Dan
Norris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passionate
concern. We have identified distances for separation: 35 m for oilseed
rape, 80 m forage maize and 110 m for grain
maize. On
timings, such issues take an awfully long time when dealing with
Europe, and we want to be certain that when we conclude our position we
have taken account of all the available evidence. We do not want to
rush into it in relative or absolute terms. We want to get it right,
and whether or not we agree with opinions that are not based on
science, it is important to acknowledge that there is public concern
and to ensure that we are not seen to make any decision faster than we
have to. We must take into account all the different positions, not
just of our experts, but of other scientific experts in Europe and
elsewhere in the
world.
Dr.
Ladyman: I want to be explicit with my hon. Friend, and to
ensure that I understand what he is telling us. Is he saying that the
Scottish Executive’s position is that the people of this country
should be encouraged to eat maize grown with the help of poisonous
chemicals rather than a chemically identical maize product that was
grown without the need for poisonous
pesticides?
Dan
Norris: I thank my hon. Friend again. It strikes me that
he is answering his own question. It is clear that the Scottish
Government have taken a position that does not put science or evidence
at the top of the argument. I can only say that I think that that is
foolish and not the best way forward. If any unilateral decision is
based on a principle without weighing it up against all the other
factors—for example, use of pesticides and their detriment on
the environment and health—it is clearly not the best way
forward. That is why we do not take that position. The Scottish
Government must answer for themselves, but it is noticeable that they
do not make the strongest case for
it.
Mr.
Paice: I want to come to the points made by the hon.
Member for South Thanet, but in the meantime I want stay with crop
segregation. We are being asked to agree with the Government’s
position, which is in favour of people growing such crops in the UK if
they want to. The crop is grain maize and, as the Minister said, corn
borer weevil is not a problem in this country, but if the Government
get their way, farmers in this country, if they so choose, could grow
such varieties in the next planting season. Why do we not have in
statute proper arrangements for crop separation? The Minister said that
we must consult this, and listen to that, and we do not want to upset
anyone, but for God’s sake, is it not time that we made some
decisions? The consultation ended two years ago. The Minister is asking
us to agree to the growing of such crops in the next planting season if
a farmer wants to do so. Why are crop separation arrangements not in
place?
Dan
Norris: It is not a question of us wanting to please
people; otherwise, we would take the Scottish Government’s
position, which I suggest is an attempt to do exactly that. The general
point is that we will introduce our co-existence measures before any
approved GM seeds are sold for commercial cultivation. Ideally, we want
to take account of any relevant new evidence that becomes available to
us up to that time. Why should we exclude any important information
that might come forward by making a decision earlier than we absolutely
have
to? In
reply to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question, long-term field
studies have taken place in Spain and Germany, and the results were
taken into consideration. Insect-resistant crops will not be grown in
the UK under the current climate, so no farm-scale trials have been
considered. I take it that his point is that climate may change and
that we need a position should that eventuality arise. We will take our
time, for as long as possible, because important information could come
forward that might change any decision made before
that. Mr.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I add my welcome to
you, Mr. Streeter, as Chairman of the Committee, and to my
parliamentary constituency neighbour, the Minister, in his new
role. I
was puzzled by the Minister’s answer a moment ago to the hon.
Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, in which he seemed to indicate that
we had a great deal of time ahead of us and that therefore we could all
discuss and consult on the means by which these products were labelled
and that, surely, something more or less sensible would come out of the
woodwork. I am puzzled because he does not seem to have read the
Commission’s decision, which, under article 3, lays down
specifically and precisely what the labelling of such products will
look like. Does that mean that the Government are considering doing
something other than what is laid down under article 3, or is the
Minister prepared to go along with the Commission’s
decision?
Dan
Norris: No, it means that there clearly are existing
positions in relation to labelling. Speaking as a new Minister, I hope
that we will not not listen to other people’s views, if they
feel that there is something important to say on
that.
Mr.
Williams: Of course, if this is agreed to, people may grow
this crop for the sheer hell of it, rather than under commercial
conditions. If somebody did that, would they have to apply for a
licence or notify DEFRA where it was being grown? Would they have to
notify DEFRA how they were going to dispose of the crop afterwards? I
speak with some experience, because a constituent has done just
that.
Dan
Norris: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his
question. Although I will need to write to him to give him more
detailed information, I understand that it is a necessity that people
do those things that he is saying are
important.
Mr.
Paice: We are not making a lot of progress
here.
The
Chairman: I have
noticed.
Mr.
Paice: I am glad you have noticed, Mr.
Streeter. If
this proposal is approved in Europe—we have not reached that
point yet; we are worrying about the Government’s
position—in the very next planting season, any farmer in England
could, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, decide to
sow these seeds just for the hell of it or for any reason. The Minister
said, in answering my previous question, that there is no hurry to sort
out crop separation, because it will be done before the seeds are sold.
That could be next spring, which is less than a year away. So when are
the Government going to have the rules laid down about what crop
separation will be and, linked to that, when will they sort out what
the rules of liability are in the event of cross-pollination and
contamination of conventional or organic crops? We cannot go on waiting
and pretending and blaming delays on
Europe.
Dan
Norris: I return to my earlier answer. We will do it as
soon as we can, but we will take as long as we need to get whatever
additional information is out there that is regarded as important in
taking an informed decision. That is just intelligent behaviour. In
terms of consequences for contamination, laws of tort will deal with
that in a general sense, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we
need to look at and focus on some other areas to ensure that
consequences that are unfair to certain individuals may be rectified in
the best way
possible.
Mr.
Paice: I could go on with that line of argument for a long
time, because it is clear that this section of the Department is just
not getting a grip on the issue. Frankly, I am disgusted by what I have
heard this afternoon. That is not a reflection on the Minister, who is
seriously under-briefed. The Government are undecided on some pretty
critical
issues. Let
me move to the issue raised by the hon. Member for South Thanet about
the position of the Scottish Government. What is the
Government’s policy on growing all forms of GM in this
country—I am talking about growing as opposed to
consumption—and on its approval, given that there is
disagreement between the English aspect of agriculture and DEFRA, which
is the senior Department in the UK, and one of the devolved
Administrations? Is there an impasse there? Will the Government
overrule Scotland and approve the provision,
despite what Scotland may say? What measures are being taken by the
Government to find some modus operandi for making these decisions and
representing the position of the UK in the European
Council? Dan
Norris: All the devolved Administrations agree that the UK
position should take account of the scientific evidence on safety,
including the opinions expressed by the European Food Safety Authority
and those of our own independent expert advisory committee. In
addition, the authorities in Scotland and Wales would like other
factors to be considered as part of the decision-making process. There
has been some discussion of that at the EU level, and the Commission is
due to submit a report next year on the possible appraisal of
socio-economic risks and benefits. We continue to discuss these matters
with the devolved Administrations, but ultimately we must act in
accordance with the EU legislation as it currently stands, and it
requires decisions to be based solely on the evidence of
safety.
Mr.
Gray: I am slightly puzzled by the Minister’s
answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, in
that it is reasonable to presume that this stuff could be grown within
a few months on the borders of Scotland, in places such as
Northumberland and Carlisle, despite the fact that the Government of
Scotland have said that they do not want it. We are saying that we do
want it, and the Minister says that discussions continue with the
Scottish Government. Could he tell us what form those discussions are
taking? Is he personally having discussions with the Scottish
Government? What would happen if a decision were not taken before a
general election? Would it then be a Labour Government in the Scottish
Parliament discussing the matter with my hon. Friend, or
what?
Mr.
Paice: Or the Scottish National
party.
Dan
Norris: I appreciate the sincerity of the question asked
by the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that I will have to write to him. A
week into my role, I need to discover what the existing arrangements
are for meetings, forums and so on. However, I assure him that the
matter is on my radar, and that I will write to him about
it.
Mr.
Paice: I want to take my questioning on a stage, not
necessarily because I accept some of the answers we have been given,
but to progress issues to the European
stage. The
report from the European Scrutiny Committee demonstrates the huge
division of opinion in Europe. I believe that nine countries opposed
approval of the varieties when the matter was considered at European
level. The Government say, and I accept, despite my questioning, that
there is no food safety issue—the varieties were already
approved for inclusion in human and animal feed—and that
probably, given the assessments, there is no environmental
issue. However,
given the huge difference of opinion between the scientific viewpoint
and the position of principle, to use the Minister’s word, that
is applied not just in
Scotland but in some other EU member states, what do the Government
think will happen not just with the two varieties but with the whole
issue of growing GM crops in Europe, and with the ability to make
decisions in Europe, rather than having the complete impasse that we
seem to have because of what is clearly more than a blocking minority?
Given the impossibility of getting a weighted majority opinion in
favour, these crops will never be grown in Europe and, it is argued in
some quarters, British agriculture will be
disadvantaged. Dan
Norris: I share the hon. Gentleman’s general
position that the current situation is clearly not helpful. It poses
the possibility that we could miss out on all kinds of things if we do
not get an agreement and move forward more rapidly. However, what does
one ever do in such situations, other than make as strong an argument
as one can, try to persuade and influence, and use measures that are as
objective as possible, such as science, to say that things are safe and
that therefore the caution being shown in some regards is not well
founded? Perhaps
I ought to mention some things that my officials are pointing me to. We
strongly support the key principle underlying the EU regime that
proposed GM food crops should undergo evidence-based and robust
case-by-case safety assessment. We also support EU labelling laws, as
they allow people to make an informed and intelligent choice about GM
products. However, we are concerned about the operation of the EU
assessment and decision-making process, which is very slow. We agree
with the hon. Gentleman about that. It threatens to disrupt supplies of
imported animal feed on which UK farmers depend, as he well
knows. We
are therefore calling for the operation of the regime to be improved,
as it should be possible to reach decisions more quickly without
compromising on safety. Again, it comes down to the power of argument.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the inertia that is
there, and that it is not an easy thing to change. If it were, it would
have been dealt with
already.
Mr.
Williams: I understand that the Minister is early in his
career in the Department and has not taken advice from the full rank of
devolved Administrations. Perhaps when he meets the Welsh Assembly
Government he could ask them to explain their position. The report
states
that “although
Wales agreed to the UK voting position in these instances, the Welsh
Assembly Government’s policy is to take the most restrictive
approach to GM crop cultivation which is consistent with UK and EU
legislation.” I
fail to understand what the Welsh Assembly Government are saying in
that
instance.
Dan
Norris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. We
have certainly initiated discussions with the devolved Administrations
and Governments and we are planning further meetings. At this
point—just a week into the job—it is useful for me to be
on this Committee because it is clear that there are issues of which I
need to be aware and things that I need to make happen. I thank him for
his forbearance and consideration; I am glad to have been informed by
his experience.
Mr.
Gray: My understanding of the Minister’s response
to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is that he has initiated
discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and that more
discussions are planned. However, in an answer that he gave me a moment
ago, he said that he had no idea at all what forum was being used for
discussions with the devolved Assemblies and that he would write to me
about it. However, apparently, discussions have now been initiated.
Will the Minister enlighten us on what discussions he plans to have
with the Welsh Assembly Government, where they will occur, and who from
the Welsh Assembly Government will be there to discuss these important
matters?
| 
