§ 6. Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion)How many individuals have participated in the GM public debate. [126282]
§ The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)More than 1,000 individuals participated in the six regional launch events. Many more people have taken part in local meetings or through the debate website. Although we do not have exact figures, more than 17,000 feedback forms have been received so far.
§ Mr. ThomasI thank the Minister for that reply. As I understand that only 14,000 feedback forms were published, that is a pretty good result. At least someone is contributing to the debate. What was the tenor of those replies? Did they run in favour of the commercial planting of GM crops?
In the debate in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago, the Minister was good enough to say that although the GM public debate was coming to an end tomorrow, the public would have a chance to inform the ongoing debate when the results of the field trials and other studies were published in the autumn. Will he say a little more about that?
427 Will he explain how it will be possible for consumers to ensure that they do not have to eat GM foods, if that is their choice?
§ Mr. MorleyOn the latter point, labelling and traceability has to be the key. We are strongly in favour of that, and we welcome the proposals that have been made by the European Union.
In relation to the ongoing debate, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has agreed to facilitate a public event to provide an opportunity to consider the results of the field-scale evaluations once the Royal Society has evaluated them in September.
Feedback from the public debate was organised by an independent steering board, and the Government have not had a chance to see the full details. The responses will be presented to the Government in due course; we will of course take very seriously the views that have been registered.
§ Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West and Royston)Given that the Prime Minister's strategy unit reported last week that there is currently no economic case for GM in the UK; given that there are clear health and allergy risks as there have been virtually no health tests on human beings in relation to eating GM food; given that the environmental farm-scale evaluation trials are extremely narrow and limited; given that the Canadian experience shows clearly that GM will wipe out the organic sector—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Supplementaries should be only one question.
§ Mr. Meacherrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. MorleyI understand the views of my right hon. Friend; we have had the opportunity to discuss them on several occasions. The report that came out of the No. 10 strategy unit was fair, balanced, open and transparent. It made clear, with no illusions, the detailed situation in relation to the economic role of GM crops and public reaction to them.
In relation to the other issues that my right hon. Friend raised, I promised that I would write to him in some detail. That letter has now been completed, and he will receive it in the next day or two.
§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)My understanding of the situation is that the Government do not intend that the debate will be closed down on any particular day; that their purpose is to stimulate the widest possible public debate; and that the only people who are seeking to close down the debate are those whose minds are firmly made up and firmly closed. Can the Minister confirm that?
§ Mr. MorleyThe hon. Gentleman is correct. As with all issues, some people take polarised positions and are not prepared to listen to the arguments. I do not believe that that applies to the majority of the public, who are interested in this issue and who want to see the arguments for and against. I can confirm that this is an ongoing debate. A whole range of issues must be 428 decided, such as the evaluation of the field-scale trials and issues of co-existence and of environmental liability. There will be opportunities for public debate and discussion, and we will ensure that the public get those chances.
§ David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)But who will speak for those in the poorest and hungriest countries who feel that, at best, genetic modification is a technological fix that tackles the symptoms of hunger but does nothing to tackle the causes? Is it not the case that the problem—corporate control of the food chain through patents and seed ownership—remains unaddressed?
§ Mr. MorleyThere are a range of issues relating to developing countries, including the claim that GM technology may offer advantages to them. Such claims should be examined on their merits, and examined critically. I also accept that GM is only one of a number of issues in terms of dealing with the problems of developing countries, and we should take all of those seriously.
§ Andrew George (St. Ives)But what is the hurry? The public are at best suspicious, the science is not ready, the supermarkets say that they will not stock the stuff, and it would be a public relations disaster for farmers. Does the Minister agree that these decisions should be based on sound science, not quick, make-do or hasty science? Therefore, what reassurances can he give today that he is prepared to face down the GM and biotech lobby and the United States to ensure that we do not take a decision in haste that we repent at our leisure?
§ Mr. MorleyI remind the hon. Gentleman that this discussion on GM has been going on for long time. I participated in the debate on introducing the moratorium in 1997–98, when I was a Minister in the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That moratorium has been in place, the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops has been set up, and we have had the field-scale evaluations. A lot of hurdles remain to cross before we will be able to consider commercialisation in the UK, so I do not believe that there is a great dash towards GM.
What we cannot ignore, however, is that GM is a fact of life in large parts of the world. We are in a global market, and we cannot ignore the impact of that, which is why we must consider such matters as labelling, regulation, consumer choice and choice for farmers and processors. We are doing all those things in parallel.
§ Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)My hon. Friend will know that the science review is part of that public debate. Can he give a date for its publication? Does he agree that it must be seen to be objective and independent? Does he share my concern that the food safety section on GM is being written, so I am told, by a Monsanto employee, who clearly has a direct interest in the industry?
§ Mr. MorleyI can tell my hon. Friend that the projected date for publication is September—
§ Joan RuddockOf the science review?
§ Mr. MorleySorry, that review is expected to be published between the end of July and the beginning of August. It is true that the science panel has two members who are connected with biotech industries, but I should point out that it consists of 26 people, and that two other members are from non-governmental organisations. The idea is that the scientific panel should offer a balance of views, so that there is a proper. balanced, open and transparent submission that people can consider on its merits.
§ Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)It is difficult to have faith in the Government's policy on GM when the former Minister responsible—a man whom I admire, the whole House admires and the Chancellor, apparently, particularly admires—is so doubtful about it. That right hon. Gentleman has called for sound, independent and thorough research, which is surely a prerequisite of a valid debate and valid conclusions. Will the Minister therefore make all such research that the Government have received available to Members of the House, commission new research when it does not exist, and have a public debate based on that kind of research evidence? If the Government do not do so, people will ask, "What do they have to hide?".
§ Mr. MorleyThe hon. Gentleman is getting prematurely paranoid on this issue. I can assure him that all scientific papers and reviews will be made available to the House and to the public at large. The whole idea of the scientific review is to pull together the research that is being done on GMs, and I have made it clear that there will be an ongoing public debate on this issue. People will be free to express their views, as will hon. Members on both sides of the House, according to the procedures of the House. We will take that seriously and, above all, we will make sure that everything that emerges from the research, from public concerns and concerns raised by hon. Members is taken into account in an open and transparent way.