| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond quickly to some of the points that have been made. Let us not lose sight of what the Bill is about or of the fact that it enjoys the support of many hon. Members of all parties.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) put his finger firmly on the nub of the issue when he referred to the domino effect. In the consultation process, major retailers clearly said that, if one of their competitors opened on Christmas day, the rest would do so, and that they would rather have a rule in place to stop that happening.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) supports competition, and those involved in enforcement would consider what happens on Christmas day. That is how the enforcement would take place.
This is an enabling money resolution, as always. It is intended to ensure that, if there are extra costs, the money can be forthcoming from the Treasury. As I have said, there may be no extra costs because trading standards officers are already involved in enforcement and the publicity surrounding the changes would suffice.
Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sutcliffe: I will not give way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has said—
Mr. Knight:
Will the Minister give way?
5 May 2004 : Column 1417
Mr. Sutcliffe: I have already said that I will not give way.
As my hon. Friend has already said, this important Bill enjoys a great deal of support throughout our communities and it is about keeping Christmas day special. I hope that he is wrong; I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not about to try to wreck the Bill. People want this important Bill to be passed, and I hope that the House will support this enabling money resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.
5 May 2004 : Column 1418
Genetically Modified Crops
[Relevant documents: the second report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2003–04, on GM Foods—"Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials", HC90—and the fifth report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2003–04, on GM Foods—"Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials: the Government Response", HC564.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must inform the House that there is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.
5.1 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Although I appreciate that the previous debate was very important and I do not dispute the right of hon. Members to raise such issues, I was a bit disappointed that it took so much time away from an opportunity for the House to discuss genetically modified crops—another very important issue. I will try to keep my comments brief, so that as many hon. Members as possible get the opportunity to participate in the debate.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) (PC): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned by the fact that the Minister has suggested that there is limited time to debate this matter. Can you confirm that we still have the full three hours?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, we have. In fact, the debate will conclude not later than 8.1 pm.
Mr. Morley: In that case, I was under a misunderstanding; I thought that the debate would finish at 7 o'clock. I am pleased about that; I may include a little more in my opening remarks. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information.
The whole issue of GM foods is clearly contentious, complicated and difficult. I have followed the issue closely, both before and since becoming a Minister in 1997 at the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So I can claim a long involvement in the way that the general debate has been structured, in the Government response and, of course, in the various controversies that surround it.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Minister please explain to the House why the Government decided to hold a consultation exercise, which we applauded, but ignored the strong advice from the British public that the Government were rushing and that all this was premature?
Mr. Morley:
The public response has not been ignored; it has shaped our response. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to "GM Nation?", it was always made very clear from the outset that it was not a referendum on GM foods. The whole point of that debate was to allow people to explore the issues and express their concerns, to hear both sides of the argument and to try to engage as many people as possible. It was very much an unusual public
5 May 2004 : Column 1419
consultation exercise, but the public's participation and engagement was useful, and I certainly pay tribute to the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which organised that consultation exercise.
I understand people's concerns about GM foods. From the very beginning, I have always had some concerns about the possible impact on the environment. I want to make it clear that the Government's whole approach to GM foods is one in which food safety and the environmental impacts are absolutely paramount, and I shall expand on that in a moment.
I am sure that I need not explain to the House that we are dealing with a range of opinions about GM. We are also dealing with extremes of opinion. At one extreme, there are people who are involved in the development and marketing of GM foods who do not believe that there is a need for traceability and labelling. They believe that the European Union is acting illegally, and that GM products should have open and unfettered access to our markets. That is not the Government's position. At the other extreme, there are people who, no matter what evidence is presented or how detailed it is, will never ever accept the principle of GM foods. The Government have to find a way through those conflicting positions.
Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): Some people regard this as a free trade issue. The United States has launched an action against the European Union under World Trade Organisation rules. Have the Government taken a strong position in the European Union, and have they persuaded Ministers and others in European countries to defend the EU moratorium and to fight against sanctions?
Mr. Morley: We have always believed that the EU approach, which is science-based, judges each application on its merits and allows for measures on labelling and traceability, is absolutely right. The challenge in the WTO is based on a mistaken premise. As for the way in which the EU is trying to handle the issue of GM, that is open and transparent, and is not in any way an attempt to apply trade barriers. It reflects the concerns of consumers, both in the EU and other countries, and recognises that there must be a process in the EU, as there must be in the UK. We firmly support that position, and have no intention of moving from it.
Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): Given that the Minister has said that openness and transparency are pre-eminent in the conduct of this debate, does he regret that we are debating not a substantive motion, allowing all Members a vote, but an Adjournment motion on GM crops and foods, long after the Government have made their initial decision?
Mr. Morley: I would regret that if this were the first debate on GM in the House, but it is not. There has been a range of opportunities for Members to express their opinion.
Andrew George: Not in Government time.
Mr. Morley:
It is certainly true that some of those opportunities arose in Adjournment debates secured by
5 May 2004 : Column 1420
right hon. and hon. Members, but there have been discussions in various Committees, including European Standing Committees. Many questions have been asked about GM during Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions and, indeed, other departmental questions. There has therefore been a great deal of opportunity to discuss the issue. This is not an issue where, in relation to EU markets and EU trade, we can have a vote and take a different position from the rest of the EU. Our position must be shaped within EU structures, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and we must adopt a rigorous, thorough and logical approach. I believe that we have already done so, and we must take the same approach to future applications on GM foods and crops.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |