| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that co-existence rules would have to be different for each variety of plant? Beet is a biennial crop that is harvested in its first year, so it never comes to flower and does not contaminate other plants. Also, very few organic growers grow forage maize.
Gregory Barker: That is a fair point. The rules must be different for every variety, but it is possible that some varieties can co-exist in the UK without damaging the environment.
I tabled yet another parliamentary question after the statement. I was pleased to see that the language in the response had toughened up slightly. The Minister for the Environment told me that he now "intended" that rules would be in place first.
It can sometimes seem very much like nit-picking when one digs deep into the words used by Ministers, but it is important to do so. In my experience, Ministers
5 May 2004 : Column 1456
and civil servants usually choose their words carefully and speak precisely. The fact that the words "anticipate" and "intend" fall well short of the word "guarantee"—the one that I was after—seriously worries me. However, even if we give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, we must ask how the rules would be introduced.
I understand that the Minister believes that regulations made under various existing pieces of environmental legislation will cover planting rules, but what level of security and amendment is likely to be given to regulations made under an Act that certainly was not written to cover the many problems specific to GM crops? How will our constituents have their concerns voiced in the debates on these crucial matters?
On liability, the position is even less clear. I understand that there is no power to make the necessary regulations to determine a liability regime, so when will we see legislation? I appreciate that the Minister will direct me to the consultation on these matters that the Government have announced. Responses to that will no doubt assist Ministers in drawing up the detail of rules, but legislation must be scrutinised here, on the Floor of the House of Commons, and in the devolved Assemblies. The process must guarantee that that happens before GM crops are planted.
My private Member's Bill would guarantee that legal, enforceable rules to prevent contamination and to determine liability were fully debated and approved by elected politicians, and were in place before any GM crops were planted. It does not specify the rules, or in any way interfere with or pre-empt the Minister's planned consultation. Even a Minister starting out with every intention to put rules in place before further planting will find those intentions strained, if drawing up the rules proves difficult—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister for the Environment has chosen to leave the Front Bench and go and chat to the civil servants. That is extraordinary and unfortunate, given the exchanges that we have had.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Don't be childish!
Gregory Barker: I am also sorry about the extraordinary remarks from the other Minister, because we were trying to have a sensible debate.
The pressure to allow planting will build up again, and Ministers—perhaps not this Minister for the Environment, but his successor—may be tempted to allow planting under the voluntary codes that governed the crop trials, in the hope that nothing goes wrong and the gap in the liability regime is not exposed. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.
The Minister for the Environment was not present, for whatever reason, when my GM Bill received its First Reading last month. However, he is here today and I hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environment Quality, when he winds up, will respond to my arguments and specifically inform us whether the
5 May 2004 : Column 1457
Government will oppose my Bill when it returns to the House on 12 May. There is an opportunity here to build a consensus—
Mr. Morley: Not with you, there isn't.
Gregory Barker: The Minister scoffs at that suggestion, and that is genuinely sad. There is some willingness on both sides of the House to try to find some common ground on the issues of liability and contamination. I am sorry that the Minister does not appear interested in taking up that offer.
7.31 pm
Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South) (Lab): Just under a week ago, I was privileged to chair a seminar in Westminster Hall that sought to address the question of whether GM crops are safe for the environment or for animal or human consumption. We had a distinguished panel of speakers that morning, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). Most of the other contributors had already conducted detailed research into genetic engineering.
The seminar was driven by scientists and was pro-science. The purpose was to raise a series of scientific questions that required society to engage with the revolutionary nature of the technology with which we have been confronted. I suspect that many of those scientists would endorse some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) about the character of the debate so far. My hon. Friend was right to say that at times it has descended into caricature.
We need to remember, however, that at the start we were not invited to take part in a debate at all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton, a former Minister for the Environment, will know better than most that the pressure from the biotech corporations was for no labelling, no debate, no field or farm trials and no constraints on the instant issuing of the consents that they sought.
The claims that were presented to Parliament fell into the same category of criticism that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North set out. We were presented with some dreadfully fraudulent arguments for the rapid approval of GM crop planting. We were first offered the absurd doctrine of substantial equivalence, which was an insult to science. GM crops were presented as little more than novel cake decorations. Whatever else one may think of GM crops, the science behind them offers a revolutionary breakthrough. It allows science to cross species barriers on a scale and in ways that we have never been able to do before. However, the least that we owe society is to place the science of scrutiny alongside the science of possibility, and that is what we have not so far done.
The scientists who spoke to Members who turned up at the seminar last week made the case for a Government lead in defining a new science of scrutiny, and the whole House should take that message seriously. I invite the Minister to listen to it and to give the scientific lead for which they were asking.
Many of those scientists were much more enthusiastic about what they saw as the second generation of biotechnology, which will involve the ability to alter
5 May 2004 : Column 1458
existing gene sequences—to make alterations within a given gene sequence—rather than to play fast and loose by taking genes from one sequence and inserting them in another. They told us that the current science of genetic engineering is either flawed or unexplored and that we need new constraints on what we are willing to tolerate outside strict laboratory conditions.
The scientists effectively abolished the other big fib that was foisted on Parliament: the notion that even if we do not like GM food—if the public do not want to buy it, the supermarkets do not want to sell it and the insurance companies will not insure the crops—we ought to license GM crops because they will feed the developing world.
A series of reports from Third World Network showed how country after country in the developing world is finding that GM is a complete scam. They are offered a short-term boost in production in exchange for the surrender of their right to save seed. The consequences for the environment are long-term devastation, while those for human health are unknown. The voices of the poor are asking us to enforce the precautionary principle. Many of them are saying, "Give us other choices about the crops we grow and the ability to use the resources that nature provides us with and we won't need that technology." And nor do we in this country.
We are not faced with food shortages that require us to take that enormous leap of faith. What we face is the requirement to engage with the problem and set the grounds for a different basis for the science of scrutiny. The urgency is beginning to percolate through. Last year, scientists in France undertook a re-evaluation of five of the GM crops that had received approval. They found that the inserted genes had changed their character. The genes were occurring in a different place in the Bt crop and they had changed their character. The instability of those inserted and constructed genes gave rise to enormous concern among French scientists.
The French scientists asked for fresh, rigorous trials, as was the case in the problem of the cows that died in Germany. Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out that Syngenta paid compensation in that case, but the scientists were asking for new rigorous trials into the cause of death of those cows. Only one cow was examined, yet 12 had died—from whatever cause—and more had to be slaughtered owing to unexplained illnesses. The scientists wanted rigorous testing of all those animals to find the cause of death. Instead, the company withdrew the Bt 176 maize from use.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |