Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-73)
17 MAY 2004
MR MEURIG
RAYMOND AND
MS ELIZABETH
HOGBEN
Q60 Alan Simpson: So that question about
"am I likely to be sued" would certainly sharpen the
focus of decisions they would make about growing?
Mr Raymond: It has to do. As an
industry, we are facing CAP reform, we are facing market forces,
so the commercial aspect of agriculture is going to come very
much to the fore. I would suggest to you that the majority of
farmers will make a commercial decision at the time depending
on the marketplace, on the competitive advantages that may arise
from growing or using biotechnology.
Q61 Alan Simpson: And the likelihood
of being sued. Can I just ask you what your commercial insurers
are currently saying to you about insurance over GM liability?
Mr Raymond: Because there are
no written down protocols I do not believe that you would find
an insurance company at this stage prepared to pick up that liability
until they know what the rules are and they have a clear indication
of what may be possible should there be a problem.
Ms Hogben: Of the insurance companies
that we have spoken to, there is no-one in the UK that we know
of that is prepared to offer insurance against GM admixture at
this moment in time.
Q62 Alan Simpson: When you say "admixture",
is that what we call contamination?
Ms Hogben: Admixture, contamination,
impurity, yes. The fact that there is no insurance available at
the moment in the UK is not surprising because there are not any
GM crops being grown commercially in the UK so there is no market
for that kind of insurance. It may be insurers will see an opportunity,
if GM crops were introduced, for them to sell their products to
farmers if farmers want to take up insurance against that sort
of eventuality.
Q63 Alan Simpson: Can I push that on
in terms of this notion of liability. The biotech industry have
talked, understandably, about a desire to have shared responsibility.
The NFU, I take it, have talked about the biotech industry but
without being clear about whether farmers are included in that
remit or not. I know Patrick raised this with you before, but
can you just clarify this for us. If a scheme was set up, would
you see it as having to be financed by the producers of the seeds
and including the farmers who chose to grow and made their commercial
decisions accordingly, or would it exclude farmers from any liability
in that process?
Ms Hogben: In talking about liability
generally, it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that in each individual
case, if one does arise, of a non-GM production stream being contaminated
by GM material there may be a unique aspect to that case. Heaven
forbid it is the result of an action by a farmer, but if it is
the direct result of a farmer doing something wrong, being negligent,
for example, then you would expect there to be some sort of system
in place that means that the negligent party has to suffer the
consequences of the action that they have taken and there is some
form of redress there against them. Whether or not farmers are
included in the biotech industry, I would not say so at the moment
because GM crops are not being grown commercially in the UK, as
I said. I think the important point here is to try to prevent
such instances of contamination occurring in the first place,
to have some sort of framework for prevention, and protocols for
responsible management of the technology in particular rather
than emphasis on compensation schemes or financial systems in
that way. I feel that in terms of the emphasis it should really
be on helping the technology to be managed properly if it does
get introduced into the UK if, indeed, there is a market for it.
Q64 Alan Simpson: I am sure there are
unique characteristics of every road accident but that does not
preclude anyone from having the right to drive without insurance.
The aspects of liability in terms of dangerous driving are a distinction
between liability and criminal responsibility. I am not sure whether
you are willing to be included in the responsibility for having
to have the comparable insurance cover before you get out on the
road.
Ms Hogben: Can I just ask for
clarification in terms of the question. Are you asking about insurance
for growers of GM crops against them contaminating a non-GM grower?
Q65 Alan Simpson: Yes.
Ms Hogben: So you are not asking
about insurance for non-GM growers, you want to make sure that
they are insured in the event that they are contaminated by another
grower?
Q66 Alan Simpson: No, it is the producer
liability I am talking about.
Ms Hogben: In terms of liability,
I am not sure how the current rules would operate if a farmer
was following the protocols that were drawn up and used during
the farm-scale trials and whether or not you could actually point
the finger at a particular producer and say they are the source
of the contamination, particularly as—
Q67 Alan Simpson: My question was just
should you be required, as farmers, to have that product liability
insurance before you grow?
Mr Raymond: I would suggest that
the farming industry is a responsible industry and I would see
no problems in farmers taking out product liability. In fact,
I would not suggest any farmer prepares to go down this road unless
he has product liability. The farmers at present who are producing
livestock and crops will not take out product liability, so they
would have to sit down, study the protocols and act accordingly.
It is early days. Insurance companies have stood back, they have
listened to the debate, they are waiting for decisions to be made.
If industry goes ahead with the commercial growing of these crops
then I am fairly confident that that insurance will be in place.
I have to turn back to the farm-scale trials and to the industrial
cropping of oilseed rape that has taken place over the years.
I do not believe there has been any issue where there have been
other growers suing a grower of GM or industrial cropping. I would
be fairly confident that the industry could sit down and come
to a useful conclusion and the insurance company would be there
to offer that service. I would just pick up one point. You asked
about "our" insurance company. The NFU is not an insurance
company. Are you confusing the NFU the organisation with the NFU
Mutual Insurance Company?
Q68 Alan Simpson: No, I was just asking
you what responses you had had from your insurance companies to
approaches to offer cover for contamination caused by growing
of GM crops.
Mr Raymond: At present, as Elizabeth
has said, the industry has not gone down this route. Until we
know what the protocols are, what the decisions are, whether the
industry actually picks up this new technology, I believe the
insurance companies will wait to see what does happen.
Q69 Alan Simpson: I think the answer
is at the moment there is no insurance available to you.
Mr Raymond: At the moment they
are suspicious, yes.
Q70 Mr Jack: Are you aware if any of
these risks are insurable as far as American farmers growing GM
are concerned?
Mr Raymond: I do not. Possibly
the people following us will be able to supply you with that answer.
Q71 Mr Jack: Given your close links with
farming organisations I thought you might just ask the question
because America is a very litigious society and I guess if there
was a contamination issue somebody would have said "how do
I deal with it?". The second question is probably one of
the most serious contamination acts which a farmer can do is to
contaminate a watercourse in a valuable fishing area in this country.
If he does that by accident, is it an insurable risk?
Mr Raymond: Yes, there is insurance
available for that.
Q72 Joan Ruddock: I just wanted to clarify
because I thought you said you were not aware of contamination
problems, the implication being where people had to sue or were
suing each other. I think a lot of us are aware of that happening
in North America to a considerable degree. Have you not taken
any evidence from North America as to contamination incidents
and how farmers are responding to those contamination incidents?
Mr Raymond: I do not believe we
have studied the systems in the United States. I am new to this
position.
Ms Hogben: It is something that
we have asked about. In terms of using our contacts with farming
organisations in the States, we have not received any information
about farmer suing farmer over a GM contamination incident, it
is not something that we are aware of.
Q73 Joan Ruddock: Have you looked at
the wiping out of the organic canola industry in Canada as a consequence
of GM contamination?
Mr Raymond: I had not realised
that the organic canola industry had been destroyed in Canada.
I presume that is factual but I had not heard of that. We do represent,
as I said earlier, 130,000 members and when I look to the future
there will obviously be organic farmers, and we represent organic
farmers and those growing conventional crops, and maybe there
will be an opportunity for people to grow GM crops. We are there
as a representative body of the industry and we consult widely
as and when these issues are discussed.
Chairman: We will be picking this up
with the last set of witnesses. Can I thank you both for giving
evidence. You will have heard what I said before, that what is
said cannot be unsaid. If you want to amplify or certainly clarify
anything you have said, please provide a note. Thank you.
| 
