Genetically Modified Crops

HC Deb 30 July 1998 vol 317 cc609-30

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

8.10 pm

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

I am sure that the House—the bit that is left here—will be delighted to learn that this important debate has come on so early in the evening that hon. Members who wish to intervene in what is a matter of great public importance will have an opportunity to do so without seeking the permission of the Minister or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—such is the time that we have to relax to discuss this important matter.

Somehow or other, I have managed to secure the good will of the Speaker this evening, who has selected this debate. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to raise a matter that causes considerable concern to a sizeable number of the electorate, both in my constituency and, I suspect, throughout the country.

The problem is that any number of Departments are involved in genetic engineering. They include the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry. However, I am glad that the Government have wheeled in for this debate the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a respected sparring partner of mine over the past 25 years. It is very good that he is here to answer this debate.

This is a crucial moment for agriculture. This year, the first wave of genetically modified crops in commercial operation will be loosed upon our environment. This is a make-or-break moment for the Government and for everyone who is concerned about the food that we eat.

The Government have a problem; they have a number of problems, but they have a particular problem here. They have allowed 1,200 experimental crops to be planted, including 163 genetically modified crops, short-circuiting regulations prescribing a four-year trial period for all new crops. In effect, the Government have been telling applicants for seed trials that they have dispensed with the regulation that the seed producer must first do his own two-year trials to produce data.

Under those regulations, only after the seed producer has done those trials can the Government decide whether further trials are necessary. Those trials, as I understand it, are administered by the Minister's Department. I do not know whether I have understood that correctly, but I think that is the situation for genetically modified crops or any other crops. There is a four-year trial: two years of trials are done by the producer seed company, and two years are done under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Court of Appeal judgment on 21 July in a case brought by my constituent Guy Watson, an organic farmer from Staverton, threw up the fact that all the 1,200 experimental crops, including 163 genetically modified crops, have been unlawfully planted. The Government have flouted the seed regulations; or, if not flouted, they have ignored them. There may be good reason for that, but they have done so.

Not only that, but under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the person who receives consent to release a genetically modified crop into the environment should be the same person who implements the release. That is the law, as I understand it. The Act gives consent to a particular person to release a genetically modified crop into the environment and that person should be the same person who implements the release; but I understand that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—is granting permission to seed companies for trials that are being carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany.

It seems that that is also against the law, or certainly against good practice. Consents and permissions that are granted under the Act to one person should not be passed on to another.

The Minister might comment on what has been going on, although it is not the responsibility of his Department. As I explained at the outset of my speech, the problem with genetically modified crops is that so many Government Departments are involved. Just when we think that we have got hold of the right Government Department, some other Minister pops up.

The Environmental Protection Act is the relevant Act, so it is not the responsibility of the Minister who is here to answer this debate, but I am sure that he can find an answer to this problem. I do not want to organise another Adjournment debate to find out the answer.

The Court of Appeal judgment means that the Minister cannot just ride roughshod over rules and regulations. I am not suggesting that he consciously did so. Clearly, he was not aware that this was going on, and I am sure that he is delighted that the matter has been brought to his attention. However, like anyone else, MAFF has to comply with the law.

The first question is: what are the Minister and the Government going to do to legalise the 1,200 experimental crops that are blowing in the wind, or in a gale, having been illegally planted throughout the country? Driving down the motorway, people look out and think, "That field has been beautifully prepared." Little do they know that none of those plants should be there. They are all illegal. The police should be called in. Those plants should be cleared because they are not lawful.

Clearly, all hon. Members in the Chamber want to hear before the House rises—this is why this debate is so relevant—what the Minister is going to do about this. Those crops are illegal and the Minister has got to make them lawful or pull them up; he has to do something. Perhaps he can tell us what he is going to do on that point. The House will be interested in what he feels is possible.

As the regulations are drafted, the characteristics of these crops that are waving around in the wind—not just the genetically modified crops, but all the crops that are being experimented on—would normally be tested in the first two years by the company that creates the seed. Normally, in those first two years, the company would have looked at the yields, how well the crops grew, their resistance to disease and other things. Those things would be tested first by the seed companies and, after them, by the Government.

As a result of short-circuiting the process, MAFF has absolutely no data because there are no company trials. In the past, the Department used the data to reject companies' applications on the grounds that the initial two years had shown that the crop was not worth testing any further, so unproductive or useless seeds could be weeded out. Of every 100 varieties that the seed companies entered into the trials, only 80 per cent. ever made it into the national seed listings. The rules and regulations that were passed by the House were of real advantage as they represented a sluice gate. They gave companies the opportunity to see how a seed reacted and to examine the data on it before submitting it to the Government for a further two-year testing. Now, however, the lack of prior testing means that any seed manufacturer can insist that his crop is submitted to the national seed trials.

Prior to the rules and regulations being passed over, seed manufacturers had to do the work themselves and produce the data before asking the Government to look at their crop; if the Government did not think much of it, they could throw it out. Since the rules and regulations have been bypassed, companies can and do demand that their crops go forward to the national seed trials. Genetically modified crops receive no special evaluation. Without the data obtained from initial trials, the Government have been unable to do any weeding out at all; they have to trial every variety of seed, genetically modified or not, because there are no rejection criteria or prior data.

This year, for the first time in Britain, genetically modified seeds have been presented to the Department for trial. This is the first of two years of trials. After the experimental period ends next year—the second year of trial—genetically modified crops could be widespread. If they get on to the national seed register, such crops could be waving around in fields all over the country and the seeds could be available for purchase.

We could end up with a country of genetically engineered crops. As we drive down the motorway, instead of seeing unlawful crops as we do now, we will see genetically modified crops instead. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister would explain who is supervising the genetically modified crop trials. Is it the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the British Society of Plant Breeders? It is a bit like an Agatha Christie novel. There are so many organisations—some of them quangos, some of them private, some of them independent and some of them governmental—and one has to work to find out who is supervising what, including genetically modified crop trials.

The next equation relates to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which controls the release of any substance into the atmosphere. Genetically modified crops are evolutionary anomalies. They are not the products of natural or artificial selection, but are genetic hybrids. They are manufactured organisms jumbled together out of fish, animals, bacteria and other plant species. For that reason, if a seed company wishes to plant a genetically modified crop, it has to have the permission of ACRE—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. ACRE is administered by the biotechnology unit in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, so here we jump into another Department's responsibility.

As far as one can tell, no applications to ACRE for permission to release a genetically modified substance into the environment has ever been refused. So I am not sure what ACRE does—because it just rubber-stamps everything. Bearing in mind the fact that there are now 163 trials of genetically modified crops, including about 20 varieties of each of those crops with an average of eight trials of each variety, does the Minister feel that perhaps the rubber-stamping process should be halted so that we can look into the effect of genetically modified crops being released into the environment? Perhaps the trial period should not be left at two years.

The matter appears especially important now that the experimental period has been truncated to two years. If the Minister intends to make lawful all the crops that are waving around all over the country, how does he propose to do it? Will he say that the two years of MAFF experiments must be followed by another two years of trials by the seed manufacturers? Will he go for four years, or will he be content with two years and pass rules and regulations to that effect? There may be a strong case for two years for all experimental crops other than genetically modified crops. If he intends to change the regulations—and he has to do something—will he distinguish between ordinary seed and genetically modified seed?

As things stand, seeds—whether they are genetically modified or ordinary seeds—will be on the national seed list next year. If the Minister takes no action, genetically modified crops could be readily available. Crops on the national seed list have been approved by the Government, so anyone can go out and buy them. Genetically modified crops would then be widespread throughout the country, altering the genetic make-up of traditional and organic crops. The situation is akin to that of the grey squirrels and the red squirrels, and we all know what happened to the latter.

I now turn to the issue in my constituency of Totnes. The Court of Appeal judgment concerns a crop planted a stone's throw from the Watsons at Riverford farm—one of the largest organic farms in the United Kingdom with 800 acres devoted to organic food. It has a splendid farm shop which sells the most delicious produce, attracting people from miles around, including me. It sells not only fruit and vegetables, but wonderful meat and sausages, ham and bacon. I think that the sausages won the Guardian award for the best sausage in Britain last year or the year before. The shop is certainly worth a visit.

How could ACRE officials have selected a trial site for genetically modified maize a few hundred yards from an organic farm? Clearly, those ACRE officials need their heads examined. Furthermore, they have trespassed on the good will of a well respected local farmer, Jack Connabeer, who perfectly legitimately has been letting out his land for seed trials. I am sure that he would be horrified if he learned that ACRE was using some of his land so close to his good neighbour and the organic farm to plant experimental, genetically modified maize.

The problem is that Mr. Connabeer is unlikely to have known about it because, before planting the crop, ACRE did not follow the normal procedures for notification—another twist in the story. It behaved as if it was organising a cover-up. ACRE announced the trial through a very small advertisement in the local paper, whereas the full procedure that should have been followed would have been to notify all local farmers of the plans and to ask for objections—but it did not do that. ACRE decided that there was very little risk involved in the planting of maize, and the proper procedures were not followed.

Would the Minister be good enough to undertake that such short-circuitry does not happen again? The problem that involved the Court of Appeal and led to tonight's debate was caused by the fact that the ACRE officials were so shortsighted and narrow minded that they allowed genetically modified crops to be planted on that site. Had they not done so, I doubt whether the debate would be taking place, and the country would be the poorer for that. In fact, we should thank officials for planting genetically modified crops so close to an organic farm because that has brought the matter to public attention.

There is enough time for the Minister to deal very fully with whether he will ensure that, in future, ACRE advertises in newspapers and notifies local farmers of its plans so that objections can be discussed. If there had been proper advertisement, the farmers in the area would have said, "Look here; this is not the thing to do. Go and take your genetically modified maize somewhere else." As the procedures were not followed, an unfortunate situation has arisen.

Not only is the Minister disregarding his own rules and regulations, but the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which is part not of his Ministry but of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, is short-circuiting accepted requirements. It probably would have got away with it but for the fact that it stupidly chose the wrong spot; and local environmentalists, of whom, I am glad to say, my constituency is full, alerted the Watsons on their organic farm.

Having taken the story thus far, I should like to bring in the Soil Association. It has said that, at 200 m away, had the whole of the trial site been genetically modified, it would have expected one in 1,000 kernels in Mr. Watson's crops to be contaminated with genetically modified crops. On this occasion, only a small proportion of the trial site was genetically modified, so the contamination may be diluted to about one kernel in 40,000. In a year or two, organic farmers face the prospect that all the crops next door to them will be genetically modified—with a commensurate increase in contamination. This year, because the Watsons were alerted and have a very large farm, they planted their maize crop as far away as possible from the experimental maize. Their crop is about 1.5 km to 2 km away from the GM maize even though the two farms' fields are only about 100 m apart at the nearest point.

The Government must outlaw any planting of genetically modified crops near organic farms. That must be in the Minister's mind, given this afternoon's announcement of a considerable increase in grants for organic farming and the fact that the Government must be aware that it is no good helping organic farmers whose crops are surrounded by genetically modified crops. I am sure that the Minister will explain that there must be some no-go areas where GM crops are prohibited due to the dangers of cross-pollination.

We must be aware that pollination is not the only way of achieving what is known as horizontal gene transfer, on which the Minister is probably an expert. The biotechnology industry uses bacteria and viruses—what it calls vectors—as a means of introducing DNA from one sort of a plant or animal to another. Vectors are the transport system, but they are rather hit and miss because they remain present in the crop. There has been very little research on the matter, but what there has been shows that such bacteria enter the soil.

We know that, in some cases, the industry even uses antibiotic-resistant varieties, such as the one grown in Devon last year. The concern is that it takes only an earthworm to ingest the bacteria and a song thrush to pick up the worm and move it two miles away for dangerous organisms to be moved around the country very quickly. When DNA modifications contain herbicide-resistant, antibiotic-resistant or sterility genes, there could be a knock-on effect on the environment about which we do not know. Those concerned with the environment obviously feel very strongly about that.

I see the GM issue as of a different scale from previous problems. We are talking about living organisms. Even DDT will fade away eventually, as do other chemicals sprayed on plants. But GM organisms work in the opposite direction; they are likely to increase and multiply. English Nature, the Government watchdog, is calling for a five-year moratorium, because an evaluation of the possible effects on the environment has yet to be completed.

What are the risks? Many genetically modified crops have an antibiotic-resistant gene built into them. That is the worry, because, as we all know, susceptibility to antibiotics is already weakening in the population as a result of people eating livestock that have been fed with too many antibiotics. Now, there is the possibility that antibiotic resistance will be added to by plant-based foods. That must be of long-term concern to the House and the country.

We very rarely operate the precautionary principle in this country. We often say that we do not have evidence for holding back, but problems often emerge only after some time, following widespread use of a technology or an agricultural practice. We are witnessing a fundamental shift in agricultural practice. One could say that the use of pesticides after the second world war constituted a second agricultural revolution. We are seeing the dawn of a third agricultural revolution, which is on a completely different scale.

Genetic engineering is altering the building blocks of life. That does not mean that we should necessarily fear it. It could produce high yields. Frost-resistant strawberries could be grown throughout the year in Britain, wheat that is resistant to draughts could be grown in the Sahara or anywhere affected by global warming, starvation could be prevented all over the globe. Genetic engineering could represent a wonder drug. One could argue that breeding plants that are resistant to pests will mean that no pesticides will be necessary in future, but by breeding plants with in-built pesticides, we may cause a build-up and over-use of natural pesticides, which may have a knock-on effect on wildlife and the environment generally.

We are on the threshold of a major development in the agricultural world. The biotechnology industry might be able to produce crops to feed the planet and be of major benefit to farmers, but do we really need them? I ask that question because I gather that 10 per cent. of available farm land in Europe is already set-aside land. We as taxpayers are paying farmers not to grow food; we are paying them to do nothing. As the boundaries of Europe stretch, even more land will be made available.

It seems curious that we are experimenting with super-crops when we already have too much food. Perhaps the future of genetic engineering will benefit other countries in the world that are not as fortunate as ours. We should not be for ever increasing subsidies to enable farmers to grow more and more food which we cannot eat.

The Court of Appeal judgment effectively warned the nation and the Minister to be cautious and to test such potentially damaging crops for longer. They may be damaging, or they may herald a new revolution—but we do not know which. What can be good can equally be bad. We must all show a little caution when re-working the very building blocks of nature.

8.38 pm

Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, and on the fact that it is taking place on a day on which we have more time than we would normally have expected. I want to make a few limited points, partly in relation to my early-day motion 1583, of which I am sure the Minister is aware.

There are important issues at stake here which require ministerial clarification, and would benefit from a more substantial parliamentary debate. The Court of Appeal ruling has rendered the status of the 1,200 field trials of genetically modified crops somewhat ambiguous. The trials are illegal, but there was no ruling obliging people to dig the crops up. Moreover, there was no clarification of the legal responsibility for the knock-on consequences on other crops grown on adjacent land, in terms of mutations and cross-pollination.

What worries me most is the fact that our current approach to genetically modified crops does not acknowledge the widest context in which we as a society should be assessing them. The nature of the trials has not properly assessed the wider consequences in terms of environmental impact and effects on human health.

We are talking about a paradigm shift in the nature of our agricultural practices. Throughout history, farmers have propagated crops and saved seed. Usually they have shared seeds, and in doing so they have generally added to the strength of the biodiversity to which we have access. The consequences of their actions have been understood and usually spread over long periods.

We are now entering a time in which it is possible to engineer change on a much more substantial scale and in a much shorter time frame. If we choose to do so, we must ensure that we are fully aware of the wider consequences. In both agriculture and medicine, one of the great strengths of the way in which we have approached change is that we have been ruled by the precautionary principle—that is, until we know the fullest and widest consequences, it is best not to allow out of the bottle something that we may have serious difficulty in putting back inside it.

However, that principle does not seem to be applied to our approach to field trials of genetically modified crops. The hon. Member for Totnes is right to warn the House that as yet we do not know enough about the consequences of the transgenic mutations or the impact that strains of genetically modified crops which are resistant to herbicides, antibiotics and pesticides, and have strains of bacteria and viruses built in, will have on other crops in nearby parts of the farmed countryside.

We should recognise that there is an element of folly, which the House and the Government ought to resist with all their might, in the belief that we have miracle crops that will provide the answers to all our immediate fears—crops that are resistant to drought, blight and cold.

It is possible for genetic engineering to produce such seeds and crops, but it is naive and irresponsible for us to believe that such change does not carry its own consequences. For instance, we already know that drought-resistant wheat tends to be more water-thirsty than ordinary wheat. That has its own results in the demands that it makes on the land, and in terms of sustainable agriculture.

We also know that nature abhors a vacuum. By and large, we have had a period of seven, 10, or even 15 years in which a new seed variety may be blight-free, but we know from the whole history of agricultural change that at the end of that period the new plant varieties will produce their own toxins, and new blight varieties will follow on to attack them. That is in the nature of the way in which the planet works.

We have benefited from the fact that we have had a period of grace in which to adjust to such developments, and one of my fears is that we are now in serious danger of running so far ahead of ourselves in the mistaken belief in our own omnipotence, that we will not be prepared for the consequences of the new blights and toxins—or nature's next response—on the scale on which we have sought to pursue change.

As the hon. Member for Totnes pointed out, we are not sufficiently aware of the consequences of the way in which the genetically modified crops are likely to affect other traditional crops. I have to confess to a serious worry about the specific dimension of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention—the proximity of genetically modified crops to organic crops.

That effect may be further complicated by changes already being pushed through in America, where people are trying to redefine the term "organic" to include genetically modified crops. That is the sort of contradiction in terms that makes a mockery of language. We are almost at the Alice in Wonderland stage, in which we say that words mean what we choose them to mean.

It cannot be acceptable for the growing movement of consumers who are rightly concerned about food health, food standards and environmental impacts, and who are beginning to exert pressure so as to be able to exercise an informed choice in the shops, to be denied the right to exercise that choice because we have colluded in a process that makes a mockery of the very word "organic".

It is incumbent on the Minister to try to bring a sense of clarity and sanity to the debate. I am encouraged in that hope because we are fortunate in having a Minister whose personal qualities of clarity, sanity and honesty make a great contribution to the post that he holds. I hope that he has wider support in the Cabinet, to make a significant impact on the process of bringing that sanity into the public debate.

We must ask the Minister to do two important things. First, he should make a statement to clarify the status of the illegal field trials. If the crops have to be removed so that we can have as a starting point a position of legality, and proceed through stages of legality, in which public protection is the paramount concern, so be it.

Secondly, there is a compelling argument growing outside the House that calls for a moratorium on field trials until there has been the widest possible debate on how we can begin to evaluate the impact that genetically modified crops could have. That is not necessarily to resist change or to oppose a broadening of the base of biodiversity, but to insist that we do not undertake such developments in a naive way, ignoring the knock-on consequences that must surely follow. We must accept responsibility for the effects not only on adjacent fields but across the whole of our society, possibly for generations to come. That is the lead that I hope the Minister will give tonight.

8.49 pm

Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)

I am pleased to participate in this debate, as I have been trying for some months to have the matter discussed in the House. I was privileged to be a member of a parliamentary delegation that met parliamentary delegations from Germany and the United States—genetically modified crops were one of the three subjects that we had to penetrate. Tonight, we have a great opportunity to raise the matter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate.

Genetically modified foods have been entering British supermarkets over the past year, and the outcome has been mixed. The public have accepted some without hesitation—vegetarian cheeses and the paste made from genetically modified tomatoes, for example—but others, such as the flour made from genetically modified soya beans, have caused controversy. We must ask why that is. After all, products such as insulin, interferon and growth hormones—which are all made in bacteria or in genetically modified animal cells and from which many people have medically benefited—have been accepted by the consumer without question. If it is okay to use GM products for medicine, why are there questions about producing food using that technology?

We have, of course, been modifying crop plants for centuries by traditional processes of plant breeding. As the hon. Member for Totnes said, what is new is the development of a technology whereby a gene can be moved from one species to another. Soya was genetically modified by the introduction of a gene from a soil bacterium to make the plant resistant to a particular herbicide, so that the herbicide, which has been in use for some years, can be sprayed on the crop after the plant is above ground, when a single application is sufficient. That replaces the previous practice of spraying not only before emergence, but afterwards with a second, more selective herbicide. The company, Monsanto, claims that a smaller amount of a safer herbicide is used and that the yield is higher—no one has refuted it.

Herbicide-resistant soya has real advantages for a farmer; the new crop accounted for 2 per cent. of the yield in 1996, 15 per cent. in 1997 and, it is predicted, about 40 per cent. in 1998. I believe that the new crop is here to stay; modified soya is now entering the United Kingdom. A number of other crops are in field trials in the United States—as was made clear in our discussions with Congressmen and scientists—including disease-resistant rice, which, it is argued, will be important for the developing world.

The question that we, and the consumer, must ask is whether the new soya crop is safe. Before a crop can be used in Britain, it needs Government approval. Ministers take the advice of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. That expert committee, which includes a consumer representative and an ethical adviser—we could argue that that is insufficient for the process of assessment—advised the Minister that the new product was as safe as conventional soya, although we could argue about that for some time.

The public have been equally or even more concerned about the effect of GM crops on the environment. They ask whether the crops will lead to an increase in the use of herbicides, whether the modified genes will escape into the environment to fill our fields with resistant rape or whether the genes will spread to other species. Those matters are regulated by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which includes a wide variety of skills and views, including green ones. It works on a case-by-case basis, but is now looking at the net effect of several releases—it is evolving an attitude to the new technology.

Even if the new crop is as safe as unmodified soya and we can control any adverse effects on the environment, people still ask whether they really want to eat it. There are several reasons why there has been so much consumer concern about the absence of choice. Scientists bear some responsibility for it; certainly, the expert approval processes are no longer trusted as they once were. Washing powder is recommended no longer by the man in the white coat, but by a consumer.

The public are largely unaware of the development of the careful scientific methods of assessing risk, such as the use of hazard analysis, which can come much closer to an objective evaluation of risk. Risk is an extremely difficult concept for people to understand, as we saw in the case of beef on the bone. It is hard to know how great a risk has to be before one is concerned about it politically. Risks such as a billion to one and a million to one are often equated with the chance of winning the lottery, and everyone thinks that they will win the lottery. Scientists do not agree with the public's concept of risk analysis. BSE has affected the way in which we think of risk.

Mr. Steen

The hon. Gentleman mentions risk. My particular concern—on which I hope he can throw some light—is antibiotics. Doctors offer people antibiotics, tranquillisers and sleeping pills; millions of antibiotics are used every day. Like some meat, some GM crops have built-in antibiotics. What are the dangers to society's health of developing GM crops that could create resistance to antibiotics? Will the antibiotics that we are given by doctors be less effective?

Dr. Gibson

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, about which I have strong views. I do not believe that the antibiotic gene will necessarily be chosen, because, as he says, that process can pose risks. Other genes can be used as a marker for the particular gene that one wants to be expressed in the plant or organism. I accept his criticism—we have learnt that the antibiotic gene is not the answer and that it should not have been used.

As I was saying, scientists and the public have different assessments of risk. To some extent, the public do not understand scientists; they feel that scientists are somewhat arrogant. Scientists have a responsibility to explain what they are doing, as the Minister and I agreed during another interchange in the House.

As we have heard in this debate, there is hostility to high-intensity agriculture. A major public concern is that the international agri-food business has been consolidated into about six companies. Decisions about the future of our food are being taken in the United States or in Switzerland. Consumers feel that they have lost control, which they blame on technology. GM food seems to have become a lightning rod for many modern concerns, but my point is—I think that it is accepted—that the problem is not the science, but the way in which it has been organised, and its relationship with society.

We must explain precisely what is going on. There must be no secrecy in terms of the scientists. It is to be hoped that we will shortly have a major conference in this country to discuss the issue in a broad-based way, and many people can come and express their views. There have been such conferences, but they have tended to be polarised and have not moved the process forward. We must open the regulatory process, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will agree. Nothing must be hidden—there is no reason to hide anything.

The other issue is the question of choice between the traditional product and the new product. That choice has to be put before people, as has happened in supermarkets in this country. People have, to some extent, voted for something that they have seen labelled. Choice is so important, and I think that we can offer genetically manipulated products and the other, more traditional product. People will then taste and feel it, and determine by price and other factors which they think is better. I have also mentioned the safety factors and the process that we go through to make sure that the choice is safe and honest.

Labelling is so important. People must know what a label means and that it speaks the truth. We must monitor the matter to make sure that there are no unexpected problems. I do not want to be a scientific pointy head, but it is possible to engineer a plant where the process of pollination is engineered out. I am not saying that science is wonderful and can cure everything, but if there are problems—as the hon. Member for Totnes has illustrated—scientists have to take them on seriously and find a way to allay the fears of hon. Members and consumers. We have a long way to go before we are absolutely sure.

In the Swiss referendum, it was interesting that when the scientists took off their white coats, came out of the laboratories and explained what was going on, they won the ballot. In the next few months, this major issue will be fully and effectively addressed, and I think that this Government will be at the front of the debate.

9 pm

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate, and I apologise for not having a word with him beforehand. This is an important issue, and some of us have been trying to get a debate on it for weeks. It is very helpful to have such a debate tonight. As I had originally intended to keep my remarks to an intervention or two, I shall be brief.

I am sorry that I missed the very start of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I thought that the points he made were invaluable in laying out the case. My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) also made good contributions.

Quite simply, I receive more letters in my postbag on this topic than on any other bar hunting. My constituency may be unusual, but that fact shows that people out there in the real world are concerned and are voicing their opinions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, people want a choice, and they feel annoyed and threatened when that choice is taken away. We start from a position of widespread ignorance and considerable concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, that has not been helped by the decision of Monsanto—in collusion, it appears, with the US Department of Agriculture—to redefine organic crops to include GM crops. That seems to be short-sighted and unfair.

Part of the worry is about the lack of choice, and that comes through in two ways. First, those of us who do not have a scientific background find it difficult to explain why segregation could not have taken place at the outset, and why difficulties now seem to arise all the time. More particularly, people are concerned that there cannot be labelling. People want to know what they are eating—a basic requirement of food safety.

Iceland has taken the decision not to sell GM food in its supermarkets. It is to be congratulated, but I understand that it may be able to do that only until 2000, after which time all of the soya crop is likely to be modified. In simple terms that is scandalous.

The precautionary principle should be applied. If there are difficulties with the experimentation, the polluter should pay. There are many examples of GM companies breaching their consents. That was stated in an article in the New Scientist, and I managed to pick it up through the Co-operative Wholesale Society's magazine Co-op Horizons. Offenders include Monsanto, Nickerson Biochem, AgrEvo, Plant Genetic Systems, the Scottish Crop Research Institute and the National Institute of Agricultural Botany. They have all either provided too small a buffer zone, planted in the wrong place or surrounded their plot with unsuitable crops that could be modified by the influence of the GM crop.

I share hon. Members' confidence in the Government's, and especially the Minister's, ability to deal with the issue. We are up against the forces of global capitalism and big business. Most people are alarmed by our inability to enforce controls not only on this island but at European Union level. Whenever it is mentioned that there may be a need to rein in the companies, there is a threat of our being in breach of World Trade Organisation rules or other rules that may be invoked to threaten Governments.

Mr. Steen

To have two interventions in an Adjournment debate that one started is a great luxury. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Austrian Government, who are soon to take up the EU presidency, intend to put genetically engineered crops high on their list of matters for discussion? The Minister has a wonderful opportunity to take a lead before Austria takes up the presidency and to explain what Britain is doing on a matter that concerns many people.

Mr. Drew

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I had heard that, but it would be good to see exactly what it means and how the British Government will respond.

When the companies concerned are criticised, their response seems sometimes to be to deny the right of others to put their arguments. I am aware of the scientific approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, but I am seriously worried by the companies' willingness and apparent ability to spend millions of pounds on a public relations campaign that even parties in general elections can only dream about. They have serious resources, and that should be understood.

We are dealing with a force that needs to be exposed. I am not totally against genetically modifying crops, because there may be arguments for it in the third world or in our future, but the precautionary principle should be applied and people should be given a choice and know that the matter has been properly discussed and scrutinised—then we will see the true value of the process—because otherwise people will regard it as an enormous threat to their very existence.

9.8 pm

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), not on his luck in the draw, because we all know how Thursday Adjournment debates are chosen—that shows the importance that Madam Speaker attaches to the issue—but on his selection of subject.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for their speeches. My great wish would have been to have a couple of hours' warning that we would have the joy of an extended Adjournment debate. I could then have been in a better position to respond to the important points made on both sides. That was not to be, and I shall respond to the subject of the debate as reflected in the title, which refers to the recent Court of Appeal decision, on which I can speak in detail. I cannot respond in such detail to the other points made, but they deserve comment from the Government.

If ever there were a case for a nanny state to monitor change that can affect all of society, genetic modification of the food chain is it. We must assess whether we have the right controls and the right regulatory framework. I have to say to my hon. Friends, without criticising them in any way, that some people will use the term "precautionary principle" when it suits them, but will on other occasions yell that the nanny state should get out of the way to let them do their own thing. Theirs is a simplistic view, and we must be more adult than that in our politics.

The hon. Member for Totnes was absolutely right to say that many organisations and more than one Department are involved with genetically modified food. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a key player. The Departments of Health and of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are also involved. The Department of Trade and Industry sponsors the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, which has an important role. Other Government offices use science to formulate policy, which ensures that decisions have a good audit trail.

During my time at MAFF, we have been required to comment on or make decisions about aspects of genetic modification. If cases are taken in isolation, one can feel robust about the line one takes, but the difficulty lies in seeing where the bits fit into the big picture. The dozen or so advisory committees that service MAFF and the Departments of Health and of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were set up for a specific purpose, but are required to deal with genetic modification. They will deal with it within the rules, whether considering pesticides or other matters. Pesticides for genetically modified crops are obviously a matter for consideration, and it is necessary to see the big picture.

I can honestly say that all the Ministers and officials in MAFF who deal with the genetic modification issue, from the beginning of the growing of crops to the end of the food chain, have discussed how to make better decisions on genetic modification.

The issue has been raised with me on my visits to farms and, more particularly, research institutions in the public and private sectors. Indeed, I have asked about the regulatory process and how the Government can check what is in food, including, for example, whether there is a genetically modified ingredient in a made-up supermarket food. I have asked how we can check that soya may be only 5 per cent. of the product and whether what is on the label is true.

Science is moving fast in laboratories that can police any regulatory system that is put firmly in place. On the other hand, as laboratories will freely admit, and rightly so because this is leading-edge science, there is a whole host of other crops coming along that can be genetically modified in perhaps two or three years, but which would take up to 50 years to produce through ordinary breeding techniques.

I accept the argument that genetic modification is not simply speeding up a natural process. It cannot be when genes are mixed from different species. Clearly, there is a difference. Nevertheless, the process is accepted in medicine. As hon. Members have said, some of the new wonder drugs have been accepted, and I think rightly so. There is some comfort in the regulatory process for medicine which, I admit, is not in place for food and agriculture.

Hon. Members spoke of the need for science to be open. That is crucial and fundamental. There cannot be any secrecy. It is in scientists' own interests to go on a mission to explain. That is important. It cannot necessarily be done by the Government or individual companies. It requires a team effort, operating on many fronts. There must be an ethos of openness and transparency. The excuse of competitive edge must not be used. Sometimes, commercial confidentiality can be used as a smokescreen for competitive edge to keep things quiet, but, in this area, we must be careful before we go down that road.

I opened the vegetarian food fair in the midlands last autumn. The stallholders were, by and large, small firms—some were family businesses and some had turnovers of a few tens of millions of pounds. The issue of source of supply of ingredients was raised with me. Some firms had sources of GM-free soya and maize for their products. I said that it was early days for me at the Ministry, but that I kept being told by the big players that they could not get separation. Obviously, I was concerned that if small firms could do that, big firms should be able to. As a result, early in January we held a meeting in MAFF with a couple of dozen people from the big players in the retail food industry and the small firms dealing with health food shops and the vegetarian food sector. It was as useful for me and my officials to listen to the discussion between the players as it was for them to participate.

As a result of that meeting, my officials and scientists went away to think about what the Government could do either unilaterally or with our partners in Europe to make acceptable progress on the issue. A couple of months ago, MAFF published a list of 47 suppliers of GM-free soya and maize. We put it on the Internet so that people in the food business in this country and in Europe could find out where in America and Canada there was a niche supplier. It was not always easy. In fact, the last time that I checked, there was a list of 58 suppliers. People were queueing up to get on the MAFF GM-free list because they could see niche markets opening up.

I remain convinced that market pressures could be used to force the large American suppliers to segregate. The Americans understand market forces, if they understand nothing else. Also, they are beginning slowly to understand that the consumer ethos in Europe is different from that in the United States. People in Europe want to know more about their food and want effective labelling, showing the ingredients and the methods of production.

There is not that clamour for information in the United States—if the Food and Drug Administration says that it is okay, it is. Europe is slightly different, and European consumers are putting pressures on individual Governments, which are causing different aspects to come into play. I cannot comment on what has been said about the view of the Austrians. They took the presidency on 1 July and have had it for only one month. I do not know whether the issue is on their agenda.

Before I deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Totnes, I hope that I have shown hon. Members—in this respect, I would call them all hon. Friends—that we are seized of the importance of the issue, and that we will not rush to a judgment on it. No individual Government Department can run with the issue, as it crosses all Government boundaries. In our internal discussions, we are trying to find a framework within government in which to discuss the issue more widely.

The ethical dimension is crucial and, as has been said, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has always had an ethics adviser—a new person has recently been appointed following a retirement. As we make progress on our proposals for the Food Standards Agency, we will consider the overall make-up of the advisory committee network. We will start a new committee on animal feedstuffs later this year—five years since it was recommended and accepted as necessary, but not established, by the previous Government. I am not criticising, but merely setting the record straight and pointing out that the idea has been around for a long time.

Aspects of animal feedstuffs slip between existing advisory committees, and we need to plug that gap. One such issue could be the use of genetically modified crops as animal feedstock.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I have operated jointly on issues such as labelling since we set up the joint food standards and safety group last June between MAFF and the Department of Health, with 300-plus civil servants, many of whom are graduates and science-based, dealing with food regulation—contaminants, surveillance, labelling and so on. One of our first decisions was to change the instructions of the British negotiators in Brussels regarding the labelling of foods containing GM ingredients. It has taken a while to get a decision in Europe, and it is not acceptable to everyone, but, from this September, new rules will apply to labelling, particularly that of soya and maize. We have avoided having a label that says, "This product may contain genetically modified ingredients". That is the cop-out for everyone, and we could envisage it being abused throughout the food industry. If there is no genetically modified ingredient in the final product, but genetic modification was used in the manufacturing process or refining, the label cannot state that the product contains genetically modified ingredients. We have to take a view on that to get honesty and transparency in the labelling. The process of manufacture is a separate issue. In time, we will have to address manufacturing techniques and how foods are produced, so that people have more information. That means making the science open and creating the opportunity for people to have a choice.

No one will ever claim that items are perfectly safe. I do not want to get into an esoteric argument about what "safe" means, but it was put to me earlier today—I hope that I have remembered it because I did not write it down—in a British Standards Institute document that safe means something that is not an unacceptable risk. It is safe to cross a road; there is a risk, but it is not unacceptable. We have to be on guard all the while in considering the use of science.

My introductory remarks were born out of my experience of discussions in the past few 15 months as a Minister and are not part of a set brief, although I speak for the Government. They give some idea of how the Government are considering how we can examine the wider issue and not be trapped into looking at each issue in isolation and then wondering what went wrong when we see the big picture. We need to see the big picture as the bits of the jigsaw are put in place, whether it is health, food, pesticides, animal feed or techniques. It is a much bigger operation than a simple new technique or product.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes, who made a coherent, detailed speech on an important issue born out of something that affected one of his constituents and led to a major court case and a decision in which, in one respect, my Ministry was found wanting. I was wondering how he could have cut his speech if we had started at 10 pm and had only 30 minutes. I worked out that I would have had three minutes to reply to him.

The central issues that the hon. Member raised touch on some of those to which I have referred. The recent Court of Appeal judgment addressed the three issues that he mentioned. The questions are whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions adequately took account of the risk of cross-pollination of Mr. Watson's organic sweet corn; whether a consent issued by the DETR to Sharpes under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 could lawfully cover a national list trial conducted for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany; and whether the national list trial was invalid because MAFF had not complied with regulation 11(3) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 as amended—the national list regulations—by requiring the applicant to provide the results of two replicated trials with the application. The court was asked to order the destruction of the trial crops.

I was concerned when the hon. Member started his speech, because he mentioned many figures on GM trial crops that did not ring a bell with me. Trial crops and experimental crops are separate. Tonight, I am dealing only with trial crops. I do not say that experimental crops are all over the place, but there are a considerable number. Some may be only the size of the Dispatch Box to start with. In considering the appeal, the court drew a distinction between the health and safety implications of releasing genetically modified organisms, which are dealt with by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the national list trials, which are about seed marketing. The court noted that that particular case involved both regimes, while, ordinarily, the national list trials do not.

Research field trials of genetically modified crops, such as the one in Devon, must have prior approval from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, under section 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the associated regulations. Before approval is granted, the company proposing the research has to provide full information about the genetically modified organism and carry out an assessment of the possible risks to human health and the environment and how those risks will be avoided. The application is scrutinised by the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, to which reference has been made, which advises on whether consent should be granted or whether additional precautions should be taken to minimise the risk.

Two issues were raised in the Court of Appeal on the GMO legislation. The first concerned the holder of the consent, who has responsibility for the safety of the GMO throughout the period of the consent. The Court of Appeal confirmed that a series of people might be involved in the research work authorised by the consent—for example, staff at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany carrying out a national list trial—but that, at all times, the consent holder was responsible for ensuring the safety of the GMO. The second point concerned the way in which the risk of cross-pollination with other maize crops was assessed, and, again, the Court of Appeal judged that the procedure was followed satisfactorily.

In the case of the national list trials of maize in Devon, there are six plots of genetically modified maize, among the total of 1,163, more than 2 km from Mr. Watson's sweetcorn. That is the issue which the hon. Gentleman raised at MAFF Question Time a month ago. I was not certain which farm it was, but I had already read one of the briefs. The matter is important to us because the issue went to court. I do not know how the 2 km gap came about. It was assessed on 200 m and deemed to be okay by ACRE. In the event, the gap is 2 km. Perhaps the 2 km gap came about because, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, someone found out about it and moved the crop. I should be interested to know whether that was the case. I should welcome more information on that. Although there is a theoretical possibility that some pollen might travel that far and cross-pollinate with the sweetcorn, I am informed that, in practice, the risk is likely to be zero. That is the view of the risk at that distance.

There are no specific requirements under the current legislation controlling the release of GMOs to consider organic farming when field-testing GM crops. That may come as a surprise to the House, but that is a fact. However, where needed, release consents have specific measures attached that are designed to limit cross-pollination of neighbouring crops, whether or not they are organic. As the hon. Gentleman kindly reminded the House, the Government are very much in favour of organic farming. I can honestly say that it was a top priority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who, until Monday, was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Moving our budget around for both research and conversion has not been easy. Over the past 12 months, we have made a modest contribution, but it is in the right direction. We favour organic production and want to do what we can to assist conversion.

I want to make it absolutely clear that my Ministry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be working with the farming community and representatives of organic farming to ensure that the expansion of organic farming is not compromised by the introduction of genetically modified crops. I might have rambled in my introduction and deviated from my brief, but I want to make it clear that that is the most important sentence that I shall say this evening. I genuinely mean that—those are not words to be put in Hansard and forgotten about; I shall follow through.

I do not want to end on a completely different argument, but it could be said, in connection with the rules on organic production, that Mr. Watson's argument is essentially with the Soil Association rather than with the Government. Because it gives them a niche and a competitive edge, private sector bodies can always demand tighter rules than those laid down in either UK or European law. It comes down to a question of commercial judgment or, in some cases, to an ideological stance, whereby people say that, whatever the science, they are against genetically modified crops and food. Let me make it clear that that is not the Government's position. It is a legitimate position for people to adopt, but it makes it far more difficult for people such as myself to discuss how to take matters forward. It is a respectable position and I do not criticise it, but consequences flow from it.

There are no fully worked-up EC standards for organic crops, as the hon. Gentleman will know from the research he did before coming to see me recently with a delegation. I hope that he and his colleagues found the meeting helpful; I certainly did, and so did my officials. Pending the introduction of EC standards for organic production, the regulatory authority—the UK Register for Organic Foods Standards—has explicitly prohibited the use of GMOs and their derivatives in organic production. Until recently, the ban did not extend to GMO products containing no genetic material, but that exception has now been removed—in other words, the rules have got even tighter. That action reflects a practical position that has been adopted, but I ask the hon. Gentleman and those following our debate to acknowledge that it presents considerable difficulties in terms of possible future discussions.

All that does not gainsay what I have said about our desire to ensure that the introduction of GMOs on a trial basis, an experimental basis, or even a full-crop basis, in no way damages organic farming. Given the extremely tight public expenditure restrictions to which we are subject as part of our contract with the electorate, it would be stupid for the Government to push more money into converting to organic farming while allowing the farmers who take that brave step to be damaged by other actions within the process that I have described.

In considering the national list regime, the Court of Appeal said that MAFF had acted unlawfully by not requiring the applicant to submit the results of two replicated trials with his application. However, it rejected the application to order the destruction of the trial on those grounds, and said explicitly that the Minister could not properly destroy or require destruction of the trial. The court was critical of my Department for not enforcing regulation 11(3), and, in commenting on the wider implications, concluded that the position needed to be resolved speedily and across the board. On behalf of the Government, let me say straight away that I accept the court's criticism, but I shall take the opportunity to explain to the House why my Ministry took the line that it did. Regulation 11(3) states that no application shall be entertained for the entry in a National List of a variety … unless in each case the applicant submits to Ministers with the application the results of … replicated trials". I should make it clear that neither that provision nor any of other tests and trials required for national list purposes has any relevance in assessing the environmental or safety aspects of genetic modification. It takes a while to get one's head round the fact that the information from trials is not used for that purpose. Those trials have no role whatever in assessing the environmental or safety aspects of genetic modification. Those very important issues are dealt with under separate legislation—the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the regulations made under it.

No variety is accepted into national list tests and trials unless the appropriate release consent has been issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and tests and trials are carried out according to any release conditions that may have been imposed under the consent.

The requirement for replicated trials information was first introduced in 1979, to act as a brake on the number of varieties entering the trials system. The aim was to encourage breeders to do their own pre-entry trials to screen out for themselves those varieties unlikely to be successful in full national list trials, rather than relying on the national list system, which was heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, to do it for them.

The aim was to alleviate the pressure on the statutory system, which was becoming overloaded with varieties that were being tested unnecessarily at the taxpayer's expense. I repeat that replicated trials data were never used in making decisions about whether to add varieties to the national list. That was—and is—done on the basis of data from official tests and trials, which is a separate issue.

Following a review in 1992–93, a streamlined system of what were known as value for cultivation and use—VCU—trials was introduced, which reduced the burden on the trials system and led to the staged reintroduction of fees for official trials in 1994 and 1995. During that review, the British Society of Plant Breeders was advised informally by senior officials that the national list regulations would be amended at the first available opportunity to remove the wholly procedural requirements of regulation 11(3).

By April 1995, when the full weight of the reintroduced VCU charges was felt, the practice of submitting VCU data had diminished significantly. The requirement to submit replicated trials data had no value once the pressure on the system was relieved. Because of the charges, plant breeders were not queueing up, the taxpayer was not being ripped off and there was no need for the regulation.

It was decided—from a common-sense point of view, having spent some time considering the matter, I agree—that a requirement to provide information that served no useful purpose and which was not used placed an unnecessary and unjustifiable burden on applicants; therefore, the information was not sought.

Who made the change? Where and when? Where is the paperwork? The answer is that we are still trying to find it. We cannot find any paperwork from 1992–93, when the decision was made, showing who authorised the change at the time. Nevertheless, that was clearly carried out. It follows from what I have said that parliamentary time was never found to change the regulation.

The national list system, which was created shortly after we joined the European Community in 1972, is based on EC directives on the marketing of plant varieties. They are essentially concerned with the agronomic value of varieties and the end-use quality of the crop—for example, milling in the case of wheat, and malting in the case of barley. There are about 1,000 agricultural varieties on the national list, and none of them is genetically modified. We have some 900 varieties at varying stages of tests and trials for addition to the national list, only 20 of which are genetically modified.

I intend to set in hand immediate action to amend the regulations to remove the requirements of regulation 11(3). I make it clear that we are operating regulation 11(3) as from the court's judgment. The requirement for replicated trials is being operated because that is the law and the court has said that we must follow it. However, having examined it, we still see no useful purpose in regulation 11(3) and will seek to amend it. That involves a statutory process which will involve consultation. There will be no fast tracking; for the foreseeable future and until the regulation is amended, we will operate it.

Mr. Steen

rose—

Mr. Rooker

To pre-empt the hon. Gentleman's third intervention, I shall say something about what should be done to resolve the position in respect of varieties already on the national list or currently in trials. The issues raised are complex, and we are examining them very carefully. I told my officials on Monday that I wanted to come to the House tonight to explain the issues, because I thought that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the wider industry deserved an answer as quickly as possible.

I am not in a position to inform the House about how we shall deal with the matter, but I can say that it is under active and urgent consideration by those who are colloquially called m'learned friends. It is a very complex legal matter, and there are many varieties on the national list that are being grown as crops. They are perfectly safe and—I emphasise this—have gone through the regulatory process in respect of environmental and food safety. They conform fully to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. By definition, some will not conform to regulation 11(3). That is an important point, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes for having raised it and to my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate.

Mr. Steen

I thought that I would catch the Minister before he sat down. This has been a fascinating debate and he is making a fascinating speech. The whole House has been riveted by his command of the subject. We are grateful to him for being here and for what he has said, but he has skirted around one issue—the genetically modified crops that are in their first year of trials. They will be on the seed-testing list next year unless something is done to put them through further trials. In view of the Minister's fascinating preamble to his prepared speech, will he say something, not only to vegetarians but to those who are concerned about food safety in general, about whether he is planning to extend the trials so that genetically modified crops do not go on the seed list only two years after the trials?

Mr. Rooker

That is the very question which I cannot answer, because it relates to crops undergoing trials and have perhaps not undergone two replicated years, or are already on the list. I said that there are no GM crops on the list, but there are 20 undergoing trials. I do not know all the details of the 20 or whether any had replicated years, but, clearly, people were being told that that was not necessary. It is a complex issue.

I do not want to be accused of short-circuiting the House—no one will ever accuse me of doing that; The Government do not want to do that. We have to take legal advice on the matter. The Court of Appeal decision in respect of regulation 11(3) has gone against the Government for the reasons that I have explained.

I do not know whether the industry is fully seized of the implications of the judgment. I have not been on the receiving end of massive representations from people growing crops that have been through the system, complaining that the court has said that the system did not conform to the law. Those are non-genetically modified organism crops. We must find a way to regularise the system. We are debating a substantial industry and not a few trials. Crops are being grown and harvested, and seeds are being sold. We are looking urgently at the matter.

As the House begins the summer recess tomorrow, I shall not be able to report back to hon. Members, but I assure them that the matter is being dealt with daily and that that will continue during the recess. Datelines are looming by which we must know how to deal with this complex issue. We are taking much advice on the matter and do not seek in any way to circumvent the court's decision. The court found that we had been acting wrongly, and we accept that. The matter is more serious than I suspect most hon. Members realise. We shall move as quickly as we can to rectify the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.