HL Deb 21 May 1999 vol 601 cc548-58

11.53 a.m.

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Statement is as follows:

"Biotechnology is an important and exciting area of scientific advance which offers enormous opportunities for improving our quality of life. In healthcare, biotechnology has already helped to develop better treatments for diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, heart disease and diabetes. It is also helping the environment through techniques such as bioremediation, which assisted the clean-up of beaches following the 'Sea Empress' oil spill in December 1996. In agriculture, genetic modification has the potential to produce food more efficiently, which is more nutritious, tastes better and uses fewer pesticides. This is just the start.

"There are many real and exciting benefits and potential benefits. But this is new technology and the risks must be rigorously assessed. The Government recognise the considerable public concern about the safety of genetically modified food and crops. Our overriding duty is to protect the public and the environment. We must continue to ensure that the controls we have in place are sound and that they command public confidence.

"That is why the Prime Minister established a new Cabinet Committee on biotechnology last autumn. It is why the first decision of the committee in December was to carry out a review of the regulatory framework to ensure it was rigorous, as transparent as possible and able to cope with so fast-moving a technology. We invited a wide range of interested bodies to give us their views, including the Select Committees of this House.

"It is also why we thought it essential to seek the views of the public through the public consultation on the biosciences. It is why we commissioned a report from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser on the public health implications of genetically modified food. All three reports are published today.

"My colleagues, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Food Safety, have also been in discussion with the industry over the past year to ensure that the cultivation of genetically modified crops in this country is effectively managed. We are today also endorsing guidelines for the cultivation of these crops.

"The review has found that the existing system of careful, case-by-case assessment of new biotechnology products and processes is an essential component of our regulatory system. But there are persuasive arguments for strengthening the system by adding new strategic commissions to take a broader, long-term view of developments in the technology.

"We will therefore set up two new advisory bodies: the Human Genetics Commission which will advise us on applications of biotechnology in healthcare and the impact of human genetics on our lives; and the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission which will cover the use of biotechnology in agriculture and its environmental effects. Working alongside the Food Standards Agency, which will soon take on responsibility for genetically modified foods, these new bodies will have wide-ranging remits, advising Ministers on likely future developments in the technology and addressing broader issues such as ethical considerations.

"The members of the new commissions will be drawn from a broad range of interests: those with expertise of consumer issues and ethics, for example, will sit alongside scientists. The commissions will also consult widely with the public and stakeholders when carrying out their work.

"One of the main findings of our consultation exercises was that the regulatory system should be made more transparent. We agree, and our report published today includes guidelines on transparency which all committees involved in biotechnology, including the new commissions, will be required to follow. We are confident that with these changes we will have a system for regulating biotechnology which is rigorous and open and which will safeguard the public interest.

"In their report on genetically modified foods and public health the Chief Medical Officer (Professor Liam Donaldson) and the Chief Scientific Adviser (Sir Robert May) conclude: 'Many of the issues raised by foods resulting from genetic modification arc equally applicable to foods produced by conventional means'. They go on: There is no current evidence to suggest that the genetically modified technologies used to produce food are inherently harmful'. They further report: 'We are reassured by the precautionary nature and rigour of the current procedures used to assess the safety of individual genetically modified foods'. "They emphasise that there is a need to keep a close watch on developments and to continue to fund research to improve scientific understanding in this area. Both the Government and our advisory committees will continue to do this. They encourage us to take moves to improve the openness of the regulatory procedures to public scrutiny. This we are doing today.

"They recommend that consideration should be given to the establishment of a national surveillance unit to monitor population health aspects of genetically modified and other types of novel foods. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is already discussing how this might be done. The Ministerial committee will review progress on this in the autumn.

"The Government have been working with environmentalists and the biotechnology industry to ensure that the first farm-scale plantings of genetically modified crops in Britain are carefully managed. That is why we have embarked on a programme of evaluations which are being rigorously undertaken to secure thorough and reliable evidence on whether or not they cause damage to the environment. Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment.

"Today, the industry group, SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops), has published a package of measures which will ensure that proper care is taken when the crops are grown on the farm. We welcome this important, step forward.

"These are tough rules—and they are underpinned by legally binding contracts. There will be an independent system of enforcement and audit. Some have said we should have legislated in this area. This would inevitably have taken much longer than our voluntary approach.

"However, we think these guidelines could well form the basis of future legislation—and we will he working with the industry and our European partners to take this forward.

"The Science and Technology Select Committee said this week we need an informed public debate in this area. It condemned some media treatment of the subject. It called for more openness and transparency—for more information to be provided to the public which is accurate and objective. We agree. The measures we have announced today are intended to achieve this. But we need to establish the debate on a firm basis.

"The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser firmly believe there is no current evidence to suggest that genetic modification technologies used to produce food are inherently harmful. The Science and Technology Committee came to the same view. The Royal Society this week convincingly dismissed the results of some recent research on potatoes—and the misinterpretation of it—as wholly misleading. And there is no evidence to suggest that any GM foods on sale in this country are harmful.

"The Government welcome open, rational, well-informed debate. That is the best way to safeguard the public interest. Regrettably, some political, media and other treatment of these issues has not served the public well.

"Biotechnology undoubtedly has the potential to improve our quality of life in very many ways. It is government's responsibility to encourage this potential. But we will not do so at the risk to public health and the environment. This duty is at the heart of today's announcement."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

12.2 p.m.

Lord Luke

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. It is a pity that it has been made on a Friday as this matter is of very considerable interest for many Members of this House who could not be here today. Biotechnology and its application to human food has become an increasingly important concern to the public over the past six months. So we very much welcome the Statement and the various documents and reports that have been issued with it.

We shall judge the Statement by three criteria. Will the measures announced protect the British people against any possible threat to human health? Will they protect the British environment against any possible damage from genetically modified crops? Will they restore confidence in the integrity of the Government's approach to these matters and assure the general public that future decisions are taken openly, with health and the environment given priority at all times over considerations of commerce and politics?

Bearing in mind those criteria, does the Minister accept that there is a risk that certain genetically modified crops could upset or even destroy the balance of nature? Does the Minister recognise that there is now an overwhelming case for an absolute ban on all commercial planting of genetically modified crops until research into their impact has been completed?

It is of course very difficult to say how long such research will take because, if there is no impact discernible, at some stage a decision will have to be taken that there has been no impact and that therefore it is safe to proceed. Will the Minister say how likely it is that such a position will have been reached in under three years? How will the Government regulate the planting of trial crops in the future? How will it be possible to ensure that genetically modified pollen is not blown by the wind or spread by the bees all over the countryside to the detriment of organic and, indeed, non-organic farms? If such contamination does take place, will there be compensation for any farmer whose business may be compromised or, indeed, ruined?

Does the Minister agree with his colleague, the environment Minister, who said yesterday that if evidence were available in Britain of threats to biodiversity, such as that posed in America by genetically modified maize to the Monarch butterfly, certain genetically modified crops might have to be banned outright?

Does the Minister recognise that in spite of today's reassurances, some consumers will undoubtedly want to avoid eating foods which have genetically modified components?

We shall study the accompanying documents and reports with great care and hope that they will help to restore public confidence. As the Statement says, biotechnology offers enormous opportunities for improving our quality of life. Those opportunities must not be thrown away, but at the same time absolute priority must be given to considerations of human health and the welfare of the environment. If the Government follow those criteria, they will of course be supported by these Benches.

12.6 p.m.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, we welcome this Statement. I do not object to the Statement being made on a Friday. The sooner that matters of this nature get into the public domain, the better. Only this week the Select Committee on Science and Technology said that an informed public debate in this area is vital. The media's treatment of the matter has aroused concern. That will abate only when the public has available properly researched reports. We cannot blame the public. A BMA report stated recently that the adverse effects of genetically modified organisms are likely to be irreversible and that as we cannot yet know whether there are any serious risks to the environment or human health, the precautionary principle should apply. The report went on to say that the antibiotic resistance that could be caused by GMOs is one of the major public health threats that we face in the 21st century.

The media do not help. It is reported that the Government's most senior scientist has contradicted the Prime Minister's policy with a call for a four-year ban on the commercial release of GMOs.

No one can dispute that we need scientific advances which will improve the quality of life but once in a while, we face adversity. Public opinion is often shaped by such events. That does not mean that we could not or should not look for advances in science which would bring lasting benefits to many of our people who look to scientists for solutions. It is for those reasons that we welcome also the additional safeguards that the Minister has announced today. We welcome the establishment of the human genetics commission which will help to promote an informed debate on the use of biotechnology in healthcare and the impact of human genetics on our lives.

We welcome too the establishment of an agricultural and environmental biotechnical commission which will help us to hold a rational debate on the use of biotechnology in agriculture and the environment. That is tied up with the Food Standards Authority and is certainly a way forward.

We need a number of assurances. We want the two commissions and the Food Standards Authority to ensure that they not only address matters of concern but produce frequent reports with full scientific evidence on their areas of responsibility which the public can study.

On page eight the Statement talks about the unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop not being permitted. Does that mean that non-commercial cultivation could continue? Should not restriction apply to all cultivation? We also want to see international agreement on the mandatory segregation of genetically modified crops. The Government need to be far more active on this issue. We want a Food Standards Agency with powers to regulate genetically modified products. All meetings of related advisory bodies should be open to the public.

European Union member states should have the right to opt out of the growing and importing of genetically modified crops without fear of retaliation. The big businesses behind genetically modified crops are American multinational companies, and any refusal of such produce could result in a bigger trade war than that over bananas.

We want clear labelling of all food produce that is genetically grown, and no commercially grown genetically modified crops should be permitted before 2003, when government funded research is due to end. Farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops must be completed before any commercial planting.

12.11 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to my Statement. I am also grateful for the acknowledgement given to biotechnology's huge potential to improve our quality of life, and for the endorsement of our approach, which is that, while we have a responsibility to encourage its potential. we shall not do so if there is a risk to public health or the environment.

The noble Lord, Lord Luke, effectively posed the Government three tests. First, will the measures protect human health adequately? Secondly, will they protect the environment? And, thirdly, will these measures restore public confidence? I believe that the answer to each test is "yes". Measures are in place that involve a case-by-case consideration before food and novel food processes are used which will provide some adequate protection. In addition, we have introduced the two new commissions. We have also indicated the role that the Food Standards Agency will play. Case-by-case consideration will be given to environmental matters and., once more, the commissions will be involved in that.

In the measures taken today, we have sought to respond to public concerns. We believe that one of the most important aspects will prove to be the extent to which there is a transparent process through which the public can see that appropriate measures, which protect the environment and public health, are taken.

The Statement makes clear that the Government have been working with environmentalists and with the biotechnology industry to ensure that the first farm-scale plantings of genetically modified food crops in Britain are carefully managed. The report by the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer endorses the continuation of those trials. Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment. I believe that that meets the concern raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, sought three assurances. First, he sought an assurance that the new commissions would be transparent in their proceedings. He asked that regular reports should be given on their activities. It is not appropriate for me to read the document in full, but the report published today entitled The Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology sets out in paragraph 51 a series of steps that it is intended that both the commissions and the advisory committees will take in order to be more transparent. I believe that that meets the majority of concerns raised by the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to commercial cultivation, and I hope that I have met that point. He also wanted mandatory separation of genetically modified crops and organic or other crops. We have talked to the industry, and we are satisfied that the farm-scale trials have been conducted in accordance with good practice. I hope that I have dealt with all the concerns raised.

12.14 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government's important announcement which in many respects endorses some of the most important conclusions of the report on genetic modification recently produced by the European Communities Select Committee, which was published earlier this year, and is due to be debated next week.

I particularly welcome the announcement about the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission which will have a broader remit and membership than any of the existing advisory committees. It was just such a committee for which the Royal Society called and for which we, in our report called, and I very much welcome it.

I also welcome the Government's firm stand in resisting calls for a blanket moratorium for a predetermined number of years on all growing of genetic modified crops. Permission to grow commercially should surely depend on the outcome of the current field trials. Those field trials should he allowed to take place, and it cannot be known in advance for how long they will need to continue.

I have some questions in relation to the new commissions. Is there any significance in the choice of the word "commission" rather than "committee"? What balance will the Government aim for between lay and scientific membership? To which Ministry will they report? Will it be to a Cabinet subcommittee? Will they be able to commission research?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords. I am grateful for the welcome given to my Statement. I pay tribute to the Select Committee's work. The material that we have published today comes to conclusions that are very similar to those of the Select Committee. The bodies are called commissions because they are to take a more strategic look at these issues than committees would do. Committees would be more concerned with a case-by-case consideration of food and planting issues. I think that that explains the difference.

The commissions will be able to commission research. I was asked about the breakdown between lay and scientific members. All sorts of people will be represented: lay members, members concerned with ethics, scientists, providers, and so on. I cannot give a precise breakdown. The Human Genetics Commission will report to health Ministers and the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission will report to the Minister in the Cabinet Office.

Lord Jopling

My Lords, I add my welcome to that given by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and to the tribute paid by the Minister to the Select Committee's work. The Royal Society and the Select Committee recommended an overarching body to oversee all the regulators. I am not clear whether the Minister's proposals are in line with the wishes of the Royal Society and the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister can assure me on that.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I am aware that the Select Committee suggested one overarching body. However, I do not think that we came to the same conclusion on that recommendation. Biotechnology can be used in a wide range of sectors. We thought that it would be too much for a single, overarching body to manage. That is why we suggested two commissions. It seemed to be the best way of providing the strategic leadership required.

Lord Kimball

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that one of the problems has been the failure of the firms that are working in this field to promote the good which they are doing? Is he aware that we are discussing this problem 26 years after an Act was passed concerning plant breeders' rights? Is he further aware that in the first year the Act was on the statute book a very new, high-yielding, disease-resistant winter barley was launched on the market? The source from which it was said to come was seeds that were found on the hem of a dead nun's dress in Bulgaria. Can the noble and learned Lord imagine a more soothing way of calming the public's fears about genetically modified seed?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I can think of no more soothing way. The debate on genetically modified foods has rightly focused, and focused almost exclusively, on the negative aspects. There has been no widescale debate about the benefits to medicine, to the environment and to the third world which can come from the development of this science. When I say "development", I mean development. A good deal of development needs to be done. What we should not do is take steps which prevent that development taking place and, as a result, cause great disbenefit to the quality of life not just in the first world but also in the third world.

Viscount Addison

My Lords, how does the noble and learned Lord square with what he has just said the concerns arising from this example: on the one hand, the threat of peanuts in so many foods that are inadequately labelled to those who have allergies; and, on the other hand, the future ability of genetically modified peanuts to remove from the peanut the organism causing the allergy?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Viscount in relation to the problem of the peanut.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, what precautions will be put in place to prevent during the experimental period pollen from genetically modified crops that may damage the environment getting out of those plots and into the rest of the landscape round about the experimental area?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, one of the main issues in relation to that question is the distance between the farm-scale trials and the ordinary farming activity going on elsewhere. That would be the main aspect of protection.

Earl Peel

My Lords, I realise from what the Minister said that the advisory committee will contain a wide range of experts. On the environmental issues, I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the advice they are given by English Nature, which so far is somewhat concerned about the possible environmental impact of genetically modified crops.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, the Government intend to take the best advice on all of these issues and pay appropriate regard to it.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is a less hysterical group of people in the community who are concerned about this issue? They accept all the points made by my noble friend Lord Kimball about the benefits in terms of feeding the people of the world, the medical benefits and many others. However, at the same time, they are worried that whole species of the life chain may disappear as a result of growing these crops or that there may be disruption of the environment to the extent that the price to be paid for those benefits is too high. These questions need to be resolved. For that reason I believe that what the noble and learned Lord appears to be saying in the Statement is right. We should not go forward to commercial production until we know that biodiversity will not be upset.

The Statement says: Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment". Why is the qualification of "unrestricted" there? If it read: Commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment", that would be unequivocal. Can I take it from the noble and learned Lord that restricted commercial cultivation could take place? Can I have an assurance that no commercial cultivation will take place until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I have already said that field-scale and farm-scale trials are going on. The results of those farm-scale trials will have to be looked at. Once the results of those farm-scale trials have been looked at, appropriate measures will have to be determined. It would be wrong to restrict ourselves in any way as to what those measures should be. In effect, the noble Baroness is asking me to define whether it will be all or nothing. I cannot say.

Lord Christopher

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Statement and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I am left perplexed about why my honourable friend in another place submitted himself this morning to a difficult interview when he had some very good things to say which he obviously could not say in advance of making his Statement. But that is another matter.

We have to accept that there is widespread misunderstanding about what is taking place. That is not helped by the press, but I suppose that the press was not very much better informed than many of us. Public anxiety is understandable. The latest story that I have heard—I have no means of knowing whether it is accurate—is that a company is beginning to look at what contribution to this science funnel web spiders and scorpions can make. That is bound to worry people. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether any thought has been given to elevating the controls and so on in this area on an international basis.

I ask that for two reasons. First, in many respects, it seems that the United States is significantly ahead, certainly in using GM seeds. Secondly, my noble and learned friend did not mention the economic consequences of this technology, which need to be examined on an international basis. It has often been said that it will help third-world countries. It will not help them if they cannot keep the seed after each crop to grow the next crop and it may not help them if part of the environmental effects in their countries—in South America and Africa—are to interfere with other important crops through contamination. I am puzzled as to why further experiments are not carried out under more controlled conditions. A great many vegetables are today grown in tunnels. I have been to at least two or three extremely good butterfly farms. Thinking of the issue of the Monarch, it would have been perfectly possible to have discovered that in what I would call laboratory conditions.

I conclude by asking the Minister to indicate whether the safety element of food will extend to the volume of that food consumed over a period of time as well as to the short-term consequences.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, with regard to safety, all aspects will have to be considered, including the amount of genetically modified food that may be eaten and what its consequences may be. The noble Lord asked about the international aspects. As I said in the Statement, we shall be working not just with industry but also with our European partners. I think that the noble Lord had in mind the wider international aspects. We must consider scientific advice and scientific research, from wherever in the world it comes.