---

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: Not at this time.

Mr. Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is reading out a press release issued by Lord May, which was not sent to me, and, without giving way, seems to expect me to reply to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The Chair is not responsible for the content of hon. Members' speeches, and I suspect that this is more a matter of debate than a matter of order.
 
5 May 2004 : Column 1463
 

Alun Michael: The matter will be debated in due course.

I want to balance the comments made by the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee with the Royal Society's devastating criticism of the Committee's report. I am sure that those points will be debated at length on another occasion, and I am content to leave the matter there.

The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford emphasised the science-based approach and referred to changes that have already taken place. We must remember that man has manipulated plants to produce better crops and food for hundreds of years. Indeed, many traditional changes have not been subject to the same scrutiny and questioning as the GM approach. GM may be considered as an extension to a long-term process, as all main food crops are genetically different from the wild crops from which they derive.

It is possible to do things with GM that one cannot do with conventional breeding, such as combining unrelated species, but that is why we need a vigorous regime carefully to examine possible risks from proposed GM crops to health or to the environment. By the same token, however, GM may offer benefits that conventional breeding cannot deliver, and it would be foolish to overlook that potential, especially over the long term. As with any technology, GM could be used for good or ill, and the right approach is to examine each proposed application case by case according to the evidence, which the Government are doing.

On a similar point, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) analysed a number of arguments on the use of GM crops that he finds less than convincing. He also made the valid point that the wish to feed the world should not lead us to relax on the science and the evidence. Without going into the detail of some of the cases that I find less compelling than him, I agree with him on that point of principle. Again, it is a question of examining the evidence on a case-by-case basis.

The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) discussed GM-free zones, and, although I am not sure about the practicality of such an idea, which is certainly not an appropriate basis for legislation, voluntary approaches might be different, and his contribution raised some important issues.

Perfectly fairly, the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) asked what has been done and considered the examination of evidence as a journey. In effect, she said that we must go down that road, but that we must travel with care and take a precautionary approach.

I want to underline the key messages in the Government's approach. Our policy on GM crops is precautionary, evidence-based and sensitive to public concerns—we are not in a rush. We have implemented comprehensive and transparent processes, such as the public debate, the science review, the cost and benefit study and the crop trials, to ensure that we reach a
 
5 May 2004 : Column 1464
 
position from which we can make informed decisions. We take public concern seriously, and we have weighed public opinion alongside the scientific evidence. Our policy seeks to address the people's concerns, but, as both Government and Opposition Members have said, careful analysis of the lessons from the science must be the primary consideration.

Our priority is safety, so safeguarding human health and the environment is our overriding concern, which is why we have implemented a strict regulatory regime. Each proposed release of a GM product is subject to a detailed risk assessment, which involves careful scrutiny by independent scientists based not only here, but throughout the European Union. We will agree to the commercial cultivation of a GM crop only if we are satisfied that it is safe.

Finally, there is the issue of choice. Tough new labelling rules will ensure that consumers can choose between GM and non-GM products. We intend to put in place co-existence measures before any commercial cultivation takes place. Ultimately, it will be for farmers and consumers to decide whether they want GM crops and food. The Government's responsibility is to try to get a coherent policy that examines the evidence, bases decisions carefully on the evidence, and advises and informs the public.

When we debate an issue that is as divisive as GM—I could mention others that call for an equally balanced and proportionate approach—Members on both sides of the House must try to inform the public by taking a clinical and scientific approach. I acknowledge that that is what Opposition Front Benchers have done today. In so doing, we will help to clarify the way in which we should go forward on the important issue of the future of GM foods.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, pursuant to Order [27 April].

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That—

(1) the proposal for a draft Special Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 20th May at half-past Two o'clock; and

(3) at that sitting—

(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the legislative proposal referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the legislative proposal referred to the Committee; and

(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. Ainger.]

 
5 May 2004 : Column 1463
 

 
5 May 2004 : Column 1465
 

Fly-Tipping (Gloucester)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

8.1 pm

Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester): I am delighted to have secured this debate on fly-tipping, which is an issue that, more than many others, fills my constituency postbag. That strength of feeling is probably replicated around the country. I should like to raise several aspects of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has decided to leave the Chelsea-Monaco game to participate in the debate, so I shall leave plenty of time for him to make his comments and for the Minister to respond.

Fly-tipping is a menace to all those who take pride in their surroundings. The illegal deposit of commercial waste and general household waste—particularly larger domestic waste such as refrigerators, mattresses and garden refuse—is unsightly, to say the least, but its impact can be much more serious than that. Drums of toxic waste, asbestos sheeting, syringes and used drugs present a hazard to the public, and I have found that they have all been dumped in my constituency. Fly-tipping can damage the environment, watercourses and soil quality. It also costs a great deal of taxpayers' money. The Environment Agency estimates that there are about 50,000 incidents of fly-tipping each year at a clean-up cost of between £100 million and £150 million. Irresponsible fly-tippers cause the problems while hard-working taxpayers foot the bill. That is totally unacceptable.

I know that my constituents agree with me on this, because I recently conducted community surveys, and for those residents who responded fly-tipping was one of the top complaints. It would take me hours to describe to the Minister every situation that was mentioned in the surveys, but one local example was the mess in Abbeymead at the Coney Hill hospital site. A local campaigner, David Purchase, got that mess removed with the help of staff at Gloucester city council. It is a recurring problem, however, and I am conscious that not every neighbourhood is fortunate enough to have a David Purchase willing to take up the concerns of local residents. Nor is everyone as effective as David at getting the necessary action taken, and sometimes people have to wait too long for it.

In paying tribute to the work that David Purchase and other residents in Abbeymead and Barnwood have done on getting the trouble and mess cleaned up, I also want to ensure that fly-tipping can be tackled without our always having to rely on such doughty campaigners.

I should like to examine the steps that have been taken so far to tackle fly-tipping and consider how effective they have proved. I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend what else could be done to solve the problem. I believe that the right legislative framework has already been put in place, most recently in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which gave local authorities powers to stop, search and seize vehicles that were suspected of fly-tipping. It also introduced fixed penalty notices and higher fines for repeat offenders convicted by a magistrates court. The most serious offences, including dumping toxic waste, can result in a prison term.
 
5 May 2004 : Column 1466
 

The provisions are in addition to the robust powers of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for clearing waste from land, the national database Flycapture, which was launched on 5 April, and the fly-tipping strategy, which was published for consultation on 23 February. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and I are aware of the consultation and we will urge our constituents to participate in it. They have a week or two in which to contribute because it ends in mid May. I want to ask the Minister whether the Department will accept late submissions, because many people in my constituency would be keen to contribute to the process. The measures are welcome and worth while.

---