RISK ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (Hansard, 30 April 1990)

HC Deb 30 April 1990 vol 171 cc810-22 810

§ '.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (7) below, no person shall import or acquire, release or market any genetically modified organisms unless, before doing that act—

(a) he has carried out an assessment of the potential of the organisms for causing harm and of any risks there may be (by reference to the nature of the organisms and the manner in which he intends to keep them after their importation or acquisition or, as the case may be, to release them) of damage to the environment being caused as a result of doing that act; and
(b) in such cases and circumstances as may be prescribed, he has given the Secretary of State such notice of his intention of doing that act and such information as may be prescribed.

§ (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person proposing to do an act mentioned in that subsection who is required under section 93(1)(a) below to have a consent before doing that act.

§ (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (7) below, a person who is keeping genetically modified organisms shall, in such cases or circumstances and at such times or intervals, as may be prescribed—

(a) carry out an assessment of any risks there may be of damage to the environment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them;
(b) give the Secretary of State notice of the fact that he is keeping the organisms and such information as may be prescribed.

811

§ (4) Subsection (3) above does not apply to a person who is keeping genetically modified organisms and is required under section 93(1A) below to have a consent authorising him to continue to keep the organisms.

§ (5) It shall be the duty of a person who carries out an assessment under subsection (1)(a) or (3)(a) above to keep, for the prescribed period, such a record of the assessment as may be prescribed.

§ (6) A person required by subsection (1)(b) or (3)(b) above to give notice to the Secretary of State shall give the Secretary of State such further information as the Secretary of State may by notice in writing require.

§ (7) Regulations under this section may provide for exemptions, or for the granting by the Secretary of State of exemptions to particular persons or classes of person, from the requirements of subsection (1) or (3) above in such cases or circumstances, and to such extent, as may be prescribed.

§ (8) The Secretary of State may at any time—

(a) give directions to a person falling within subsection (1) above requiring that person to apply for a consent before doing the act in question; or
(b) give directions to a person falling within subsection (3) above requiring that person, before such date as may be specified in the direction, to apply for a consent authorising him to continue keeping the organisms in question;

and a person given directions under paragraph (a) above shall then, and a person given directions under paragraph (b) above shall from the specified date, be subject to section 93 below in place of the requirements of this section.

§ (9) Regulations under this section may—

(a) prescribe the manner in which assessments under subsection (1) or (3) above are to be carried out and the matters which must be investigated and assessed;
(b) prescribe minimum periods of notice between the giving of a notice under subsection (1)(b) above and the doing of the act in question;
(c) make provision allowing the Secretary of State to shorten or to extend any such period;
(d) prescribe maximum intervals at which assessments under subsection (3)(a) above must be carried out;

and the regulations may make different provision for different cases and different circumstances.

§ (10) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations under this section.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

§ Brought up, and read the First time.

§ Mr. Trippier
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government new clause 36—General duties relating to importation, acquisition, keeping, release or marketing of organisms.
Government new clause 37—Prohibition notices
Government new clause 40—Consents: limitations and conditions
Government new clause 41—Onus of proof as regards techniques and evidence
Government new clause 38—Power of court to order cause of offence to be remedied
Government new clause 39—Power of Secretary of State to remedy harm

§ New clause 8—Genetic Modification Commission— ' (1) There shall be established a body to be called the Genetic Modification Commission (in this Clause referred to as "the Commission") to perform the functions assigned to the Commission by or under this Clause. 812 (2) The members of the Commission, of whom there shall be not less than eight, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate. (3) The Commission shall give to the Secretary of State advice on matters relating to the execution of this Clause of the Act or the exercise of any power conferred by it, or otherwise relating to genetic modification, where the Commission consider it expedient, or they are requested by the Secretary of State to do so.'.

§ New clause 22—Advice and information on genetically modified organisms— '(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the passing of this Act establish an Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment for the purposes of—

(a) advising him as to the making of regulations under Part VI below;
(b) making such recommendations as it considers appropriate in respect of the future regulation of activities to which Part VI applies;
(c) advising him in respect of each application for a consent to release a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) into the environment.

(2) The Advisory Committee established under this section shall include persons representative of industry, trade unions, local authorities, environmental organisations and scientists with knowledge of the techniques of genetic modification and of the likely effect of the introduction of modified organisms into the environment. (3) It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to publish its advice to Ministers and, in respect of advice relating to any applicaton for a consent made under subsection (1)(c) above, to include such advice in any register established under subsection (4) below. (4) The Advisory Committee shall establish and maintain a register on behalf of the Secretary of State containing prescribed particulars of applications, consents and notifications under Part VI. (5) In preparing any advice under subsection (1)(c) above relating to applications for consent to the release of GMOs the Advisory Committee shall—

(a) require the applicant to advertise his intention to introduce organisms into the environment and any such advertisement shall include information as to the organisms and the type of modification proposed to be made; the grounds for making the modification; the place or places at or in which the release is to occur; the probable extent of the area in which the organisms may be found; the likely risk to humans; and the likely effects on the environment and other organisms;
(b) consider all representations made following such an advertisement;
(c) advise on the conditions to be applied to the granting of a consent and, where the GMO is to be sold as a product, recommend and give reasons as to whether it should be labelled as a Genetically Modified Organism.

(6) The Secretary of State shall place on the register established under subsection (4) above information relating to any notification of an intention to release a GMO and such information shall include—

(a) a description of the GMO;
(b) the name and address of the notifier;
(c) the reason for the release;
(d) the location of the release;
(e) plans drawn up by the notifier for monitoring the GMO and for dealing with any emergency; and
(f) any other information which may be prescribed by regulations.'.

§ Government amendments Nos. 268 to 276, 267 and 244.

§ Amendment No. 131, in clause 91, page 98, line 17 after `it', insert— 813 '(aa) apply for a consent under subsection (1)(b) of section 93 below'.

§ Amendment No. 132, in page 98, line 35, leave out subsection (5).

§ Government amendments Nos. 256 and 262.

§ Amendment No. 133, in clause 93, page 100, leave out lines 3 to 6.

§ Government amendment Nos. 277, 245, 263, 291 and 264.

§ Amendment No. 101, in page 100, line 16 at end insert— '(3A) Regulations under this section shall provide, in the case of any organism proposed to be imported and for which an assessment of the potential for causing damage to the environment or the risk of such damage has been carried out in any country outside the United Kingdom and is likely to be relevant to the question of deciding whether consent under subsection (1) above is to be granted or the limitations or conditions to be applied to that consent, for details of that assessment to be included with the application and to be taken into account.'.

§ Government amendment No. 265.

§ No. 134, in page 100, leave out line 32 and insert 'only in circumstances where a release is proposed to be undertaken within the terms of an existing consent, subject to the giving of such notice and the making of such conditions as the Secretary of State may on the advice of the Advisory Committee specify.'.

§ Government amendment No. 289.

§ Amendment No. 308, in page 100, line 40, at end insert— '(8A) On granting any consent under subsection (6) above the Secretary of State shall—

(a) furnish the person to whom the consent is granted with a certificate containing all material particulars of the consent; and
(b) subject to subsection (8B) below, send a copy of the certificate to each local authority in whose area, in accordance with the consent, genetically modified organisms are to be kept or released, and to the National Rivers Authority.

(8B) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that compliance with paragraph (b) of subsection (8A) above would prejudice the commercial viability of the undertaking concerned he may amend the certificate issued under paragraph (a) of that subsection in such a way as appears to him will protect the viability of that undertaking.'.

§ Government amendments Nos. 254, 278 to 280, 290, 257, 281, 282, 246 to 258, 266, 255, 248 to 250, 259, 260, 251 to 253, 283 to 287, 261, 295 and 288.

§ Mr. Trippier
I shall attempt to be brief but to justify this important subject by concentrating on the amendments before the House.
New clause 35 relates to part VI of the Bill. Biotechnology using genetic modification is still in the early stages of development and the existing health and safety controls for genetically modified organisms have a good record which we are determined to maintain.
Part VI will contribute by protecting the environment and will form a unified structure with the existing health and safety controls. We will have a proper system to protect safety and the environment without inhibiting industry or research. Part VI takes fully into account the report last year by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution and it implements two EC directives adopted this month.
The proposals allow for risk assessment notification or consent depending on the risk from a GMO release, all 814 subject to BATNEEC, to protect the environment. Against that background new clause 36 clarifies the BATNEEC requirement, while new clause 40 ensures that BATNEEC operates even where GMO operations have consent from the Secretary of State. If conflict develops between consent conditions and BATNEEC, the consent holder is to inform the Secretary of State to allow him to review the consent conditions.
New clause 35 sets out the risk assessment and notification requirements. We intend to use subsection (7) to exempt individuals who might import finished GMO products for private use.
New clause 37 improves the conditions on prohibition notices. For example, it requires safe and rapid disposal of GMOs.
New clause 39 provides that where an offence has caused harm the Secretary of State may remedy that harm and may recover the cost from any person convicted of the offence. In parallel, new clause 38 provides for the court to order a person convicted of an offence to remedy matters, and new clause 41 puts the onus of proof in those proceedings on to the accused.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that our new clauses are valuable.
I fear that new clauses 8 and 22 would risk diluting the Secretary of State's responsibility for the operation of part VI and I cannot support such an idea because it is crucial that the Secretary of State should be seen by all to be fully responsible for part VI. Having said that, it is for the Opposition spokesmen to make their case and I shall respond later if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

8.45 pm

§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)
We welcome the fact that the clause has been extensively amended since we were in Committee. In the amendments brought forward by the Government they have picked up many of the points that we wanted to strengthen this part of the Bill.
There is no doubt that the Minister is correct to say that this type of research is in its infancy. We believe that it has potential benefits to our society and we want to see such research encouraged within a tight framework of control that will give protection to the consumer and to society.
We recognise that such research can bring benefits. Plants and animals can be modified to produce important antibodies for medical use. Plant breeders, such as the British Society of Plant Breeders, can improve crop performance, reduce input, build in resistance to stress, disease and pests and can tailor crops to meet the needs of consumers. That promises more environmentally friendly agriculture with less harmful input.
There is no doubt that while those techniques are rapidly advancing, understanding of them is somewhat shallow. The Minister will recognise that there are risks to the environment and to health and safety. He will know that it is possible to produce pathogenic organisms that can be targeted to particular groups in society or to particular organs. It is possible to insert recognition sites into bacteria or viruses that can distinguish between racial groups. Viruses that exist in non-human hosts can be retargeted for human tissues. Bearing those modifications 815 in mind, one can understand why there has to be tight and detailed control on such research and the release of any organism into society.
We appreciate that the Government are setting up an advisory committee on the release of genetically modified organisms. However, we find it strange that the Government are not in favour of a statutory advisory committee as proposed by new clause 22. Given the seriousness of the situation, we believe that statutory powers are important to any committee. I recognise that the membership of the ad hoc advisory committee, which has already been announced, is welcome. We do not quibble with the wide range of experience of the people that the Minister has chosen to serve on the committee.
The Minister will note, however, that new clause 22 goes further and proposes a series of rights to information. The question of commercial confidentiality arises in terms of the development of GMOs—genetically modified organisms. Organisations and businesses that are doing research into that technology must be protected. However, the needs of the environment and the consumer must be put before commercial confidentiality. We must strike a correct balance between those rights and the legitimate needs of the companies concerned.
New clause 22 recognises that, in line with the recent EC directives on GMOs, there ought to be a right to information in terms of the description of the GMOs, the name and address of the notifier, the reason for the release of the GMO, the location of the release, the plans for monitoring and any other relevant information. These are important rights. The Minister will recall the concern that was expressed by a wide variety of organisations when it was announced that there was to be the commercial release of the world's first commercial food GMO—a form of yeast to be used in commercial bakeries. There was no consultation or warning prior to the announcement. There was no information about a trial programme. Commercial confidentiality should not overrule exclusively the right of consumers to know exactly what is going on and what is being done.
I should appreciate assurances that the Minister accepts the logic of the argument. I draw the House's attention to Government amendment No. 274 under which new subsection (4B) of clause 90 allows the Secretary of State to declare any organism harmless, regardless of its nature. I assume that that is to cover GMOs that have been designed as pesticides. By their very nature, they will do harm to target species. The wording needs to be tightened up. Regulations ought to be laid before Parliament. It should not be done by means of a directive from the Secretary of State.
There is insufficient time to go over all these points in debate. However, I draw attention to that issue in the hope that when the Bill goes to the other place this matter will be considered in greater detail and the wording will be tightened up.
Government new clause 35 removes the requirement to inform the Secretary of State of any assessment of risk. I hope that the Minister will ask the Secretary of State to clarify that point and to ask himself whether that is a wise decision.
Government amendment No. 263 stipulates that applications for consent should be advertised. Is the Minister able to say whether the terms of article 19 of the EC directive on GMOs relating to the information 816 contained in new clause 22 are recognised in Government amendment No. 263 and whether the Government will comply with the EC directive?
Government amendment No. 289 introduces Government new clause 40. It reinforces the need to use the best available technology that does not entail excessive cost to regulate the release of GMOs. That goes some way towards limiting the liability of those who use GMOs commercially. Is the Minister aware that during the discussion of the EC directive the German Government asked for stricter liability on those who use GMOs commercially? Is not that a better approach? Anyone who releases GMOs would understand such a strict liability. That would be preferable to the requirement to use the best available technology.
I accept that Government new clause 39 goes some way towards meeting the criticism. It allows the Secretary of State to take action if there is damage or to recover costs that have been incurred, due to the irresponsible or illegal release of a GMO. However, I wonder whether that provision will be undermined by the fact that it is riot always possible to recover costs. It would be much better to clarify from the beginning that any organisation that intends to release a commercial GMO must accept liability for any damage that is caused. It might also deter any speculative development of GMOs when there is no obvious direct benefit to be derived from their production. The social consequences of producing such organisms must be taken into account. That must be considered by the advisory committee.
GMOs can be beneficial. They should be encouraged. The amendments to part VI are, in the main, welcome, apart from those matters that I have identified. I hope that the Minister will think again about these points and give the assurances that we need.

§ Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen)
When part VI of the Bill was debated in Committee we accused the Government of having drafted it hurriedly. The number of amendments and new clauses bears testimony to that fact. Initially, there were 15 clauses in part VI; five have been deleted. Six new clauses have been tabled and there are no fewer than 60 amendments to this part of the Bill.
The Labour party welcomes the changes. They show that the Government accept many of the points that were made in Committee. Genetic engineering is an exciting aspect of research. I read in The Observer yesterday, yet again, of a little weed whose DNA structure is to be worked out from A to Z. Geneticists will be able to identify the individual genes that are responsible for individual characteristics and may be able to transplant them and produce new strains. It opens up immense possibilities. Widely differing species will be able to be modified much more easily than is possible with present techniques.
In medicine, the opening up of opportunities will be immense. There have been reports of the manufacture of insulin by means of genetic engineering. It may be possible to cure muscular dystrophy and other genetic diseases. It opens up exciting possibilities in cancer research. It will also lead to the possibility of introducing pest resistance or disease resistance in agriculture. However, there are grave dangers to be faced. That is why the safeguards must be complete. We are interfering with nature, in that we are creating new forms of life. When they are released into the environment they multiply. Something that is released for the best of reasons may become a pest.
817 I thank the Minister for his letter giving the composition of the advisory committee on releases into the environment. We note that he accepted much of the advice that we gave him in Committee and that the advisory committee will be broadly based. However, I wish that its composition had been fairer. Twelve of the 22 members of the committee are academic professors or research workers; three are from industry; three are trade unionists; one member is from the Green Alliance; one is from the Nature Conservancy Council; one is a farmer and one is an environmental health officer. I should have preferred a more balanced composition with far more environmentalists and consumer representatives. Not one single consumer representative will serve on that body. Nevertheless, we broadly welcome the fact that the committee is not comprised solely of scientists.
Must the decisions and recommendations of the advisory committee be unanimous as is the case now with the international introduction sub-committee of the advisory committee on genetic manipulation? As there are good safety reasons for that, we should like that provision to be retained because the consequences of a mistake could be serious.
My next question relates to the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment. When the advisory committee reports to the Secretary of State and recommends releases, can the Secretary of State negate that recommendation? When the Committee advises against a release, can the Secretary of State overturn that recommendation? As we find that point disturbing, will the Minister provide a specific answer to the question whether the Secretary of State can advise in favour of a release if the advisory committee has advised against it?
9 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, we are particularly anxious because, as drafted, new subsection (4B) of clause 90 gives the Secretary of State for the Environment an incredible power. My reading of it suggests that any harmful organism can be declared harmless almost by the decree of the Secretary of State for the Environment. As the provisions are loosely drawn, perhaps the parliamentary draftsman will reconsider those that seem to give the Secretary of State such extraordinary powers.
We also have reservations about new clause 40 because the liability of those releasing genetically modified organisms is limited by the BATNEEC principle, which means that provided the company conforms to the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost, it will be okay. Like the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, we want strict liability so that if anything goes wrong, the company that releases that organism will carry the full financial cost of the consequences.
I understand that in the past few weeks a new Bill has been introduced in West Germany, relating to deliberate releases of GMOs, which stipulates absolute liability and compulsory insurance for those who intend to release such organisms into the environment. If that is what West Germany wants, it is certainly what Britain should have.
New clause 22 relates to the composition of the advisory committee. As I have said, we should like to broaden its base, but, more specifically, we believe that everything to do with releases should be published in a 818 register. The advice of the advisory committee should be made public as should the Minister's response to that advice. Before any release can be made, the details should be fully advertised to the public so that interested bodies are given the proper opportunity to object. We want openness. If we are to have public confidence, we need maximum openness.
We know that the big companies would be concerned if new clause 22 were accepted. However, if there is a choice between commercial confidentiality and the environment, there should be no question but that the environment should be our overriding concern.
Finally, we believe that it is important to demonstrate social need before undertaking the release of GMOs. We are talking about an incredibly clever technology in which we are creating new life forms. However, if it is simply a case of adding to the food mountains and stockpiles by increasing agricultural yields and producing surplus products, we must question whether we need that technology. It should have to pass a "social need" test. I do not believe that anyone would argue against the medical application of the technology, but, given the possible major problems and dangers, it must pass the test of social need before it is applied to agriculture.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
In a sense, all the contributions that I have heard today have been similar. The issue is archetypally one that should not be confined to, for instance, a Standing Committee; our procedures are arguably inadequate to deal with it. Some legislatures allow certain legislation to go to the equivalent of a Select Committee, which can take evidence, and such a process allows informed discussion to take place.
Today's debate is as important as last week's debate on embryology. It concerns what we do with life forms, and how science allows us to intervene in the natural process. As the Minister has accepted—and the record shows that the Standing Committee accepted it, too—the genetic engineering that we are discussing can create not only new life forms, but life forms that may be dangerously uncontrollable, so we must legislate very carefully. Given the constraints that have been placed upon us in the House of Commons, I hope that our decisions will be scrutinised in detail in the other place, and that the best possible advice will be available.
We tabled new clause 8 because we believe that responsibility for genetic engineering should be collective. There should be no Frankenstein creations behind closed doors; the maximum information should be provided, and decisions should not be made in isolation. We are not talking only about animals, for what happens to animals today happens to human beings tomorrow. I understand, for example, that it will soon be possible to identify the gene that governs skin pigmentation. If that is so, we can imagine the possible implications for human genetic engineering. I do not wish to be alarmist, as some hon. Members were in last week's debate, but it occurs to me that, if Hitler had had access to a gene that allowed him to alter skin pigmentation, the history of the 20th century might have been even more distressing.
At the beginning of the century, a fungus called Endothea was released accidentally in the United States. There is evidence that within 40 years it had wiped out the American chestnut within an area of 1 million sq km. Scientific change can become horrendously out of control. That is why new clause 8 suggests the establishment of a 819 commission a wide—ranging standing public body—whose eminent members could monitor and report developments perpetually.
I do not believe that there is a great deal of disagreement between us and the Minister. I do not insist on principle that ours is the only possible formulation. I am, however, adamant that scientists alone should not be responsible for such activity, and that it should not be in the private domain. A series of scientific experiments will be necessary, and they should be performed with extreme care and only after extensive debate.
Let me ask some questions, and make some comments, about what I consider to be omissions. I shall not repeat what has already been said by the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), among others. New clause 35 requires anyone who proposes to import or acquire, release or market any genetically modified organisms to carry out an assessment of their environmental implications. If the Secretary of State is to allow exemptions, what will they be? It would be worrying if they were related to military use. I have tabled written questions, as have others, but the Government clearly do not intend to tell us the purpose for which the Ministry of Defence intends to use such experimentation. They say that its purpose is defence and is therefore secret, but that is a worrying secret. We should know whether the Secretary of State is allowed to grant unspecified exemptions for military use. We shall have to probe that issue carefully.
New clause 37 allows the Secretary of State to issue prohibition notices to prevent the entry of GMOs into Britain. Two questions arise from that. First, will it apply to imports from other European Community countries, especially after 1992? Secondly, how do we control airborne releases from other countries? There is no practical way of doing that, but what is the intention and what are we legislating to do?
New clause 38 rightly contains provision for penalties or punishments, but how practical are the punishments? What penalty or punishment will be appropriate if sombody releases a strain of plant that becomes an uncontrollable weed or creates something with the reproductive capacity of a rabbit or a mink? There is inadequate correlation between penalty and action. It is far better carefully to control what happens rather than to provide penalties for the abuse of science.
New clause 39 contains the phrase, which it is possible to remedy", but that recognises that it would be impossible to remedy some things that are beneficial or harmless to the environment which, once changed, will be there for ever.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said in Committee, missing from the Bill, first, is an acknowledgement that some scientific activity can produce releases that are harmful and unhelpful to the environment; secondly, a duty to inform neighbouring or adjoining landowners of intended releases, as the European Parliament suggested there should be; thirdly as the hon. Members for Carmarthen and for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, an absolute insurance liability for released GMOs to ensure proper protection, which I understand was also recommended by the European Parliament and the Law Society; fourthly, much more public discussion and debate about GMOs; fifthly, a 820 requirement that a potential GMO release should be proven or varified as not having negative impact on the environment, which, again, I understand was recommended by the European Parliament; and, finally, a requirement for proper insurance cover.
We are not clear about the relative responsibilities of Departments. I understand that, technically, the patenting of living creatures is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. If it is now possible, as it is in the United States—we have never received an answer to this point—to create a new animal, a mouse, and to gibe it a patent number 4736866, will we have patented creatures here? What is the Government's response to this important issue? In the context of an environmental Bill, it would be helpful if the Minister gave the Government's moral response. Are we in favour of patenting life forms? Such questions underlie the debate, which is only the beginning. I hope that we take part in the debate intelligently enough to ensure that we do not make terrible mistakes.

9.15 pm

§ Mr. Trippier
I welcome the comments that have been made in the debate. I have no doubt that it is only the. beginning, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, and that the debate on this specialised matter will continue for some time, especially in the upper House, not least because it includes two distinguished members of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who believes that this is such a technical and complicated matter that it could have been considered by not just a Standing Committee but a Standing Committee with special powers to interview or hear witnesses before deliberating—along the lines, perhaps, of the procedure followed on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill in 1982. I wonder how far we would have gone in that direction.
I have the greatest admiration for the members of the Royal Commission, although the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was right to point out that there were some matters—only two—on which there was a difference of opinion between the Royal Commission and Environment Ministers. I must confess that the bulk of the legislation that has been introduced either was suggested by the Royal Commission or has been amended to meet its concerns. We have amended the Bill on Report in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) because we have met some of the constructive points raised in Committee by the Opposition.
Hon. Members should not be worried about the issue of advice given to the Secretary of State. I still believe that it is better for the final decision in these matters to be made by a Secretary of State rather than by some faceless panel. Whatever one says about any Secretary of State, Secretaries of State are subject to incredible scrutiny not only in the House but outside it, as are the junior Ministers under them. I do not want that changed. I think that that meets the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about moral responsibility.
I accept that there is a moral responsibility. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will remember that we discussed that matter at length in Committee. I understand that Ministers change roles. I am sorry that the party of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey 821 did not exist in those days, for reasons which I understand. I urge him to look at the debate again, when pertinent points were made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I still want the responsibility to be left in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment, whoever he may be. I am convinced that we have got that right.
I like the point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen about members of the advisory committee. Everyone seems to have welcomed the idea, with perhaps one reservation about the idea of having more consumers. The members are all consumers. I do not want to start altering these provisions again, although I have no doubt that certain suggestions will be made in the upper House.
I am happy to confirm that we intend to set up registers of information, which again meets the point made in new clause 22. We have considered the proposal made in Standing Committee that provision should be made for the Secretary of State to send a copy of GMO consents, as appropriate, to local authorities and the National Rivers Authority. We believe that it is not necessary to make this a statutory requirement because we already do exactly that.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe touched on a number of amendments. Amendment No. 101 seems unnecessary because the Bill provides in clause 93, for example, for obtaining further information such as data from risk assessments carried out abroad and because we will not ask for unnecessary repetition of risk assessment work done overseas. Amendments Nos. 131 and 134 would make all GMO releases subject to consent, but it surely cannot be right not to allow the flexibility of having risk assessment notification or consent, depending on circumstances. Given that part VI will cover all releases of GMOs—even innocuous GMOs—in waste from contained industrial operations, and given that we are seeking in part VI to develop an anticipatory approach that would allow us to exempt organisms which, over time, came to be seen not to threaten the environment, amendment No. 308 is unnecessary. As I said, we shall pass consent information to local authorities and the National Rivers Authority.
Article 19 of the directive that I have already mentioned on the contained use of GMOs imposes requirements on the competent authority concerning the disclosure of information. The Secretary of State is the competent authority and he will, of course, comply with those requirements. No additional powers are required in the Bill to allow him to do that. That is in contrast with other parts of the Bill, in which the competent authority is the chief inspector. Chief inspectors' powers need to be set out in statute; those of the Secretary of State do not.
It is left to the discretion of each member state to decide what arrangements will be made as regards insurance and liability. I do not think that West Germany should serve as a precedent. We consider that new clauses 38 and 39 adequately address the position and bring it into line with part I of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen asked about the decisions that will be made by the committee under Professor Beringer. He and I have both welcomed the fact that the committee is at least broadly based. The committee's decisions do not need to be unanimous, but I hope that the committee will proceed on the basis of 822 consensus. Ultimately, its role will be to give advice to the Secretary of State and that it will do. There is no escape from making that final decision and, as I have explained several times, the Secretary of State is answerable to this House.
I think that I have dealt with the principal points. I was interested in some of the technical points raised by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I should like time to consider them seriously as I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge I have done in respect of arguments that the Opposition advanced in Committee. If I think that it is necessary, we shall of course return to them in the other place.

§ Question put and agreed to.

§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.