Genetically Modified Crops (Hansard, 11 March 1999)

§ 4. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)
What assessment he has made of the recommendation of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the planting of genetically modified crops. [74081]

§ 6. Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact which failure to reach agreement at the Cartagena biosafety protocol negotiations will have on United Kingdom policy on genetically modified crops. [74083]

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker)
The failure of the negotiations does not directly affect UK policy on genetically modified organisms, because European legislation already controls all releases and marketing within the EU, including imports.
A moratorium on trials in the UK would not be helpful, because the purpose of the trials is to obtain information about the impact on biodiversity. I confirm to the House what I said two weeks ago during an interview: the extent of the current trials measures less than two football pitches.

§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)
It is winter.

§ Mr. Rooker
Of course it is winter. However, the idea had got around that the whole country was covered with trial GMO crops: it is not.

§ Mr. Swayne
My question was about the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Is the Minister aware that the 485 RSPB has pointed out that any statements to the effect that his two football pitches will yield meaningful data are a sham? Does he really intend to proceed with the development of such crops as early as next year, when both the RSPB and English Nature have said that useful test data will not be available for three years?

§ Mr. Rooker
With respect, I did address the issue, because the point is that the RSPB has called for a moratorium. I addressed that point in my original substantive answer. The RSPB will be fully involved in the monitoring of the field-scale trials that will take place this year; we have been open about them. Several 10-hectare fields will be involved, and of course those trials will be larger than the current ones. The RSPB will be fully represented on the steering committee that will oversee the ecological studies on those trials.

§ Mr. Chaytor
Question 6. Madam Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was linked to question 4."] Forgive me, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Members
Why?

§ Madam Speaker
Because I am a very forgiving Speaker.

§ Mr. Chaytor
I am part of the new intake and I am still, two years on, not fully familiar with the arcane parliamentary procedures.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on dealing with the issues very cautiously and thoroughly in the past few months. Does he agree that the failure to reach agreement at the biosafety convention—especially on producer liability, the right to ban imports and the right to label—will serve only to increase the concern that many consumers feel? Has he had the chance to consider the evidence submitted yesterday to the Select Committee on Science and Technology by the scientists from English Nature about the wider potential impact on biodiversity of the planting of GM crops? How can the Government ensure that consumers will have the right to choose between GM food and non-GM food in the light of the failure to reach an agreement on a biosafety protocol at Cartagena?

§ Mr. Rooker
My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are no immediate implications for the United Kingdom from the breakdown of the negotiations. The parties will meet again in May 2000 with a view to concluding the negotiations. I should add that there were errors in reporting the issue as regards the UK. We did not break ranks with the European Union to support the United States of America, as was suggested in The Guardian. That report was totally incorrect.

§ Mr. Gray
The Minister seems to have admitted that his use of the image of two football pitches in a recent interview was substantially misleading because, in the middle of winter, soya beans grow, but nothing else. The more accurate figure, given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), was that 846 acres were under cultivation last July, which is about 400 football pitches. Will the Minister admit that he used a misleading image on the "Today" programme because he 486 was so concerned about the public's notion of what GM means that he was trying to allay their fears by using substantially misleading statistics?

§ Mr. Rooker
Since that interview, I have double checked the briefing provided to me by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which oversees these trials. I was quite right to point out what the position actually was in February to people who were being told that the countryside is covered in trials of GM crops. Although we can talk about large-scale field planting in the spring, summer and autumn, the reality at the time when I was interviewed was that an area smaller than two football pitches was being covered.

§ Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)
Will my hon. Friend comment on how adequately he can monitor or control the release of GM organisms into the environment under the existing rules? Having just discovered that Monsanto plans field testing of GM crops just outside Nottingham, I was astonished to read a reply from a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that stated that permission to do so had been granted under EU directive 90/220—under which there is no obligation to consult local authorities, local farmers or local people. If that is the broad rubric under which access to GM planting may take place, how can adequate monitoring be undertaken on sites on which we do not know even the state of the existing ecosystem?

§ Mr. Rooker
I have seen the answers given to my hon. Friend by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The short answer is that the purpose of the trials is to get the information that we need. The trials are being monitored and overseen. They are not secret, and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food references are published. There is no doubt about where the trials are taking place.

§ Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk)
On 4 March, the Minister for the Environment told the House—at column 837 of Hansard—that farm-scale trials of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops would start next month and continue for four years. Will the Minister at last recognise that the Conservative party is not calling for a moratorium on those trials? What we want is a delay in the commercial planting of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops. How can the Government contemplate approving commercial planting before the trials have been completed and the results properly analysed?

§ Mr. Rooker
The Conservative party never told the country about all the approvals of food and crops that its Government made, but the Tories are trying to lead a scare about it now. We have made it clear that there will be field-scale trials and farm-scale trials this year. It is important to move on from the trials conducted previously. The trials will be independently monitored, and we need to receive information from them before we decide what will happen in future. Unlike the Conservatives, we are not prepared to say that we can be certain within four years or three—the figure seems to be changing—of whether we can or cannot proceed. We shall proceed with field-scale trials this year, and we shall have the results before we decide what happens next.