HL Deb 16 July 1999 vol 604 cc645-8

Report received.

Clause 1 [Consents for genetically modified organisms for agricultural purposes.]

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 15, at end insert (", and

  1. (b) shall be deemed to be subject to automatic revocation in the event of the planting of the genetically modified organism concerned or genetically modified organisms generally being subsequently prohibited by any Directive of the 646 European Commission, and the provisions of subsections (8E) and (8F) shall apply to such revocation as well as to a revocation pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, last Friday my noble friend Lord Kimball moved an amendment in which he proposed that the Secretary of State should postpone the granting of any licences for the planting of herbicide tolerant crops until after 31st December 2001. He had also put down an amendment proposing deferment of any licences for insect tolerant crops until after 31st December 2003. My noble friend subsequently withdrew the first and did not move the second.

The significance of the two dates I have mentioned is as follows. The pressure group called Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, known by the acronym SCIMAC, recently gave a presentation in which it announced that the first GM herbicide resistant crops would be ready for planting in 2000 and the insect resistant ones by 2002. The year 2000 is now only 168 days away.

The agro-chemicals industry may be ready to plant next year, but it would seem that public opinion is most certainly not. The Government claimed in their 1997 manifesto that no government could afford to take risks with the future. Therefore, we believe that the Government should not be ready for the industry to do so.

The Government have received conflicting advice from various sources about the possible risks of these products. Negative advice has been received in particular from their own advisers, English Nature. Yet the Government seem to be ready to go ahead.

The important point is this. The European Commission is now giving urgent consideration to the early formulation of new regulations about the planting of these crops, regulations which will protect the environment and possibly our health, regulations that will ensure that Europe in general and the United Kingdom in particular shall not become the laboratory for multinational companies, which for some reason are not conducting their tests in their own backyard, where we believe United States-based companies have, as I am sure they would agree, far more space than we have.

My noble friend's two amendments were designed just to put matters on hold until the new directives were propagated. I do not understand why the Government seem so reluctant not to guarantee that they will not withhold the licences just for the time being.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, persuaded my noble friend to withdraw one amendment and not to move the other by saying, unilateral action by the United Kingdom would be completely contrary to European law".— [Official Report, 9/7/99; col. 1185.] The French Government and the European Commission are in dispute over the licensing of genetically modified organisms because of France's alleged failure to stick to EU licensing laws. Two oilseed rape varieties are being withheld from the French market, despite having cleared all legal hurdles for approval in 1997. This is due to a moratorium imposed on GMOs last July, which Brussels claims breaches EU legislation regarding the release of such organisms. Brussels has also given the French what it calls a final warning over their alleged failure—I might have said "refusal"—to process fresh applications for GMOs, which EU rules say should be forwarded to the Commission within 90 days. Apparently, France has not done this for over a year.

The EU is now threatening to take; France to court over these alleged defaults if it does not respond satisfactorily in yet another two months. I must admit that I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of the dispute, but if the matter is to go to court there is no basis at this stage for us to prejudge the outcome. It certainly seems that the French take a more robust attitude to defending their interests against EU orders with which they disagree than our Government do.

Suppose the French are entirely wrong and Brussels is entirely right. What is happening is that the French are stalling until the law is changed, as it will be shortly. "Shortly" is an entirely relative term in relation to the manoeuvres of the Brussels bureaucracy. What is the point, however, in our Government granting licences and then being faced with having to revoke them if the European law changes, possibly after irreversible damage has been done to our environment?

I should like to stress at this point something that I said on Second Reading, which is that I do not contend that any damage will be done. We simply do not know enough at this time. There is no rush, except for the commercial interests of the agro-chemical companies. We should wait until the Government can give Parliament and the public clear and transparent evidence that these products are indeed safe.

What will happen if GMOs are licensed by the Government and are subsequently banned by the EC? How long will it take the Government to pass the necessary legislation or make the necessary regulations to carry the ban into effect? What will happen to any growing crops? Will there be a danger of an application to our courts for an order to challenge any regulations? Will there be any claims for compensation, and if so, who should pay?

The amendment answers all those questions. In the event of all GMOs, or any of them, being banned, any licence is automatically revoked, not even after the 40-day delay that is normal under statutory instruments. The amendment requires that any growing crops be destroyed and, if necessary, that the ground be sterilised. It also stipulates that no compensation should be payable, so that the loss falls where it belongs: on the producers of the products and the farmers who use them, in both cases for their own commercial benefit. Perhaps the amendment, with its admittedly stringent provisions, will be a discouragement to them to chance their arms in the premature marketing and planting of these products.

The amendment does not seem to infringe the legal point that caused the noble Lord, Lord Carter, so much worry last week. On the contrary, Brussels should be delighted that we shall be so well prepared to comply with its intended change in the law.

I beg to move.

Lord Carter

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct that in Committee her noble friend Lord Kimball moved an amendment which I advised him was contrary to European law. He therefore withdrew it, which has provoked the Report stage.

I am sure that the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear me say that there is no need for the amendment, because the current Act and regulations already provide the Secretary of State with powers to revoke or restrict release consent without notice and at any time. The control of genetically modified organisms is; under a wider European regulatory framework set out in Directive 90/220, which secures the protection of human health and the environment before the release and marketing of GMOs and establishes a single market for GMO products.

The UK would take a leading role in the event of a European Community-wide decision to prohibit GMOs. The existing regulatory framework already deals adequately with the possibility of it being judged that prohibition was justified. An individual member state may also prohibit the use or sale of a GMO on its territory. The legislation already requires that once agreement has been reached at European level to revoke consent all member states shall comply with the ruling. Revocation of consent would follow automatically.

To bring together the remarks that I made about a number of the noble Baroness's amendments in Committee, this amendment is unnecessary, inappropriate and otiose. Otherwise I see no objection to it. If the noble Baroness wishes to add to the length of her Bill, she is free to do so.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for adding a further word. We started with unnecessary, then we had inappropriate and now we have something else.

Lord Carter

Otiose.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

Yes, my Lords, otiose. I was not sure because I did not quite hear the word, but I knew that there was a third. I am delighted that, unlike last week, the noble Lord did not say that my amendments contravened any laws. I am pleased that he is happy for me to put the amendment in my Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.