Biotechnology

HC Deb 14 November 1988 vol 140 cc812-28

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Before we begin the debate on the next motion, on biotechnology, I point out that the Chair was particularly relaxed in allowing a very wide debate on the last motion. I am sure that hon. Members will not take advantage of that good will and will not repeat arguments that have already been made.

8.4 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope)

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5836/88 on exposure to biological agents at work, 6397/88 on control of genetically modified organisms and 10399/86 on regulation of biotechnology; supports the proposals in principle as steps towards harmonising safe working practices and improving environmental safety in the field of biotechnology; and endorses the Government's endeavours to secure modifications in negotiations. I am very much a layman in this matter, and in case there may be others like me, I shall start by setting out in the simplest terms what we are talking about. Biotechnology is the relatively new term that is used for something with ancient origins—the deliberate use by man, for his own purposes, of biological systems and processes. For many centuries, man has used microbes to produce beer, wine, bread, cheese and many other products. We have, in one sense, manipulated genes—for example, in the selective breeding of farm animals, racehorses, or, for that matter, roses. We have, for two centuries, practised vaccination, which is the controlled use of disease-causing microbes to provide immunity against disease.

In the 20th century, the development of biotechnology has proceeded at an ever-increasing pace, to the great benefit of mankind. In medicine, penicillin and other antibiotics have become commonplace; insulin is now produced by genetic manipulation. Improved strains of crops, healthier animals, more effective washing powders, as well as better techniques for dealing with wastes, all owe their progress to biotechnology. There can be no doubt that biotechnology will continue to be responsible, on an ever-increasing scale, for major new advances, which will be the foundation of whole new industries. Many of the most important advances in biotechnology started here in Britain and we should be among the world's leading users industrially and commercially, and we are. However, to maintain this lead, we need, among other things, a sound safety regime, and that is what we have under the Health and Safety Commission and Executive.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

What does the control of genetically modified organisms mean to the layman?

Mr. Cope

I shall explain that in a moment.

We have much to gain from biotechnology, but we need to make sure that it proceeds safely. It has proved very safe so far, but explosive growth in the subject can be expected over the next few years and the safety regime must be robust enough to permit that without increasing the risks.

The safety regime must also be international. The OECD has been active in this sector, as has the European Community. We are today considering three documents from the Commission—10399/86, which is a "white paper" on a Community framework; 5836/88, which is a directive on protection of workers in this sector; and 6397/88, which comprises two related directives on the contained use and the deliberate release of genetically modified micro-organisms. All these directives are now the subject of negotiation in Brussels. They have all been prepared with the help of groups of expert officials of member states over a period of 12 months or so, and in these discussions United Kingdom representatives have played their full part.

After the presentation of the directives to the Council of Ministers this summer, the explanatory memoranda were submitted to Parliament—those listed in the motion—and the Health and Safety Executive followed these up by an invitation to the public to comment on any aspect of the proposals. Many have taken advantage of that invitation.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

As my right hon. Friend may be aware, I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and this directive has cropped up on a number of occasions. One of the factors that prompted me to press hard for this matter to be referred to debate I shall explain later, but I have a specific question about the committee of experts to which my right hon. Friend has referred. Could he give us—if not now, later—some idea of the membership of that committee and the extent to which it is left to the self-regulatory mechanism, which ensures that, effectively, the only people who are in a position to comment on the efficacy of these important matters are directly involved by virtue of their professional experience?

Mr. Cope

These are extremely complex matters, and those people who are expert in such matters tend, therefore, to have studied the subject carefully for many years and are working in the area. Laymen, whether politicians or officials, must rely to a considerable extent on those experts. In that sense, it is no different from the law. Those of us who are not lawyers occasionally have to seek guidance from lawyers about the law.

I wish to say a little about each of the proposed directives, although there are close links between them. The main purpose of the directives is to control the use of micro-organisms. The directive covered by explanatory memorandum 5836, on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work, is general in character and introduces for the first time specific provisions designed to lead to the adoption of minimum requirements for the health and safety of workers concerned.

I want to stress the wide scope of the proposals. They seek to cover research and diagnostic laboratories and other places where there is a deliberate intention to work with micro-organisms. They also include, although admittedly in less depth, places where contact with micro-organisms might be incidental to other work—for example, in the health services, or, perhaps less obviously, in agriculture.

All that mirrors two strands of thought that are generally accepted in this country. We believe that the general principles of occupational hygiene, which apply, for example, to work with chemicals, should also apply to work with micro-organisms. That disposes us to accept the articles dealing with incidental exposure. We have also developed a system of close inspection and control of the areas of specific work with micro-organisms. The Health and Safety Commission and the Department of Health have developed that system of guidance and inspection within a framework provided by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and other relevant legislation.

I can assure the House that that general acceptance of the proposals does not mean that we are willing to accept every word of the document without negotiation. Some of the proposals are not particularly clear and others seen to be overdetailed, but, as ever, we are concerned that they should be cost-effective. As negotiations proceed in Brussels, we shall seek improvements. The discussions on this document are still at an early stage.

The two other sets of proposals are comprised in one Council document relating to genetically modified organisms. They are both covered by Council document 6397 and, as they are both closely linked, they are being negotiated in the environment working group, but the areas covered by the two directives are distinct. The first part of the document deals with the contained use of genetically modified organisms. In answer to the question by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), genetic engineering or manipulation—they appear to mean the same thing so far as I can see—means the manipulation of the hereditary molecule of cells, usually by adding extra DNA, the chemical involved, to give the cell special properties. It therefore means modifying the genes of an organism.

Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove)

Although this matter comes under the guise of health and safety at work, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the organisms to which he refers as being genetically modified are not human organisms and that as a result of the regulations we shall not legally countenance such modification of human organisms?

Mr. Cope

I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing in the document does anything of the sort.

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

I do not think that that is an accurate answer. There might not be anything in the document to that effect, but genetically engineered micro-organisms can be used to cure animal diseases, plant diseases, blight and human diseases. They are now used in vaccinations. DNA from human beings is used. That is the present legal position. There is nothing frightening about it. It is not a case of experimenting with embryos.

Mr. Cope

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was concerned about experiments with human embryos, but the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is right when he says that many of the applications of genetically manipulated or engineered molecules are for pharmaceutical purposes.

The purpose of the first part of this document is to build on the Community's recommendations, relating to registration of such work, which were made in 1982. Laboratory work with genetically modified or manipulated organisms has become well established in this country and elsewhere. I can assure hon. Members that this experimental work is subject to notification to the Health and Safety Commission under the Health and Safety (Genetic Manipulation) Regulations 1978, which comply with the later recommendations of 1982.

The ultimate reason for all this work is to produce something useful to mankind, hence the use of genetically-manipulated organisms on a larger scale in industry. That large-scale work may encompass the use of genetically-manipulated organisms or other processes outside the definitions that we have used. So far, they have been used chiefly in the production of pharmaceuticals. The main requirements which would be imposed by the contained use proposal are broadly in line with the thinking of the Health and Safety Commission. It has already consulted publicly on its intention to revise the 1978 regulations involving compulsory notification of the use of genetically-manipulated organisms.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

My right hon. Friend has been most helpful. Does he agree that document 865/73 covers human growth hormones which can be used in the pharmaceutical industry to promote human growth as well as plant growth?

Mr. Cope

Certainly, those hormones can be used. One of the conditions treated by products created in that way is dwarfism. Such products are used in the pharmaceutical industry for treating many conditions.

Contained work in this country has always been subject to close control and we do not believe that we have any difficulty in accepting the basic principles in this Community document. The most important principles are safe operation, prior safety assessment and notification of work to national competent authorities which will be responsible for control measures. The directive relating to contained use has made by far the quickest progress so far in negotiations. The explanatory memorandum, which went to the Select Committee in June, explained that to some extent.

Present negotiating concerns centre mainly on definitions of the activities to be covered, distinctions between large and small-scale work, the period of advance notification, commercial confidentiality and some still unresolved points of detail.

The second part of the document is concerned with an even newer activity—releasing genetically modified organisms into the general environment. Experience here is so far limited, but there are many exciting technical possibilities, notably improvements in crop characteristics including disease and pest resistance, extended growing seasons and improved bacteria to control pollution. The document relates to deliberate or planned release. Releases have environmental implications, as well as implications for human health and safety, and the Department of the Environment has a stake in the outcome, as has my Department.

The level of reassurance on safety that the public needs before the release of novel organisms into the environment is obviously greater than that required for securely contained applications. There is, therefore, a system of notification in this country which is based on the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on genetic manipulation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently established the interim advisory committee on introduction, which is an independent scientific committee, to provide additional advice on the ecological aspects of such proposals. Overall, the Government welcome the intention to establish a Community-wide control regime for these matters.

However, the proposals raised some points of doubt and difficulty. For pre-commercial releases for the purpose of research and development, the notification would be to national authorities. That is in line with the Health and Safety Commission's regulatory proposals, to which I have already referred. For releases of commercial products, national notifications would be circulated to other member states, and the Commission would have the ultimate responsibility for resolving objections. The proposed procedures are rather cumbersome and we need to be convinced that member states are not the best judges of the effects of releases in their own countries.

In recommending the motion to the House, I hope that I have made it clear that we believe that in principle it is right that the same high standards should be attained and maintained throughout the Community. On the other hand, it is necessary to ensure that the directives are justified on scientific, technical and medical grounds. It is also necessary to ensure adequate protection in the most cost-effective and least bureaucratic way, if it is to achieve its purpose in the real world. I invite the House to comment on the proposals. I shall do my best to respond to any points raised either later in the debate or afterwards, if that is more appropriate.

8.23 pm

Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)

The Opposition broadly support the proposals. The Minister has rightly reminded us of the strength of the British biotechnology industry. He was right to do so, because genetic manipulation has come from work that was done in the 1950s by Dr. James Watson and Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid—DNA. Throughout the 1960s, a great deal of work was done in Britain and elsewhere which showed that DNA is the basic genetic material of organisms and that the code that determines how animals, including ourselves, develop is contained in DNA, which is transmitted from parents to offspring.

The Minister said that scientists have been genetically manipulating organisms for a long time. I was surprised that the Minister seemed to classify ordinary breeding as genetic manipulation. I have never heard that interpretation before. There is a quantum leap from selective breeding to improve the strain which has been carried out for centuries to improve crops and livestock, and from the active breeding of micro-organisms, such as bacteria, to the ability artificially to insert additional genetic material to alter the genetic complement of organisms so that they will develop differently.

There is confusion about the position with regard to humans. To my knowledge, there is no recorded instance of the genetic manipulation of human DNA. Of course, use has been made of bacteria that have been genetically manipulated for human purposes, but enormous ethical issues would be raised if there were to be genetic manipulation of human beings—although some genetic diseases could be corrected in that way.

Mr. Cash

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who is well informed on these matters, has no doubt read the book written by a Fellow of New college, Oxford entitled "What sort of people should there be?" It is by no means science fiction and it is generally conceded to be true by those in Edinburgh, not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, who are engaged in serious research along those lines. The notion that he has given that the modification of human genetic characteristics is not on the immediate horizon is wide of the mark.

Mr. Strang

I shall qualify what I said. Enormous ethical considerations would be raised by genetic manipulation of human material that aimed to create desirable characteristics in humans as a means of selective breeding. That is different from using genetic manipulation to prevent certain genetically transmitted diseases from developing in human beings.

Mr. Cash

The hon. Gentleman cannot draw a distinction merely on the basis of considering something to be beneficial which is regarded as potentially dangerous by experts, including those who advise the Minister. The principle is whether the modification of genetic characteristics is capable of being brought into effect now or in the immediate future. The answer is yes, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Strang

I have not said anything to contradict that.

The point that I tried to make was that the role of genetic manipulation that we are discussing tonight relates to its use in biotechnology and industry. Perhaps there is a role for genetic manipulation in the future in the prevention of certain diseases that are genetically transmitted in human beings and that will involve the manipulation of human genetic material. However, I was referring to a development beyond that, which we should think of as science fiction, which is using genetic manipulation to carry out selective breeding as Hitler and the Third Reich thought of it—the selective breeding of humans to develop a super race. No one has suggested seriously that we would apply genetic manipulation to human beings with that objective, as we do in relation to micro-organisms and to improve livestock.

Mr. Cope

I have agreed with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I must make it clear that the parts of the directives that deal with laboratories cover work with micro-organisms only and not work with human embryos. That work is not covered by the directives.

Mr. Strang

I take the Minister's point. I am sure that we agree that we are not suggesting that it is ethical or proper to use genetic manipulation to breed super humans.

Some hon. Members may recall that, about a year ago, a front page story in one of the popular Sunday newspapers claimed that human immune deficiency virus had its origin in genetic manipulation. I do not believe that that is true, but it could have been true. That is an extreme and alarming example of what could happen. When one genetically manipulates bacteria and viruses, one cannot be certain what one will produce. That is why it is vital that we should have safeguards, and seek to apply the highest safety standards, particularly in laboratories where people work with genetically manipulated organisms.

It goes without saying that by and large we support the work. Thousands of millions of pounds have been invested in biotechnology industries and only recently have the benefits of that investment come on stream. As the Minister said, biotechnology can lead to the development of new and better drugs. In a whole range of industries micro-organisms rather than chemical processes are used and the application in agriculture is also substantial and widespread. Clearly, we can derive enormous benefits from the genetic manipulation of micro-organisms.

Equally, it is crucial that we should recognise the risks involved and implement the highest safety standards. We should take all the precautions needed to protect not only the workers directly involved, but the wider community from the potential escape of a dangerous organism.

The "policy implications" paragraph of the explanatory memorandum, which deals with the directive on the contained use of genetically modified organisms, says:

the UK will be seeking some important modifications in the detail of the containment and risk assessment requirements which, as they stand, cannot easily be applied to all contained applications". The Minister touched on that, but it would help if he could explain the sentence at greater length.

The other directive deals with the release of genetically manipulated organisms into the environment. The application to certain crops immediately comes to mind, but there could also be a role for the process in, for example, the control of pollution. It may be possible genetically to manipulate organisms to make them more effective at carrying out certain functions that are to the benefit of mankind.

We would all agree that it is a major step to release genetically manipulated organisms into the environment. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the organisms will not be substantially different from their natural counterparts. We have to allow for the fact that there are exceptions and we have to guard against the possibility that the properties of a genetically manipulated organism may prove more radically different than was originally envisaged, and may have a deleterious effect. There are ways of seeking to get round that. For example, we could require that any organisms released into the environment must be such that they could not survive in a different habitat. If an organism was to be released into a particular crop, for example, we could ensure that its specifics were such that it could not survive in another.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

How would we know that?

Mr. Strang

One can breed organisms to ensure that they have certain qualities before one releases them. The hon. Lady underlines the important factor, on which we all agree, which is that we must be very careful. The process must be strictly controlled.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Following from the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he agree that the notification should be to the national Government rather than outside their territory?

Mr. Strang

I think that there is a case for both. Clearly we want a national authority to authorise such activities. However, the Minister seemed to have no sympathy with the view that the Commission should have some right of approval in relation to the release of organisms. It is perhaps easier for us, in the British Isles, to argue that than it would be for those in some other countries. Suppose that we are talking about the release of an organism in close proximity to the boundaries of two EEC member states. Either the member states which border the country should have a say in the matter or the European Commission at least should have some say. If genetically manipulated micro-organisms were to be released in West Germany for some agricultural purpose it would be perfectly reasonable to require that the authorisation of that release on a commercial scale should not be the prerogative of the national Government alone because the implications could go wider than West Germany. I recognise that in the first instance and in relation to pre-commercial and post-commercial use the authority should be a national Government.

This is an ongoing process. It is not as though regulations are being introduced for the first time. We have had regulations in place in Britain for a considerable time. The dialogue with the scientists will continue. There is no dispute between the Opposition and the Government about the benefits that can accrue from biotechnology and there should be no dispute about the need in principle for the highest safeguards.

We should welcome the fact that such matters are being discussed in the European Community because it is in our interests. We are concerned about the health and safety of our population, and in some instances developments in other countries—for example, in nuclear power—can affect the health of our population. Surely we are also concerned to improve the health and safety of workers in other countries. If we can contribute to a reduction in accidents in Spain and Italy, we should seek to do so. We do not need to adopt an entirely parochial view of health and safety. The important thing is that we have responsibility for our regulations. We should in no way be prepared to reduce our standards in deference to developments in the EC. However, we should contribute to improving health and safety in the Community and ensure that this is not just a national effort but an attempt to improve standards throughout Europe.

8.40 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Some months ago I was in the United States, where I had the opportunity to speak to a scientist who represented 6,000 other scientists who, in one way or another, were under his surveillance, monitoring and control. He told me that genetic engineering was worrying him more than anything else, with all the responsibilities that he had. The dangers that are set out in the explanatory memorandum and in other papers were of concern to him. I have in mind wheat strain and other matters. We are aware of the great dangers of the release of micro-organisms. A recent incident in Argentina gave rise to the severe danger of the obliteration of sectors of crops.

The scientist whom I met in the United States was concerned also about the defence implications of biotechnology. He explained that the scientific development of genetic engineering was so sophisticated, difficult and dangerous that he felt that it should be subject to the most rigorous conditions and control. I am no expert, but I am told that it is possible to have a genetically engineered organism that is as yet untriggered. That is what I have been told by someone who is pre-eminent in this discipline. The trigger, rather like a time bomb, is released into the atmosphere, and no one would know that that had happened unless and until the complementary mechanism was attached to it. Apparently the defence implications are extremely serious.

I do not know whether the directive provides the opportunity for the sort of genetic engineering that I have described. I do know, however, that the book "What sort of people should there be?", written by a fellow at New college, Oxford, was abundantly clear on the dangers of genetic engineering in the human context. About two years ago I tabled an early-day motion on the issue. I should make it clear that I have no preconceived view and that I believe that there could be some advantages to be gained from some of the experiments. I tabled the motion because I wanted a Select Committee to examine the efficacy of the experimentation. Over 150 Members from all parties signed the motion because they, too, wanted the issue to be examined. But such was not to be the case. I understand that the then Opposition spokesman on these matters was not disposed to co-operate with the setting up of such a Select Committee. As a result, we were not able to examine the facts that underlie a vital issue.

Mr. Cope

I assure my hon. Friend that the directive does not give permission for any work of any sort to be carried out in Britain that is not covered by existing legislation. The directive can have the effect only of increasing our controls of this sort of work. Whatever my hon. Friend's concerns may be, they do not arise from the directive.

Mr. Cash

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I have read the definitions in the Genetic Manipulation Regulations 1978, in respect of which the Health and Safety Executive contacted me about a year ago. I had extensive discussions and correspondence with the executive. As one who has great respect for my right hon. Friend, I must say to him that, although I accept what he said and appreciate that he is passing on information that he has received, this is not a matter that can be left to a short debate of this sort. I hope that the issues that I have raised can be properly examined at greater leisure.

Documents that can be obtained in the Vote Office explain in great depth the ramifications of biotechnology. There is potential for the dangers that I have described to arise. Further, we are in a multi-billion dollar business. Already genetic engineering has been patented. Animal patents have been taken out, but only after the United States Congress, after intensive discussions, thought that it was right to do so. There are many who still think that it was not right to take that course. The same issues arise with the human application of genetic engineering, which I understand has received a degree of authorisation in the United States. It is subject to patent laws. Conferred upon those who are licensed to conduct the research, therefore, is a huge volume of research activity with the potential for the making of multi-billion dollar profits.

It would be right for us to retain as much control as we could. We have a direct Chernobyl-type interest in the deliberate release of organisms—such a release could take place abroad—that could have a direct impact upon the United Kingdom. I do not fear what might come from abroad, but it would be prudent to have the dangers in mind. I see the need for a degree of integrated and co-ordinated activity. I am concerned that self-regulation should not be left to the experts. It is vital that national Parliaments, in the form of the Select Committee to which I have referred, should be able to ask the relevant questions before it is too late. There is a need for continuing national control, and I am deeply concerned about the treaty base that is under consideration. I understand that it is thought that the procedure could come under article 100A, which invokes majority voting.

If we are conceding the need to work the matter through on a mutual and reciprocal basis, but not accepting that it is vital that we retain a degree of control nationally, what is the point of allowing the issue to be decided by majority voting without a full and extensive inquiry into the treaty base? There are serious doubts, and this is a vital matter. The Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member, has recently taken evidence from the Treasury Solicitor on the scope and use of article 100A. There are important matters about which we must be careful. If the treaty base is misused, we shall find that biotechnological questions can be decided on a majority vote.

As is shown by the useful documents that have been presented to us, there are already several member states which do not have any regulations to deal with these matters. There are no specific regulations in Greece, Spain or Portugal. Yet those member states—and perhaps others for all I know—will vote in respect of article 100A if that is the adopted treaty base. What on earth would we be doing if we allowed a matter of this kind to be passed if the blocking minority acted against us while we were trying to make sense of the regulations? In some respects we would be in the hands of other member states which not only may not want regulations, but apparently do not have enough information to form judgments about the matter.

My right hon. Friend must take note of the fact that the Select Committee on European Legislation insisted that there should be a debate on this matter before adoption because the issue is extremely important for the future of this country. Therefore, we should ensure that the matter does not go through without very serious and careful consideration.

8.50 pm

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

This is a very important debate. I do not want to delay the House for long, especially as I shall deal with the next debate as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), because I agreed with 99.9 per cent. of his comments. I hope that the media and others will wake up soon to the significance of the debate taking place generally throughout Europe and elsewhere on genetically engineered micro-organisms. If this debate was about nuclear power, the Press Gallery—to which we cannot refer—would be full. However, biotechnology has the same significance as nuclear power, and in many ways will have the same public perception, debate and argument.

We must consider urgently the release of genetically engineered micro-organisms into the environment. My advice on the psychological perception of environmental risks in this country continues to be that ordinary people are becoming overloaded with the pace of technological change, and opposition to nuclear power has been associated with that. That pace of change leads to genuine concern among the public and a desire for public regulation and democratic accountability of such things as genetically engineered micro-organisms.

There are many exciting opportunities for improved protection of human health from the process of engineering micro-organisms. For example, I would support strongly the replacement of chemical pesticides by target-specific biological agents which do not harm innocuous life forms. That is a much more acceptable environmental alternative than the blanket use of pesticides, which are doing so much harm to our environment. We should also favour the cautious development of live vaccines for cholera and dysentery which cause so many infant deaths each year in developing countries.

However, we should also be concerned to ensure that commercial pressures and the absence of international regulation do not conspire to eliminate public accountability over new technologies such as genetic engineering. The public have an absolute and fundamental right to understand and participate in decisions that affect their environment. We must try to explain the benefits and risks of the release of genetically engineered micro-organisms into the environment. By stimulating rational public discussion and promising adequate regulatory machinery to control the technology, we will demonstrate that we are responsible and concerned as a Parliament, but not anti-science. The motions go a little way towards assisting that.

It appears that in conferences in the past—a conference was held six or seven months ago on this subject in Cardiff—a number of the ethical issues were completely avoided. It seems that it is easier to discuss the scientific implications than the ethical implications of these engineered micro-organisms.

As the hon. Member for Stafford said, the potential for military or mischievous use of the technology must be considered. For that reason, I propose that we consider the following suggestions. We must call on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to agree strict international guidelines for the development and release of genetically engineered micro-organisms into the environment. The British Government must take steps to ensure that new techniques of genetic manipulation are not used for military or mischievous purposes.

We need a specific international convention to outlaw military applications of the new technology. It would be easy for an enemy country to release genetically engineered micro-organisms into another country to destroy crops, because organisms designed to kill the pest that kills the crop can be released very effectively among crops. That is very useful. However, it is also possible to release a genetically engineered micro-organism to kill the pest's natural enemy. That would allow crops to be devastated. The Americans could choose to do that in Nicaragua, although I am not suggesting for one minute that they might. Similarly, if the Russians chose to do it in Pakistan, they might, although I am not suggesting that either. We should have an international agreement on that great danger, in the same way as we have an agreement on germ warfare.

There should be a case-by-case assessment of all proposals to release genetically engineered micro-organisms into the environment, with release at the present time being restricted to products with clear benefits to health or the environment. Genetically engineered micro-organisms should be released into the environment only if they are genetically marked with a stable factor other than antibiotic resistance, and if sensitive methods exist for their detection in soil and water.

The other danger is that genetically engineered micro-organisms may be released into the environment, but people may not be aware of them unless they are marked. They cannot be detected in the environment and people do not know what is happening. There must be markers, but not the antibiotic resistance markers, which could cause difficulty.

A regulatory framework must be developed which commands public confidence and which can insist on prior notification, public hearings, independent scientific review and final consent by national regulatory bodies. In this country that should be Parliament.

New products should not subvert the "polluter pays" principle. The fact that some pollutants may in future—and I welcome this—be broken down more efficiently in the environment by genetically engineered micro-organisms being released to attack them should not be used as an excuse for avoiding the treatment of pollutants at source.

There should be an international regulatory agency and convention, with powers to prohibit military applications of the technology and to prevent the release of genetically engineered micro-organisms without the knowledge and acceptance of international and national authorities.

8.57 pm

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

I am most concerned at the prospect that new techniques concerning genetic manipulation will be controlled no longer by the British Government but under laws determined by the Council of Ministers and passed by majority. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State says that we do not have a great deal to worry about, but I hope that he will answer one or two specific questions.

First, my right hon. Friend commented that this measure contains nothing relating to human factors such as human bodies or foetuses that could be of concern on moral grounds. Does he accept that, even on the basis of the Commission's views and one paper prepared by the Government, it is clear that many micro-organisms are being used as a substitute for specific human items? For example, human growth hormones that were previously obtained from human tissue by means of complicated chemical processes can now be produced by micro-organisms. That is clearly and precisely stated. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in agriculture, the technique goes a great deal further?

Secondly, I cannot understand my right hon. Friend's comment that these proposals will impart no new powers. One of the directives makes mention of the deliberate release to the environment of genetically modified organisms. My understanding is that such a power is not currently available in the United Kingdom or under EC legislation. I also understand from one of the documents that that is considered so controversial in the United States that it has delayed any development in that direction for three years.

The Minister may say that, although there is a directive dealing with the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, it does not mean that such will happen. Someone will have to decide, and it may be the Common Market. Perhaps the United Kingdom Government will have some small part to play in such a decision. Nevertheless, to suggest that this is a small matter and one perhaps not best left to the United Kingdom may give the House the wrong impression.

Thirdly, I welcome my right hon. Friend's advice on the explanatory memorandum by the former Minister for Information Technology. who also issued a paper on the subject. He comments that the proposals' main benefit is improved crop yields. If there is one thing that the Common Market does not need as a matter of urgency it is improved crop yields adding considerably to its output of agricultural produce. Considering the extent of world poverty, it is frightening that, because the Common Market is producing too much, it spends £220 million per week on dumping or destroying food. It seems ridiculous to introduce proposals designed to increase the size, scope and quality of fruit when so much money is being spent destroying more than 1 million tonnes of fruit annually.

We appreciate that this matter is not one on which the views of the House of Commons may count for anything, because it can make no decision. Nor is it a matter on which the European Parliament can decide. All we can do is to express a view to the Government, but even they cannot take a decision because of the majority vote. What is decided about this rather frightful measure will be the responsibility not of the Government but of a majority of member states voting in the Council of Ministers. We can at least say to the Government, "For goodness sake, if we are doing something rather significant, and which some of us may regard as somewhat terrifying, let us begin by telling people exactly what is happening."

This development appears to me, as a layman, to be very significant. It is an area of dramatic technical advance, whereby micro-organisms are being produced to serve as a substitute for human features. They will also be used to change the physical characteristics of human beings. Dwarfism is one example I have mentioned. We also face the fantastic and rather worrying second phase, when we shall permit the release of genetically manipulated organisms into the environment. The Minister cannot say that that does not matter or that it is not controversial.

Mr. Cope

I never said anything of the sort. This is an important matter and I emphasised that in my comments. I never said that it was a small matter. On the contrary, I regard it as extremely important. My hon. Friend is right to stress its importance, but he must not accuse me of saying that it is unimportant.

Mr. Taylor

I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber heard the Minister say that there is nothing in the proposals that will allow anyone to do anything they did not previously have the power to do.

We are here dealing with a dramatic new proposal to expand existing powers. Once that happens, those powers will not be under the authority of the House of Commons but under the rules of the European Community, although at least four countries do not have any rules at all. We are considering a directive that the Government's own paper clearly states relates to the deliberate release to the environment of genetically modified organisms". My understanding is that no such British power exists.

Mr. Cope

The purpose of the regulations is to extend the strict control that we now have to other countries. My hon. Friend complains that there is no control in other countries, and that is what the directive is all about.

Mr. Taylor

If my right hon. Friend were to say that the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms is permitted in Britain, that would be a big surprise. It would compare with a paper produced by the former Minister for Information Technology, explanatory memorandum 9501 on document 10399/86 on the Commission's work into biotechnology. The Minister talked about the second phase as something in the future and something that had been blocked in the United States on safety and environmental grounds.

I do not pretend to be an expert, but the brief exchange that we have had with the Minister has shown that we are dealing with something that is fundamental and something that could affect the environment of every person in the United Kingdom. It is a big decision to pass over to the European Community responsibility for making laws and imposing controls. That worries me, and I am worried even more because, when we eventually get the new laws and new controls, which may not be on these grounds, Britain will have just one voice in the Council. We should all be worried about this matter.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say a little more on the three specific issues which I have raised.

9.5 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Just how far-reaching are the regulations that come from Europe has been vividly illustrated. Perhaps not many hon. Members realise how far-reaching this motion is. I speak as a layman. I do not adequately understand what is going on, but the suggestions which have been made worry me, just as they would the people whom we all represent.

This is a matter of great importance. We in Northern Ireland have suffered by having to pass legislation such as this in an hour and a half. If the debate on health and safety had continued until 10 o'clock, this debate could have continued for only an hour and a half. It would be deplorable if we could not alter the legislation or adequately debate the issues in such an important matter.

I have every respect for the Minister—not that that might bring any happiness to him—but he is in deep water because of his statements. He realises that this is a big issue. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said that this was a road that he would not have gone down. The implications are so far-reaching that they are terrifying. Ordinary individuals need to know what is happening. I would not like such a matter to be outside the sovereignty of the House. I should like it decided in the House so that the representatives of the people who have sent us here have a say.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

The hon. Gentleman may be under a misapprehension. Is he aware that the powers to decide on this matter are not in the House or in the Government? If they were, the motion would not contain the phrase endorses the Government's endeavours to secure modifications in negotiations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if hon. Members who voted two years ago for the amendments to the treaty of Rome, called the Single European Act, had known that the House was giving away its powers to determine these matters within the United Kingdom, they might have thought otherwise?

Rev. Ian Paisley

If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had been in the House when I made my first speech today, he would know that I had underscored that point. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Our powers have been abolished. That is why it is so serious a matter. That is why we need to reflect carefully on the effects of its implementation. The point that needs to be highlighted is that the House will have no authority. We need to know what is to happen so that we can alert our constituents.

We have heard tonight about the real implications of EEC membership. A large degree of the sovereignty of this House has already vanished. The president of the Commission said that 80 per cent. of all laws will be made in Europe, not in the Parliaments of the member states. I think that he was right. That is not acceptable to many people, but it is the truth.

9.10 pm

Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point)

I do not doubt for a moment that my right hon. Friend the Minister attaches the highest importance to the proposals to control this new and frightening technology more effectively than it is controlled now, but I do not believe that 99.9 per cent. of my constituents or of hon. Members understand what is involved.

I remind my right hon. Friend that long ago one of the greatest Prime Ministers of this country—and a Conservative one at that—Benjamin Disraeli, said that the first duty of any Government is the health of the people—health in the broadest, protective sense. I do not go all the way with my hon. Friend and dear neighbour the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in his attitude to the European Community, but I am tempted to draw the line in this case, and in others, too.

We are told that the proposal deliberately to release genetically modified organisms will be useful and constructive, that it will enhance the quality of life and that it will lead to more efficient agriculture. However, that leads to one conclusion: that when a product has been endorsed under the directive, no member state may impede its marketing throughout the Community unless there is evidence that its use may be subject to further conditions. I do not intend to go into the details. I am not qualified to do so. If, however, something goes wrong, I want to know whether there are any safeguards that will allow us to draw back. Where is the line to be drawn? So far as I can see, no line has been drawn. To borrow the language of another great British Prime Minister "up with that I will not put".

9.14 pm

Mr. Cope

I would like to try to reassure some of those hon. Members who have spoken, but perhaps I should first respond to the detailed matters that have been raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was worried that we seem to be leaving the matter entirely to experts. As I said in an intervetion, when I drew an analogy with lawyers, we need to have these things explained to us by experts. The people involved in discussions on this matter include the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on genetic manipulation and the advisory committee on dangerous pathogens. Included are representatives of the Nature Conservancy Council, local authorities, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, plus the expert scientists who help to guide them. Many people contribute.

The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) was worried about defence implications. I assure him that the United Kingdom abides by international conventions on chemical and biological warfare.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, like others, was worried about the treaty base. He drew our attention to paragraph 4 of my memorandum 6397 of 24 June. We are interested in what the proper treaty base is. Until we have the final form of the directive, there will be some doubt, but our considerations are to be found in my memorandum.

Several hon. Members wondered whether we are giving greater permission for things to happen in Britain or whether we are handing control over what happens here to the European Commission or the Council of Ministers. We are not passing control over what happens here to other countries. We are trying to extend to other countries in the Community the controls that we have in Britain. This is another directive which lays down minimum standards. It does not prevent our developing or improving standards.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as I was not here for his opening speech. Surely what he has said is not entirely the truth. It is true that these documents, if passed in their present form, may, under EEC law, extend the regulations which are to be found in our domestic law to other countries, but any subsequent instruments about control, which will apply universally, will be within the control of the Council, not of the House. Surely to that extent we are passing over powers.

Mr. Cope

We are not passing over powers in the motion before us. If some future proposed legislation does something else, we can consider it, but that is not what is before us.

Mr. Spearing

Precisely.

Mr. Cope

My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, spoke of new technology being involved. It is very new and to some people it is frightening. He also spoke about the health of the people. As I said at the beginning, I am a layman in these matters—I suspect that we all are—but my view is that the health of the people has a great deal to gain, and has already gained a great deal, as a result of biotechnology. I have been given many examples of the benefits. I have no doubt that there will be more. Many of the applications of biotechnology and of genetic manipulation have been in pharmaceuticals. I believe that we have already gained a great deal.

There have been references to human growth hormones, which were not invented by genetic manipulation. They predate that. They could be used before, but now they can be produced better and more cleanly by means of genetic manipulation. That is one advance. In my opening remarks I referred to insulin, and the same applies to that.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. I hope that he does not think that I am being difficult, but does he accept that the former Minister for Industry and Information Technology wrote in his note to the Committee about human growth hormones that could only previously be obtained by low yield traditional chemical means or by tissue extraction."? He was saying that nothing like that could be done before, but it can be done now. It is there in black and white. However, the Minister appeared to be saying that we have been able to do it for a long time but chose not to do so. They cannot both be right.

Mr. Cope

I meant not that we could carry out genetic manipulation but that we could produce those particular hormones. The same is true of insulin for treating diabetes. Insulin was available before from cows, but now we can produce insulin better by means of genetic manipulation. That seems to me to be an example of a new technique being used to produce something that already exists. I did not mean that genetic manipulation is an old technique. It is not. It is a new technique which is being developed all the time. Important advances can be made from it, but those advances should not blind us in any way to the problems, the dangers and the very strict requirements for health and safety and control, particularly of releases, which have been covered in the directive. They should make us more determined to get them right. In Britain we have gone to a lot of trouble to get them right. We are trying to improve our own regulations. The directives try to extend the same principles to other countries in the European Community.

There are wider thoughts. The OECD has already been mentioned. More is happening elsewhere in the wider world, not only in the European Community. However, that is not relevant to our debate today.

We are right to try to improve the directives and to get them adopted by the European Community so that we can enjoy the benefits of biotechnology while at the same time preserving the health and safety of the workers involved in it and that of the public generally. Therefore, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved. That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5836/88 on exposure to biological agents at work, 6397/88 on control of genetically modified organisms and 10399/86 on regulation of biotechnology; supports the proposals in principle as steps towards harmonising safe working practices and improving environmental safety in the field of biotechnology; and endorses the Government's endeavours to secure modifications in negotiations.