Andrew George: In the spirit of wanting to avoid unnecessary political disputatiousness and while he is talking about the public desire for GM on the shop shelves, will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the record what market assessments were undertaken by the previous Conservative Government when they gave the necessary approvals for GM soya and tomato puree?
Mr. Whittingdale: There is a distinct difference between approving the sale of GM products where concerns were expressed about health but where the scientific evidence is pretty clear, and approving GM cultivation where the concerns are primarily environmental. It is those concerns that we believe have not yet been adequately addressed.
However much the scientific evidence suggests that people should feel able to buy GM products, it is clear at the moment that people are not persuaded of the case. We believe strongly that people should have the necessary information to enable them to make a choice. People want assurances that the food that they buy really is GM free, and the EU labelling requirements certainly go some way towards achieving that, but some concerns remain on that front, too. Some people fear that, despite their best efforts, they may fall foul of the new regulations.
One particular example cited over the last few days is that of beekeepers, who obviously cannot tell their bees where they can and cannot go. If GM crops are introduced into this country, there is a real possibility of the bees foraging on them. Beekeepers will then be faced with the choice of either testing their honey at considerable expense in order to demonstrate that there is no GM content, or labelling it as possibly containing GM. At the moment, that would almost certainly spell commercial death.
There remain real concerns about the knock-on effects to industry as a whole and the possible costs that many businesses might incur as a result of the introduction of GM. As I say, however, Conservative Members are not opposed to GM crops in principle. We recognise the benefits to our farmers and consumers that such crops could bring, but many questions remain to be answered before the Government proceed. I have to tell
5 May 2004 : Column 1435
the House that, despite the Government statement last week and despite the Minister's comments this afternoon, the Government have still not provided satisfactory answers to those questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.
6.4 pm
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): When I spoke to a colleague about this debate and my opposition to GM, she simply shrugged and said, "But it's progress, and you can't stop progress." I do not accept that the commercialisation of GM crops is progress. I believe that it is a reckless experiment with our natural environment and human health—an experiment conducted by a handful of companies that have consistently made false claims for their products, evaded public scrutiny and resisted every attempt to regulate their behaviour.
GM technology was not introduced to deal with problems in this country or the developing world. It was developed by companies seeking to control agricultural practices that would boost their profits—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |