§ Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the safety of and liability for the deliberate release or marketing of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food; to establish a genetically modified organism compensation fund; and for connected purposes.
Let me turn the clock back a moment. It was late in the afternoon of Friday 31 March that Mr. Petersen reserved a telephone call from the German authorities notifying him that genetic contamination had been found in the oilseed rape seeds supplied by his company, Advanta UK. The House will recall that, in the furious debates of the following two months, the Government decided that the crop planted in the United Kingdom should be destroyed. In the UK alone, more than 5,000 hectares of oilseed rape had to be ploughed in, along with the entirety of that season's plantings in Germany, France and Sweden.
The question that remained was who was liable for the damage and loss caused in that exercise. When Advanta came to give evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it said that it had supplied what it thought to be non-genetically modified seeds. The crop had been cultivated on land never used for GM crop growing, and with separation distances 20 times that required in the United Kingdom. In turn, farmers had grown in good faith crops that they believed to be non-GM. They were as shocked as anyone else to discover that their crops were contaminated by the Aventis herbicide-tolerant gene.
I hope that the House will excuse the pun when I say that the crunch in deciding what to do about the issue came when the oilseed crushing industry announced that it was refusing to buy any of that season's contaminated crop. That was great news for consumers, but pretty frightening news for the farmers who faced financial disaster.
To its credit, Advanta told the Select Committee that it had stepped in and picked up many of the bills relating to those losses. However, it was adamant that in doing so it accepted no legal liability for the damage or loss. That is the contradictory position that we are currently in and which my Bill seeks to address. The biotechnology industry has spent millions of pounds trying to convince society that its products are safe, yet, when asked whether they accept producer liability for the products, the answer is absolutely no.
When we turn to UK law to find out who is liable, the answer is unclear. The issue threatens to become one of the big whodunnits of our time and, sadly, our position as a Parliament appears to be that we neither know nor care what is the answer to that question.
I have recently taken part in the Chardon LL hearings elsewhere in London. They are destined, I fear, to descend rapidly into farce. On the day on which I gave evidence, MAFF issued a press release pointing out that it was unable to identify not the fields in which the crop trials had taken place but the countries. This situation risks making a mockery of the issues of scrutiny and liability that are central to how we view the introduction of GM crops into the food chain and the arable and animal system.
941 My Bill would fill the loopholes in our legislative framework, and it would do so in five ways. It would place a duty on Government to apply the precautionary principle to which we signed up as a country in the biosafety protocol negotiated in Montreal this year. It would require the Government to introduce a new scrutiny regime that was at least equal to the paradigm shift into which biotechnology and genetic manipulation have taken us. It has to be the case that, when faced with a technology that can cross all the frontiers that nature has set for us, we introduce a scrutiny system to test the technology at least as rigorously as we would test a new drug, rather than looking at the technology as a novel form of cake decoration.
For industry, three critical changes would have to be made vis-à-vis its relationship with consumers and farmers. The Bill would require companies to accept that they were corporately liable for the harm or damage that resulted from the release of GM organisms that they had produced or marketed. We would make it a condition of any marketing consent or licences that the companies be in possession of full public liability insurance in respect of any damage that followed.
Finally, we would require the companies to work with the Government in the creation of a compensation fund to ensure that, at least where damage from genetic contamination could be identified, even though its specific source was unclear, the farmer and the consumer would not be left to pick up the bill.
Why is the Bill needed? The current arrangements leave farmers hanging out to dry. NFU Mutual, the largest insurance company for the farming community, has already stated that it will not insure against genetic contamination or damage. Supermarkets have turned their back on purchasing genetically contaminated seed supplies or crops. Recently, Iceland went even further: it will no longer honour contracts to purchase non-GM cattle food if it turns out to be contaminated.
To add insult to farmers' financial injury, a legal opinion supplied to Friends of the Earth states that the idea of farmers seeking financial remedy or redress through civil action in the courts is pretty much a non-starter. Those farmers who were not bankrupt at the start of the process certainly would be long before they were even close to the possibility of obtaining redress.
That is why the Government must take a lead. We must place producer liability in the lap of the biotechnology industry rather than with the farmer or the community. We must do that now because the issue will not go away. The danger is that if we do not address the problem, it will move alternately between tragedy and farce.
Two weeks ago, Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, came to the UK to deliver a message to the Prime Minister, warning of the inherent danger that the UK could end up in the same position as the United States. That farmer has never planted, grown or tried to market GM crops, but he found that some of Monsanto's GM seeds were growing on his land. He was even more astonished when Monsanto decided to sue him for that. The company wants to levy fines on farmers of up to $30,000 for the adventitious arrival of GM crops on their land, even though the farmers do not know that the crops are growing there.
If we are to avoid being caught up in such farcical situations, the Government must give a lead. In the social climate set by the Phillips report after the crisis and 942 tragedy of BSE and CJD, the public expect a lead from the Government on the definition and appraisal of risk, and on scrutiny, responsibility and liability. We must do that by taking the path of legislation, not that of litigation. I hope that the Government will hear and respond to this message, and that the House will endorse it.
§ Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak on this measure, as I do not want to take too much time from discussion of our main business today. I also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) that my opposition to his Bill will have no bearing on my selection decisions for the parliamentary football team.
I have some reservations about GM food, but I do not accept that it presents any more difficulties than those that arise in conventional breeding. My views were sharpened recently, when I led a parliamentary science and technology delegation to China where we saw GM cotton fields and learned of the advantages that had resulted. There is less use of pesticide and insecticide, and the flourishing cotton plants are not savaged by insects.
Conventional breeding is imprecise, but it has been successful because plant breeders have learned how to test and evaluate plants, selecting only those with desirable characteristics and rejecting the rest. All the tests in conventional breeding are practical, and there is a wide range of additional safety assessments for GM crops. The tests evaluate actual and potential impact on food, human and animal health and the environment. Although trials are still continuing, there is as yet no evidence that would lead us to assume that GM crops are less safe than conventionally bred crops. The demonisation of genetically modified crops and the deification of organic foods are unacceptable at the current time. All food crops should be subjected to thorough examination for benefits, and effects on health, the environment and so on.
I share my hon. Friend's views about multinational companies and the undermining of traditional farming practices. I repeat that I strongly agree that we need to provide crops that are of clear benefit to the consumer, taking into account price, health implications and effects on the environment. However, the Bill should address all crops, whatever technology is used in their production. The Bill is particularly limited on the liability issues.
There is no crop that we eat, however we produce it, that can be deemed natural. That is another reason why I believe the Bill to be flawed. The truth really is that we cannot say what food, however it is produced, is absolutely safe and carries absolutely no risk. I welcome the Food Standards Agency and its assessment of the problems of all crops. John Krebs has made an illuminating start in the arena of organic foods, and other foods will now be subjected to the same rigid scrutiny.
If we deter scientific experimentation by passing such a Bill, which is so narrowly focused, we may one day find that the world population has doubled, and that nutritional needs cannot be met by food redistribution. However, I am not arguing that transgenic foods are the answer.
The Bill is far too limited, and we should vote against it today.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 30.
944| Division No. 334] | [3.46 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allan, Richard | Jones, Ms Jenny |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | (Wolverh'ton SW) |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Barnes, Harry | Keetch, Paul |
| Beggs, Roy | Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W) |
| Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) | |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) | Kidney, David |
| Bercow, John | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Berry, Roger | Kingham, Ms Tess |
| Brake, Tom | Lawrence, Mrs Jackie |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Livsey, Richard |
| Brazier, Julian | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Breed, Colin | McCafferty, Ms Chris |
| Burstow, Paul | McDonnell, John |
| Cable, Dr Vincent | McWalter, Tony |
| Chaytor, David | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Chidgey, David | Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Moore, Michael |
| Cohen, Harry | Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) |
| Cotter, Brian | Mudie, George |
| Crausby, David | Oaten, Mark |
| Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) | O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) |
| Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Pond, Chris |
| Dismore, Andrew | Pound, Stephen |
| Donaldson, Jeffrey | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Quinn, Lawrie |
| Drew, David | Rendel, David |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Robertson, Laurence |
| Evans, Nigel | Ruddock, Joan |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | St Aubyn, Nick |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Sanders, Adrian |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | Sawford, Phil |
| Hayes, John | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Shipley, Ms Debra |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Illsley, Eric | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Jones, Helen (Warrington N) | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Stunell, Andrew | Wareing, Robert N |
| Swayne, Desmond | Webb, Steve |
| Tapsell Sir Peter | Welsh, Andrew |
| Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford) | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Wills, Phil | |
| Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion) | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Thompson, William | |
| Tonge, Dr Jenny | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Tyler, Paul | Mr. Huw Edwards and |
| Walley, Ms Joan | Miss Anne McIntosh. |
| NOES | |
| Ashton, Joe | Jenkins, Brian |
| Blizzard, Bob | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Cawsey, Ian | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh) | McFall, John |
| Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack | Maxton, John |
| (Copeland) | Moffatt, Laura |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Organ, Mrs Diana |
| Curry, Rt Hon David | Page Richard |
| Dalyell, Tam | Sheerman, Barry |
| Dobbin, Jim | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Flynn, Paul | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Gapes, Mike | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | Mrs. Anne Campbell and |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | Mr. Nigel Beard. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Norman Baker, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. David Drew, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Llew Smith, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. John McDonnell, Mr. David Chaytor and Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews.
-
c944
- GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AND PRODUCER LIABILITY (No. 2) 71 words