Genetically Modified Crops
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Bain, Mr William (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
† Docherty, Thomas (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
† Duddridge, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Harris, Mr Tom (Glasgow South) (Lab)
† Kawczynski, Daniel (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
† Latham, Pauline (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
† Lloyd, Tony (Manchester Central) (Lab)
† Paice, Mr James (Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Rees-Mogg, Jacob (North East Somerset) (Con)
† Reid, Mr Alan (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
† Reynolds, Jonathan (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
† Rudd, Amber (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
European Committee A
Tuesday 14 June 2011
[Katy Clark in the Chair]
Genetically Modified Crops
[Relevant Document: European Union Document No. 16826/10]
4.30 pm
The Chair: I understand that Mr Rees-Mogg of the European Scrutiny Committee wishes to make a brief statement about the decision to refer the relevant documents to this Committee.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Clark. It might help the Committee if I take a few minutes to explain the background to the documents before us today and the reason why the European Scrutiny Committee has recommended them for debate.
Authorisation of the cultivation and use of genetically modified organisms, and of products containing them, is laid down in EU legislation. When an approval is granted following scientific assessment of any risks to human and animal health and to the environment, it applies throughout the EU. However, member states may prohibit or restrict cultivation on their territory, if they can produce new evidence of a risk, and they can also take measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products.
Despite that, some member states have sought freedom, within an EU science-based system, to decide whether GMOs should be cultivated on their territory, leading the Commission to bring forward these three documents. The most important one is COM(10) 375, which would provide for a greater measure of national discretion in the cultivation of GMOs. In particular, the Commission notes that although member states might wish to impose a ban for non-scientific reasons—such as land use, political or economic considerations including consumer preference, and national policies on biodiversity—the current EU legislation does not provide them with the necessary freedom.
The Commission has therefore proposed that the legislation provide an explicit legal base, authorising member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of authorised GMOs in their territory. However, it stresses that the conditions that protect human and animal health and the environment are based on the assessment made by the EU as part of its authorisation and cannot be amended. Consequently, any discretion would have to rest on other grounds and to conform with both the provisions in the treaties and the EU’s international obligations.
The Government have a number of concerns about the proposal, which include the implications for the single market, and the possible consequences for other policy areas of moving away from a strictly science-based policy—the kind of policy on which the UK has hitherto placed considerable emphasis. In addition, they have drawn attention to the more detailed grounds that the
Commission has put forward as a basis for national bans on cultivation, and to the differing views of the legal services of the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on such questions as the extent to which the treaty provisions on the free movement of goods could, in practice, prevent most of the grounds put forward by the Commission from being used.Although the European Scrutiny Committee has recognised that returning to member states certain powers in that area is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, it is concerned that the suggested approach could undermine the emphasis placed by the UK on the need for such decisions to be based on scientific assessment. It also believes that it would be important to be clear about the basis on which member states would be free to take their own decisions. In view of that, and of the various legal and other uncertainties, the Committee feels that the documents should be debated in European Committee.
The Chair: I call the Minister to make an opening statement.
4.33 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): May I say how nice it is, Ms Clark, to serve under your chairmanship, for what I think is the first time in my case, too? I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. They have covered most of what I was going to say, and I am sure that the Committee will be pleased that I do not intend, therefore, to repeat them. I am particularly pleased that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East, is delighted by what I have just said.
The Committee will be aware that the issue of genetically modified organisms creates a great deal of debate, discussion and emotion, but the issue here is not so much the rights and wrongs of the organisms but the proposal that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has described and the proposition to introduce an element of national decision making. Today’s documents represent the Commission’s attempt to resolve what is effectively an impasse, because of some of the things to which my hon. Friend has referred. Perhaps it will be useful to the Committee if, before I expand on why the Government are concerned about the proposition and concerned in general, I outline the Government’s position on GMOs in the UK, or, to be more precise, in England—some of these are devolved matters.
Human health and protecting the environment are clearly the Government’s overriding priorities. Beyond that, however, we have set five guiding policy principles on genetic modification. First, we will agree to the planting of GM crops, the release of other types of GM organism or the marketing of GM food or feed products only if a robust risk assessment indicates that they are safe for people and the environment. GM product applications must be assessed case by case for safety, taking full account of the scientific evidence.
Secondly, we will ensure that consumers can exercise choice through clear GM labelling rules and the provision of suitable information. We will also listen to public views about the development and use of the technology.
Thirdly, we support farmers having access to developments in new technology and being able to choose whether to adopt them. If and when GM crops are grown in England commercially, we will implement
pragmatic and proportionate measures to segregate them from conventional and organic crops, so that choice can be exercised and economic interests can be appropriately protected.Fourthly, we recognise that GM technology could deliver benefits, providing that it is used safely and responsibly, and particularly as one of a range of tools to address the longer term challenges of global food security, climate change and the need for more sustainable agricultural production. Developing countries should have fair access to such technology, so that they can make their own informed decisions about its use.
Finally, we believe that if we are to encourage innovation and fair market access for safe products, as well as economic growth, the regulation of the technology must be proportionate.
I turn now to the Commission’s proposals. As my hon. Friend has said, authorisations of GM crops for cultivation are made at EU level, but, frankly, the regime is not working. The Commission has been reluctant to bring forward votes on new products, given the lack of political consensus across member states. Quite often, there is not a qualified majority in Council to approve a particular item, despite the European Food Safety Authority having recommended it for approval—in other words, the scientific tests favour approval. In fact, only one GM seed has been licensed for commercial cultivation in the past 13 years.
Despite the presence of a robust risk and safety assessment procedure at EU level—the EFSA one, to which I have referred—a number of member states continue to oppose GM approvals on safety and other grounds. The proposition before us is designed to break that impasse and to ease the approvals system by allowing member states to use non-safety grounds to ban the cultivation of GMOs on their territory. The Commission’s reasoning is that that would remove the blockages at European level.
My hon. Friend has referred to the European Scrutiny Committee’s concerns about the legal base, and I have written to the Committee’s Chair. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen a copy of that letter yet, but I am happy to respond to any questions that members of the Committee may have.
The Government welcome the fact that the European Commission is trying to break this impasse and to improve the existing regime. As my hon. Friend has implied, we would normally sympathise with the idea of national discretion. However, we have a number of significant concerns, which is why we cannot support the proposals. One fundamental concern is that the proposals run completely counter to the principle of the single market per se. By allowing national discretion, we clearly lose the opportunity to have a free trade in the market.
Furthermore, the proposals do not give member states meaningful discretion to introduce legally sound national bans, because it would be difficult to identify a non-safety-based rationale for a ban that was compliant with World Trade Organisation rules and the free-movement provisions in the treaty on the functioning of the EU.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Commission has tabled a list of non-safety grounds under which member states might implement a ban. We are really concerned that, by moving away from a science-based assessment,
the proposal could make it more difficult for safe GM products to gain fair access to the EU market. Such a move away from a science-based decision could set a very unwelcome precedent in many other areas.Finally, we do not believe that a national ban could be considered a proportionate response to member states’ concerns. Under the existing regime, no one will be forced to grow or buy approved GM products, if they do not want to. After a GM crop or food has been assessed as safe, it would usually be left to the normal operation of the market to decide whether that crop or food is commercially successful or not. Those are the points that we are making in our negotiations at the European level.
I am happy to try to answer any questions that hon. Members might have. I hope that my remarks have been helpful.
The Chair: We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the Minister. Any questions should be brief. However, it is open to me to allow supplementary questions on related matters. Does any Member wish to ask a question?
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Clark.
At the moment, 15 EU member states have exercised the co-existence exemptions within the GM regulatory regime. Will the Minister say what representations have been received from those member states, or indeed from any of the other 12 member states, that the current regime does not work in terms of protecting their citizens’ health?
Mr Paice: At the moment, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what representations we might have had from those individual member states to which he has referred—perhaps I will do so in a few moments. The fundamental problem is whether this issue is a matter for the single market and the fact that, because of the impasse that I have referred to, those member states that might be sympathetic in principle to growing GM crops, subject to all the safety evaluations, are being prevented from doing so. The approval cannot actually take effect.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab): Can I ask the Minister to expand a little? I tried to follow his earlier remarks. By the way, let me assure him that, in general, I am pretty much of the same view as the one that he has put forward to the Committee. However, what I did not quite follow was the argument about a WTO challenge. If those member states that would block EU-wide agreement, because they do not have the capacity to opt out nationally, are indeed blocking matters at EU level, does that not in itself provoke a challenge within the WTO framework? Also, would such a challenge not be made against the whole of the EU and, if so, is that not a worse position for us to find ourselves in than there being a challenge to an individual nation state?
Mr Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that such action might provoke a WTO challenge. To the best of my knowledge, it has not done so yet, but that is not to say that it will not do so.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the situation that we are in at the moment, namely that the EU could be open to a WTO challenge. That situation has come about because individual member states are using a safeguarding provision within the regulation that allows them to introduce a temporary ban, because, as my hon. Friend said in his introduction, they think that they have new, updated scientific evidence—some might call it “long grass” material. In such cases, those member states issue a temporary ban. The Commission then says, “We don’t think that is proportionate,” or, “The scientific evidence is not new,” and it goes to the Environment Council and asks it to lift the temporary ban in that member state, but the Council refuses to do so. However, that situation has not yet given rise to a WTO threat.
What we are now being asked to do by this proposal is to legislate at EU level to create something that we believe would be counter to the WTO. What we have at the moment is an action by a member state that is possibly open to a WTO challenge, but what we are being asked to do is to legislate at EU level directly against what we believe would be the WTO interpretation of the law.
Tony Lloyd: I assume that the long grass that the Minister has referred to is not GM grass. This is not a trivial point, although it may be hypothetical at this stage, and he may want to think about it or even take it away.
I am not clear about the consequences at EU-wide level or for the United Kingdom. It is reasonably clear that if there is a challenge, it is generally expensive and to our collective disadvantage. It would be perverse if Britain were conjoined into an expensive challenge, if it could be avoided because another country wanted to take on the challenge. An individual nation might say, “So be it; let them do that and leave us out of it.” The Minister might say—I do not know whether this is the case—that if we give capacity for an exemption to an individual nation state, it would not avoid the whole EU being part of that challenge, so perhaps we would not avoid any of the consequences. I am interested in what that point means, because it makes a difference to us as a nation. There could be advantages in seeing other countries opt out, if it avoided the UK being dragged into the expense of a challenge.
Mr Paice: I entirely follow and understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, and I sympathise with it. My point is that the UK, in agreeing this EU proposal, would be complicit in passing an EU regulation in the face of the WTO.
If I quote from a letter about the specific legal issue, it may help the hon. Gentleman:
“If a WTO panel could be persuaded that a GM seed and non-GM seed were not ‘like’ products”—
“a national cultivation ban would not be in breach of”
the national treatment principle in article III.4 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. However, it would be “impossible to guarantee” that GM seeds and non-GM seeds were not comparable in every case. In fact, the Government believe
“that GM seeds should…be considered as a ‘like’ product, once they have been passed as safe for ordinary use.”
If it were established that the GM and non-GM seeds in question were, in fact, a like product, a WTO panel would be expected to determine that
“a national ban…would constitute”
“less favourable treatment of the GM variety”.
That would be a breach of article III.4 of GATT, unless a member could justify the particular national measure, using one of the grounds listed in article X of GATT. Permissible justifications include measures necessary to protect
“public morals, human, animal or plant life and health; or relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources. It does not include grounds such as social policy.”
Such measures must not be applied
“in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or”
as a disguised restriction on trade. In those terms, it seems doubtful to us that a national GM ban might be construed as being WTO-compliant. I apologise that that is legalistic, but I hope that it is helpful.
Tony Lloyd: I promise that this will be my final intervention. Will the Minister nevertheless reflect on this point? From the opinion that he read out, it seems that the impact of a WTO challenge would be against the individual nation state. If that is the case, perhaps it alters the balance of advantage and disadvantage in the argument. I am not asking the Minister to go beyond where we have got to today, but perhaps he will reflect on the matter and write to the Committee letting us know where things stand, and whether that makes a material difference to the Government’s view.
Mr Paice: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and I am more than happy to take it away and look at it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: The European Scrutiny Committee has asked about some of the legal issues, and the Minister has kindly answered on the WTO ones. In terms of European law—this is probably what he has written to the Chair about—the suitability of article 114 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union as the legal base for the draft regulation, and its consistency with the national safeguards in article 36 of TFEU were two of the points raised by the European Scrutiny Committee as to whether this effective derogation from the law passed by the European Union is in fact permissible.
Mr Paice: Perhaps it will help my hon. Friend and the Committee if I refer to the letter, which I am sure will be sent to him by the Clerk of his Committee. Let me briefly quote our response, which states:
“Article 36 sets out the grounds under which an import restriction can be justified: these are public morality, public policy, public security, the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, protection of national treasures”—
which may include my hon. Friend—
“or protection of industrial and commercial property. It should be noted however that where the measure concerned does not discriminate between imported goods or domestically produced goods (known as 'indistinctly applicable’ rules - in this case the
GM seed regardless of origin) the European Court has accepted a broader list of possible grounds for such measures than those contained in Article 36.It is therefore recognised that some of the grounds listed by the Commission could, in theory, provide Member States with a basis for trade restrictive measures under EU law. However, even with the grounds explicitly set out in the amendment. Member States would have to adduce clear evidence that a measure was a justified and proportionate response for achieving the stated aim.”
I will not continue with the whole response, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend sees a copy of it as soon as possible.
The Chair: Is there any other Member who would like to ask a question? If there are no other questions, we will now proceed to debate the motion.
Mo tion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 12371/10, a Commission Communication on the freedom for Member States to decide on the cultivation of genetically modified crops; Document No. C(2010) 4822, a Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in conventional and organic crops; and Document No. COM(10) 375, a draft Regulation amending Directive 2001/18/EC in relation to the ability of Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory; and supports the Government’s view that the Commission's legislative proposal raises significant concerns and should not be supported by the UK.—( Mr Paice. )
4.52 pm
Mr Bain: Let me begin by endorsing the opening remarks of the hon. Member for North East Somerset, and welcoming the European Scrutiny Committee’s decision to hold a full debate on the Commission’s communication to the European Parliament on the regulatory regime for the cultivation of genetically modified crops.
The current regulatory regime for the commencement of crop trials requires approval at EU level in a manner that would apply in all 27 EU member states. Directive 2001/18/EC was designed to require authorisation by the European Food Safety Authority, working alongside member states’ scientific authorities, for the placing of GMOs on the market in accordance with the precautionary principle.
Member states already have the ability through EU legislation to regulate the cultivation of GMOs through co-existence measures to prevent the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional or organic crops below the labelling threshold of 0.9%. Some 15 member states have adopted legislation on co-existence, while another three are considering doing so.
The Commission’s 2006 study on the economic impact of dominant GM crops concluded that in 2005, eight countries accounted for 99% of the global GM crop area. In 2006, the US alone accounted for 55% of the total area, followed by Argentina at 19%, Brazil at 10%, Canada at 6%, China at 4%, Paraguay at 2%, and South Africa and India at 1% apiece. The remaining 2% was shared by the other 13 countries. Spain is the only country in the European Union that is farming a GM crop for commercial purposes at a significant rate. In 1998, Spanish farmers started to grow a type of GM maize called Bt-maize4, which accounted for more than
53,000 hectares in 2005. France, Germany, Portugal and the Czech Republic also grew Bt-maize in 2005, but in very small areas of under 1,000 hectares.The treaty on European Union originally created a legal requirement to consider subsidiarity in decision making to member state level in areas of joint EU and member state competence. That is supplemented by the treaties of Amsterdam and Lisbon, to apply to regional and local tiers of government. The provisions on subsidiarity are now contained in article 5 of the EU treaty.
We should also recognise the benefits that the EU single market has brought to growth and employment throughout the Union, including in the agricultural and research sectors. As the Commission’s economic paper 271 from 2007 establishes, the
“estimated ‘gains’ from the Internal Market amount to 2.2% of EU value added and 1.4% of total employment (or 2.75 million jobs). Moreover, these gains could be doubled with the removal of most of the remaining Internal Market barriers.”
The same report also makes clear that while
“the effect of the Internal Market on R&D and innovation has been positive, it has not been strong enough to significantly improve the innovation and productivity growth performance of the EU. On a more positive note, these results show that a better functioning and more integrated Internal Market can make a valuable contribution to improve the innovation performance of the EU economy. In this respect, the experience of the US illustrates that a more competitive and integrated market is essential to better exploit the innovative potential of the European economy as it moves closer to the technology frontier.”
That is equally true in innovation in agriculture and research in the agricultural and food sectors.
The Commission communication opens the possibility of making the regulation of permission of cultivation of genetically modified crops a matter for member state Governments. The danger of such an approach is that, should member states diverge on policy on grounds other than of safety to biodiversity or to human health, the benefits of a unified internal market on research and development in agriculture and on the supply of food and crops could be lost. Should a member state decide to ban the cultivation of GMOs and perhaps introduce import bans or quantitative restrictions under article 36, the free movement of already permitted GM seeds throughout the EU would be affected, and the single market in agricultural products would be endangered.
There are also question marks regarding the legal basis of the proposed amendment in regulation, concerning article 36 of the EU treaty and articles III(4) and XXIII(1)(b) of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It would be a poor example to set to establish new barriers through the back door under such regulation, given that most opinion in the EU is in favour of completing the single market in areas such as energy and removing all remaining barriers to intra-EU trade. Although the European Court of Justice has developed a line of jurisprudence to the effect that criteria other than of a purely economic nature may be taken into account in constraining the free movement of goods, the Commission’s communication appears to create an excessive degree of latitude, permitting GMO cultivation to be restricted or prohibited on the grounds of public morals, including religious, philosophical or ethical concerns, public order, social policy objectives, cultural factors and general environmental policy concerns.
We must also consider the 2006 WTO ruling that the EU moratorium on the cultivation of and trade in GM crops contravened international trade rules. The substantial change in EU regulation of this area could lead to further delays and problems with WTO compliance, should member states impose measures that amount to import bans on grounds other than of damage to biodiversity or risk to human health. The Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations led to improvements in market access, as required by the agricultural agreement, by cutting tariffs and abolishing import quotas. It would be a desperate pity if we were to reverse that progress now.
The Opposition believe that maintaining a regulatory approach on a cross-EU basis, with the current level of delegated decision making for member states on public health factors, is the best approach to maximise certainty on investment, avoid intra-EU trade disputes and maintain the EU’s commitments under the GATT and WTO agreements. We favour a debate on the cultivation of GMOs in the EU and their commercial sale—conducted on the basis of science—their impact on food security and biodiversity, and their socio-economic impacts, both in the EU and the developing world, and a level regulatory environment. However, the communication as drafted would create more problems than it seeks to solve. We invite the Commission to consult further with the Council and, indeed, the Parliament, to remove those elements that would damage the single market in goods and put future investment in innovation and research in food and agriculture unnecessarily at risk.
5.1 pm
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am almost entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman—it seems that the forces of north-east constituencies are generally in alignment today. There is an odd question here about what the EU is doing. It seems to be trying to pass regulation that it knows will be ineffective in terms of the other laws that currently apply and the other agreements to which the EU and member states are signed up.
This concerns me because GMOs are an issue of great political controversy. We have all read in newspapers about Frankenstein foods and other such stories, and the general public’s concern about where the food they are going to eat comes from. The European Union’s approach seems rather cowardly. It is saying, “As far as we can tell, the scientific evidence on the safety of GMOs is clear; therefore, we want to approve them. However, we recognise that there are political problems and we are therefore going to allow countries to bring in bans that are not allowed under international law.” Inevitably, these bans will be overturned by the courts—either by the panel of the World Trade Organisation or, conceivably, by the European Court of Justice itself.
Is that a responsible way to proceed? Does it not strike us as a way of misleading the general public? They look to the European Union—to the extent that they look to it at all—to be a protector of propriety. They do not want it to be a body that misleads them by promising them something that cannot happen.
To my great surprise, I am in the position of hoping that the Minister will not allow this derogation, because I do not think it is a real one. If the EU wants to look at
proper permissions relating to GMOs, it should subsidiarise the whole thing and say to member states, “You decide and you battle it out with the WTO, and we won’t get involved at an institutional level.” What it is doing at the moment is potentially a rather worrying con of the publics of member states. I hope the Minister will do his best in the councils of Europe to ensure that that con does not happen.5.2 pm
Mr Paice: I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East for their comments. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not just the forces of north-east constituencies that are in alignment, but those of the south-east constituencies as well. There seems to be common ground between us and I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for our position.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central, who has been in this place for at least as long, if not longer, than I have, will know that the advantage of listening to the speeches of others is that it allows one to catch up on information that suddenly comes to hand. I will therefore use this opportunity to pick up on a couple of points that I may not have addressed adequately in the earlier exchanges. I say to the hon. Gentleman that any case brought against an individual EU member state is a case against the EU as a whole. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we would be part of that action. I think that answers his point.
I was historically incorrect when I said that, to the best of my knowledge—that was true at the time—there was no challenge. My knowledge has been altered in the past few moments, and I now understand that there was a WTO challenge in the early 2000s. It is somewhat historical and came from the United States, Canada and Argentina. The WTO panel broadly found against the EU, but since then the EU has considerably improved its decision making on GM commodity imports, so that ruling is not directly relevant to the debate. We certainly think that a challenge against a national GM ban would be far more likely to succeed under the EU treaty provisions to which I referred earlier, but there remains a concern about the WTO.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East—
Tony Lloyd: It might help if I added the centrals to the north-easts and south-easts. The Minister has confirmed that it would be foolish to go down the route proposed by the Commission because it would make challenge more likely and, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, if that happened the measure would be a total sham. The Minister should know that he has not only answered my question but has persuaded me, unequivocally, that he is in the right place.
Mr Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I was coming on to the issue of co-existence, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow North East referred. His point about the 15 member states was not entirely clear. All member states have to provide co-existence arrangements, and there is an element of national discretion. We are clear about the general principles that should apply; they must be pragmatic, proportionate and evidence based, and allow the choice between GM and non-GM products. We do not accept that co-existence is impossible;
it is possible to have a sensible co-existence strategy and, as has been said, the EU has agreed that products can be sold without a GM label if they have an unintended or unavoidable GM content of less than 0.9%.The previous Government carried out a consultation on co-existence measures in 2006 but did not take the measures forward because—understandably, to a degree—there was no direct significance to attach to them, inasmuch as it was clear that, because of the impasse, they were an irrelevance until we had products to approve. Nevertheless, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will now be introducing its own proposals.
I am pleased to hear support for the Government’s position on both sides of the Committee. The comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East about the single market are not just entirely accurate, but very relevant and important. The proposition would drive a coach and horses through the principle of free trade across the European Union. We understand the Commission’s desire to find a way through the impasse, but we do not believe that the proposition is the right way forward. Given the widespread use of GM products in major agricultural countries around the world, it would be absurd to invent extra rules that could prevent our farmers, and even our consumers, from having access to such products, provided they had passed the European Food Safety Agency’s safety test.
I hope I have responded to the points made. I wish to confirm to the Committee what the next stages will be.
The proposal has been listed as a progress report on the agenda for the Environment Council of 21 June, and substantive discussions will therefore carry on over to the next presidency. A number of member states, including Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden and Ireland, take a similar view to us, and have joined us in expressing major concerns about reaching a deal on the proposal, so the discussions will clearly go on. It is a matter for co-decision, and we are still waiting to hear the final European Parliament proposals. The Parliament has been having discussions before agreeing the First Reading position. Some of the amendments it is considering would, in our view, make the proposal an even more unattractive proposition, but the amendments are being only informally considered—they are not yet the Parliament’s formal stance.I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments and supportive remarks. The measure is a well-meaning one which extends from certain member states’ own initiatives. It is an attempt to find a way through a difficult situation, but it is the wrong way because it goes completely against the principles of the single market. For that reason, and for the others that I have given, I hope the Committee will agree with the Government’s position.