HL Deb 09 March 2004 vol 658 cc1128-43

3.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett.

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Government's approach to the technology of genetic modification, including its use in crops.

"The tool of GM has been used for at least 10 years across the world in the production of food and medicines, both human and animal. In the UK, only a handful of foods have been approved for use: GM soya, tomato purée and some forms of maize. The first two were approved under the previous administration and the maize was approved in 1997 and 1998. At present, no GM crop has all the approvals needed for commercial cultivation in the UK. Decisions as to what can be consumed or grown in the EU as a whole have throughout been taken by member states collectively under a regime of safety testing, monitoring and control which itself dates back 10 years.

"This legal framework has recently been substantially strengthened and that much strengthened regulatory regime came into effect in the UK last year. It is firmly based on the precautionary principle as applied on a strictly case-by-case basis. Every GMO for which authorisation is sought must receive a comprehensive prior assessment of any potential risk to human health or the environment.

"In 1998 this Government decided to go further. We were advised by English Nature of its concern about the effect of current GM herbicide-resistant crops on biodiversity. It was agreed that farm-scale trials would be conducted to assess these risks. Those trials were largely completed and reported by the end of last year and their results referred to our independent advisory committee for its assessment.

"In the mean time, another advisory committee had advised the Government to fund an independently run public debate or dialogue on GM issues. I accepted that advice and in May 2002 announced that the Government and the devolved administrations would sponsor such a dialogue with three strands: the debate itself, a thorough review of the science and an economic costs and benefits study by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit.

"The public dialogue reported general unease about GM crops and food and little support for early commercialisation of GM crops. People already engaged with the issues were generally much more hostile. Those not so engaged were more open-minded and anxious to know more, but were still very cautious and it was suggested that if they learnt more their hostility deepened.

"The costs and benefits study concluded that the GM crops currently available offer only some small and limited benefits to UK farmers but that future developments in GM crops could potentially offer benefits of greater value and significance even in the United Kingdom.

"The science review concluded that GM is not a single homogenous technology and that applications should continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It reaffirmed that there are some gaps in scientific knowledge and, in particular, that it is important that the regulatory system is kept under review so that it keeps pace with any new developments. But it concluded that there was no scientific case for ruling out all GM crops or products.

"It examined all the concerns generally raised. In particular, it reported no verifiable ill effects from extensive human and animal consumption of products from GM crops over seven years and concluded, too, that current GM crops were very unlikely either to invade the countryside or be toxic to wildlife. The most important environmental issue identified was indeed the effect on farmland wildlife which was the subject of our extensive trials—the largest in the world.

"Our independent advisers have now reported to us on those trials, and on the basis of that advice and having consulted the devolved administrations, I have concluded that the UK should oppose the commercial cultivation of the relevant varieties of GM beet and oilseed rape anywhere in the EU using the management regime tested in the farm-scale evaluations, but that we should agree in principle to the commercial cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant maize, but only subject to two further important conditions.

"The first is that restrictions should be imposed on the existing EU marketing consent, which expires in October 2006, so that it can be grown and managed only as in the trials or under such conditions as will not result in adverse effects on the environment.

"Secondly, in response to concerns which have been raised about the phase-out of atrazine in the European Union, the consent holders should be required to carry out further scientific analysis to monitor changes in herbicide use on conventional maize and to submit new evidence if they seek to renew the existing EU marketing consent when it expires in 2006.

"Before commercial cultivation of GM maize can proceed, separate approval will also be required under seeds legislation, and under pesticides legislation for the associated herbicide use. Chardon LL will not be added to the UK national list until the necessary amendments to the EU marketing consent are in place. We also anticipate that coexistence measures will be in place before any GM crops are grown commercially. I do not, in fact, anticipate any commercial cultivation of GM maize before spring 2005 at the earliest.

"The farm-scale evaluations also raised much more far reaching questions about crop management and the environment—questions which, incidentally, reinforced the value of the case-by-case approach. There was no blanket difference between GM and non-GM crops. The trial crop with the 'best' results for the environment was a conventional crop. The one which was 'worst' was also a conventional crop. Yet we have nothing like the influence over the growing and management of conventional crops that we have over GM crops, even though the effects may be just as far reaching. We are giving very careful consideration to these issues.

"I believe that the approach I have outlined today is the right one. It is precautionary. It is evidence-based. In practice, it means licensing one application, which runs until October 2006, and is subject to two further conditions.

"Apart from the scientific decisions that flow from the trials, there is the related issue of GM and non-GM crops being grown in the same area—so-called coexistence. The AEBC has recently produced evidence on this issue. I propose that, as the AEBC advises, farmers who wish to grow GM crops should be required to comply with a code of practice based on the European Union's 0.9 per cent labelling threshold, and that this code should have statutory backing.

"There are particular concerns for organic farming, for which the Government have much increased funding and to which we remain committed. The AEBC argued for a lower threshold for organic farming but could not agree on a figure. We will explore further with stakeholders whether a lower threshold should be applied on a crop-by-crop basis.

"I will also consult stakeholders on options for providing compensation to non-GM farmers who suffer financial loss through no fault of their own. But I must make it clear that any such compensation scheme would need to be funded by the GM sector itself, rather than by government or producers of non-GM crops. The Government will also provide guidance to farmers interested in establishing voluntary GM-free zones in their areas, consistent with EU legislation.

"This is a difficult issue bedevilled by confusion. There are many legitimate concerns—concerns about gene stacking, cross pollination, and much else. Reports which combine comment on all of these matters can be misleading. People worry that a GM crop could affect wild relatives and hence the gene pool. Maize, which is the crop we are prepared to license, has no wild relatives in the UK. It is highly unlikely that any stray remaining plant or seed would survive a winter here to raise concerns about a subsequent crop. Equally, there is very little organic maize grown here. So many of the concerns usually raised do not apply. This reinforces the value of a case-by-case approach.

"Some GM crops are already used, though not grown here, for animal feed. Several GM veterinary medicines are in use and much vegetarian cheese is produced using a GM processing aid.

"There is no scientific case for a blanket approval of all the uses of GM. Safety, human health and the environment must remain at the heart of our regulatory regime and rigorous and robust monitoring must be maintained. But, equally, there is no scientific case for a blanket ban on the use of GM. I know of no one who argues, for instance, that the GM tool alone can solve the problem of the developing world. But it is less than honest to pretend, especially against a background of climate change, that GM has not the potential to contribute to some solutions.

"This, too, was part of the outcome of the public dialogue. I thank those who ran it and those who took part. From that process and many other attempts to assess public opinion it is clear that most people believe that the use of genetic modification should be approached with caution. They want strong regulation and monitoring, and in addition farmers want a framework of rules for coexistence of GM and non-GM crops, and customers want a clear regime for traceability and labelling so that they can make their own choices. I believe the rules that we now have and those which we shall put in place in the months ahead meet these criteria as well as being soundly based on the scientific evidence before us. I commend this approach to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.36 p.m.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier today. The Government have indeed had consultation; the noble Lord referred in the Statement to the public dialogue exercise and the consultations. Quite rightly, he said that the public have expressed great concern about GM products. Up to 90 per cent of the public have expressed such concern.

The three reports on the four trials are in the public domain. However, when will the report on the fourth trial, on oilseed rape, be completed? Why has it been delayed? Was the Minister not concerned by the concern expressed by the Environmental Audit Select Committee? It had great concerns about certain aspects of GM.

We welcome and support the Government's case-by-case approach to the consideration of GM releases. However, what follow-up mechanism will be put in place to keep a check on this GM crop once it can be grown? Moreover, how do the Government intend to solve the cross-border position? As I understand it, Wales and indeed Scotland have shown they are currently not inclined to allow the growing of GM crops.

The Statement includes a section which says that the current GM crop is, `very unlikely … to invade the countryside or be toxic to wildlife'. If it is "very unlikely", rather than not possible, what will be our equivalent to the EU's 0.9 per cent labelling threshold? Will it be 1 per cent, or 5 per cent? Do the Government have a figure in mind?

While we are maintaining a GM-sceptical status in the wider domain, as the Minister said, what arrangements will be put in place to ensure the purity of imported seed? Has that been considered?

The ACRE report says that comparison of organic farming methods was not included in the trials. Was that a deliberate decision or an oversight? If it was an oversight, will there be a direct study to address those concerns? We should also like to know why no direct study of species such as earthworms or minute soil organisms was incorporated into the study.

The Minister referred to organic farmers, who obviously have shown concern. I should like to refer also to conventional farmers who are farming under an assured scheme status. The Minister indicated that the Government would not fund any form of compensation in that regard. How will those farmers be protected if there is any cross-contamination in future? I understand that that is not likely to be the case regarding the scheme that we are discussing at the moment, but I wonder to what extent the Government have considered the matter.

As I say, the Environmental Audit Select Committee raised one or two questions. Will the Minister therefore explain why the Cabinet went ahead and approved the growing of GM herbicide-tolerant forage maize 24 hours before that committee unanimously recommended that that should not be done? Is it not the most extraordinary way to treat the recommendations of a Select Committee—not only to dismiss its findings but to do so before even having had a chance to read them? The committee also raised some very serious concerns about the validity of the farm-scale evaluations that have taken place. Have the Government considered that they should conduct new trials to compare the effect of GMHT forage maize with its non-GM equivalent, grown without the use of atrazine? The few trials that took place were on too small a scale to produce any conclusive results. When do the Government intend to publish the results of the winter-sown oilseed rape trials?

We welcome the Government's recognition that there needs to be a clear framework governing separation distances and liability before plantings take place. It has been suggested that legislation may be needed to establish the rules. Is that so, and in what framework will that be brought forward? Will it be in the form of an order, or will the Government take advantage of my honourable friend's Private Member's Bill being introduced in another place to debate the necessary safeguards against contamination that we all want to see?

Will the Minister confirm that both the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly have decided that no GM maize planting should take place for the foreseeable future? How, therefore, does he intend to obtain their agreement for the inclusion of GM maize on the national list?

I have two final questions. In the event that anyone plants GM maize following the approval after April 2005, will they have to inform Defra? Is that a part of the planning regulations that Defra envisages? Will Defra monitor what happens to those crops? Is the Minister aware that according to the "Today" programme this morning, farmers on small and medium-sized farms in Canada wish that they had not begun to grown GM maize as over time their yields are not as great as those gained with conventional crops, or are much less than anticipated? What research have the Government carried out on that matter?

I turn to a smaller but still very important point. I have mentioned organic and commercial crops. Have the Government any plans regarding separation distances of GM maize from crops grown on allotments, in private gardens and, of course, in all horticultural enterprises?

Although we welcome the clarification of the Government's position on the matter, I should be grateful for a response to the questions that I raised.

3.44 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, I thank the Minister for spelling out the Government's intentions in this regard. However, he will not be surprised to hear that we on these Benches cannot welcome them.

The rationale for taking this decision seems to be lacking. The Statement referred to three strands of government consultation, strand one involving economic benefits. As the Minister said, the Government's report did not disclose strong short-term benefits for this country. The report highlights the benefit of increased knowledge for our knowledge economy. Of course, we agree with that. However, knowledge can be increased by conducting the experiments in a controlled environment. Commercial planting is not required to increase knowledge in that regard. Where is the economic benefit to the knowledge economy? British agriculture is not dependent for commercial gain on prairie-style farming. Indeed, the Curry Commission took the view—I believe that the Government support this—that our farming is more likely to benefit from niche markets and the production of specialised quality food, both of which may be threatened by the measure that we are discussing. I shall return to that matter.

Strand two of the Government's consultation concerned the GM public debate. As the Minister said, the public were overwhelmingly cautious and, the more they learnt, the more cautious they became. The Government's decision to undertake this commercial planting will produce deep cynicism in the public that there can be big debates and public conversations, or public debates and big conversations, but no matter what the public say, the Government then seem to do the opposite. To hold such debates and then to appear to take scant notice of them does not do the public a service.

Strand three of the Government's consultation concerns the environment. Here especially the rationale is lacking. The British countryside is being exposed hastily to a scientific experiment of which the field-scale trials have been examined and found to be seriously flawed by the Environmental Audit Select Committee. The findings could not be more damning. They state that "unsatisfactory indeed invalid comparison" was made with regard to the very forage maize that the Government intend to license for commercial planting. We would welcome a decision not to go ahead with the planting of GM oilseed rape and beet. It is a mistake to go ahead with the commercial planting of GM maize. It does not take into account the problems that have arisen with such planting in North America. Have the Government taken those problems seriously? The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, talked about problems arising in Canada in that regard.

I draw to the Minister's attention an article in the Washington Post in February that pointed out that the US supply of ordinary crop seeds has become contaminated with strands of engineered DNA. The purity of our seed supply is likely to be threatened if the measure that we are discussing goes ahead. Given such environmental considerations, I am not clear about the Government's rationale for going ahead with the measure. We are a small island and our biodiversity is dependent on our farmland, as the Minister has often said. Farmland bird indicators have shown how wrongly we have treated the environment in the past. Conclusion 23 of the Environmental Audit Select Committee report highlights the serious implications of the measure that we are discussing. I emphasise strongly that we should not be taking those risks with our countryside when our farmland biodiversity is so dependent on agriculture.

The Government continually perpetuate the myth that the growing of GM crops will help the developing world. However, we would not grow these crops in similar conditions to those that exist in the developing world. The conditions in the developing world are so different that the comparison is not a useful one in the scientific context. I label that assertion emotional blackmail.

I turn to buffer zones and insurance. The Statement states that compensation schemes would need to be funded by the GM industry. However, given the degree of concern among conventional and organic farmers that the buffer zones are ill defined and that the scheme has not been spelt out by the Government, those farmers will be very concerned that the measure has been given the go-ahead with no framework having been spelt out. We are talking about forage maize to be fed to cattle. Cattle fed on GM maize is not labelled, of course, so what will consumers in Britain do, if they do not want to eat meat from cattle that has been fed with GM forage maize?

3.50 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I thank both spokespeople from the opposition parties for their response. I think that I can summarise it by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, welcomed the case-by-case approach but queried the basis for the particular decision, while the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that she did not welcome the Statement.

It is important that we spell out the basis for the Statement, which is hugely precautionary. It recognises that not only are there some uncertainties in the science, but an important issue of public opinion has to be taken into account. The balance of the evidence indicates that this single crop can be cultivated in a way less damaging to the environment than the conventional equivalent.

I shall immediately move to the accusations made by both the Environmental Audit Committee in another place and some of the press reports. They claim that the trial is not valid because we are comparing the crop with conventional crops treated with atrazine, which is about to be prohibited. In two senses, it is valid. First, parts of the comparator—rather more than the Environmental Audit Committee suggested—were treated with other continuously legal herbicides. Secondly, there is an obligation on the grower—the consent holder, following his consent—to continue to compare the way in which the environment is affected by the use of GM crops with the equivalent current conventional treatment. In other words, there is a continuing requirement that they must show that the GM crop is better for the environment than the conventional method, which will then be atrazine-free. What has been revealed, as the Statement indicated, is that there is a pretty negative effect on the environment from current herbicide use for conventional crops, and we should take that to heart.

Both noble Baronesses raised a number of questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked when the fourth study, on the winter-sown oilseed rape, would be available. I cannot give an exact date, but it should be around the turn of the year. That will give us an indication on the matter. She asked several questions that related to the devolved administrations. It is clear that the devolved administrations have been fully consulted and agree with the policy. They have indicated, particularly the Welsh administration, that they wish to be restrictive in terms of their public policy and the interpretation of that policy, but that they give us their support.

The nature of the coexistence rules, on which we will consult, will allow the devolved administrations to express a view at that point. The basis for the coexistence rules and for the control of all the regimes will be the EU rule, which is that the final product must not contain more than 0.9 per cent of GM material. That will apply to imported seed as much as to European-grown seed, which answers another question. An argument is still outstanding on whether the threshold for organic produce and its protection should be at a lower level. That is being pursued in consultation here and within Europe. However, it is important that, if we have a differential threshold, it must be verifiable. Some of the figures mentioned are not detectable and therefore probably not verifiable.

I shall state the position on the coexistence legislation that we are proposing. We already have the primary legislative powers to make rules on coexistence. However, the relevant regulations would need to be put before both Houses for consideration. We expect that the rules will have gone through the procedure before any GM maize is grown, which, as I said, is not expected before spring 2005. The position would therefore be one in which both general rules and the constraints applying to the planting of the particular crop were in place.

So far as the impact on assurance schemes is concerned—I know that the noble Baroness wishes to return to the matter—clearly the general requirements on cross-contamination would be those that continue to be sustained through the assurance scheme. Again, particular issues relate to organic produce, but those restrictions would ensure that the assurance scheme's provision on excluding more than 0.9 per cent of GM produce would be maintained.

I return to the report of the Select Committee in another place. As I said, the basis of its main criticism is not valid, so we do not need new trials on the produce.

Both noble Baronesses referred to the existence of differing reports on the success or otherwise of GM crops in various parts of the world. No doubt there are differing reports. Some indicate a very positive outcome—for example, in relation to cotton in China—while others report different outcomes. However, in the main public anxiety—food safety—nowhere in the world is there an indication that GM crops have had a detrimental effect on human or animal health.

It is true, of course, that the public consultation and the strands of inquiry that the Government commissioned indicated that there was no great benefit immediately, in scientific, environmental or economic terms, of growing such crops in the UK. They also indicated a strong unease among the public. Much of that unease is addressed by the combination of the coexistence rules that we are proposing, and the labelling and traceability rules that are in place, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether there is good enough reason to ban this crop. On the basis of scientific evidence, we do not consider that there is. Whether people wish to grow it and use it for fodder for animals is, of course, a matter for them, not the Government. However, there is not sufficient reason to ban it.

3.57 p.m.

Lord Williamson of Horton

My Lords, the matter is, of course, for the United Kingdom and the devolved authorities in the European Union context. I note the prudent, not to say cautious, approach of the Government. However, what is happening elsewhere is relevant, particularly because maize is an extremely widely traded product. There will be effects from whatever we do in due course on trade. What percentage of the maize grown in the United States and Canada is already genetically improved? What other people do will in due course affect some interests of the United Kingdom. If the Minister does not have the figures now, I would like to see them.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I do not have the precise figures now. The noble Lord is correct to say that a large proportion of maize—not the majority—in North America is already GM, as is an even larger proportion of soya. That does not necessarily affect whether we in Europe should accept that such crops are useful to be grown or used here. We need to make our own judgments on the basis of our own scientific evidence.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the assets committee of the Church Commissioners, and of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group, which has advised that committee. The precautionary approach that the Minister outlined, which has led to the point that he has reached today, is broadly speaking the one that we have judged it right to follow. However, he will be aware that the matter continues within the Churches to be very vigorously debated.

Will the full background to the Government's decision announced today be made available, particularly to those who have to make decisions in the not-too-distant future about making available land for the plantings that will arise from it? Clearly, the more information that is in the public domain about what led the Government to their conclusions the better. Broadly speaking, the constituency which I represent—the assets committee and so on—will welcome his conclusions, but we would like to know how much of the material behind those decisions will be made public to assist future decision making.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the results of the farm-scale trials are already in the public domain, as is the view of the advisory committee. The Government's response to the advisory committee is, in essence, being issued today, as well as the Government's response to the public dialogue. Therefore, there is a reasonable amount of information available. Other studies and commentaries that support the decision are also in the public domain.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, what is the precise legal situation regarding the growing of GM crops in Wales, where the National Assembly has invoked—and wishes to continue—a ban on growing GM crops, including trials? Will it be prevented doing so through existing EU legislation?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the United Kingdom has to take a position as a whole on the matter. The Welsh Assembly says that it supports the general policy of approaching the matter on a case-by-case basis, but it wishes to be as restrictive as possible within the terms of the EU legislation regarding its interpretation within Wales. In a discussion of the coexistence rules, there will be scope for voluntary GM-free zones. I will leave the question of whether such a zone could robustly apply to the whole of Wales until we see the results of that consultation. But there is scope for parts of the country to be GM-free, on a voluntary rather than a legislative, basis; and the coexistence rules will cover that option.

Lord Plumb

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that farmers and growers will, at least, he relieved that the Statement from the Secretary of State in the other place has been read here. She has shown some courage in making that Statement, given the tremendous opposition that exists against growing GM crops. I rise to support all of the questions put by my noble friend Lady Byford, some of which the Minister has answered. But the opposition to GM crops is incredible and the disputes will continue. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept responsibility for giving answers to all concerns raised on the issue.

For example, I was horrified when I went into the dentist's recently and saw a lady holding a newspaper whose front page said, "Genetically modified crops (Frankenstein food) can cause meningitis". The lady put down the paper, looked at me and asked. "What do you think of all this?", and I gave a politician's reply, saying, "Madam, it is more important that you tell me what you think". She then told me that she was horrified and said that she would not have such food in her house. Looking at me, she said, "I know who you are; we will not have cow's milk in our house, only organically produced soya milk".

When I asked the lady where that came from she said, "Oh, it is British". I replied, "Madam, you say that you know who I am, so I hope you will accept that unfortunately we can't grow soya in this country. Your soya must have come from the United States of America where 90 per cent of soya is genetically modified", although the Minister may dispute that figure. I added, "If I may say so, madam, you look extremely well on genetically modified soya milk". When I saw the dentist, she looked at me and said, "Will you stop upsetting my patients?".

That is an example of how people react to the issue and that is important. My question is: will tighter labelling be used to make sure, when we import such products, that the consumers know what they are buying? If they buy non-genetically modified soya milk which is not labelled as such, I shall have some questions to ask, because I fail to see how it can be separated when it is imported in such large quantities.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I went to the dentist on Friday and it was nowhere near as exciting or as dangerous as the visit made by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. The lady he met at the dentist's surgery reflects a general public anxiety and there are issues upon which the media seize which raise that anxiety. Every such report has to be taken seriously, which is not always the way that the matter is treated by the media.

I repeat that, so far, there has been no proven ill health effect of GM food compared with conventionally grown food. A huge amount of soya grown in North America and elsewhere is genetically modified. It is still possible to have soya that is GM-free above the 0.9 per cent threshold. It is available and it may well be that the lady referred to by the noble Lord was able to acquire it. It will continue to be the case, as I told the noble Baroness, that thresholds may be imposed on imported soya beans and other materials, in the same way as can apply to crops grown in Europe. It is certainly the case that a significant amount of soya consumed in this country is already, knowingly or unknowingly, genetically modified.

Lord Walton of Detchant

My Lords, will my noble friend accept that 10 years of experience of extensive growing of genetically modified foods in the United States has led scientists there to conclude that there are no consequences of any significance for human health? Is he aware that the British Medical Association's board of science and education, after an extensive inquiry chaired by former Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, Sir David Carter, has just published a supportive report that withdraws reservations that the BMA has previously expressed about the risks to human health of GM foods?

Lord Whitty

Yes, my Lords. I indicated that I am not aware of any proven case of ill health caused by soya or any other GM crop in North America or anywhere else. In general, the same conclusion has been reached by medics in Britain and Europe. There are some unanswered questions in relation to particular cases, which need to be properly investigated, but they should not be treated with hysteria in the way that occasionally happens in the media. However, the issue we were generally addressing was not public health but the less clear question of the impact on the environment. Three of the trials had a negative impact and one had a positive impact on the environment, which is why we have now given this approval.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, will my noble friend make clear that the Government are not -undertaking commercial planting", as was suggested by one of the Front Bench contributions? That is an important distinction. We are not running huge collective farms that are changing to GM maize production. We are talking about the role of the Government as a regulator. It is important that we understand that as a regulator they must be even-handed and that their responsibilities include taking decisions that are based on science. That is why it is important and appropriate that decisions, such as that taken today, are made on a case-by-case basis.

Will the Minister say more about the passage in the Statement that pointed out that, as a regulator, the Government have nothing like the same powers over conventional crops that cause more environmental damage than GM crops? Is it not important that we stop demonising GM production and have a level playing field, where we look across the board at any aspect of health, environment, food or crop production?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's description of the role of the Government. It will be up to commercial farmers, growers and users to decide whether they want to grow it. On the basis of the scientific evidence, the Government see no reason to ban this crop and we will address others on the same basis.

As regards conventional cultivation, some environmental issues need to be addressed more generally in relation to some of the patterns of herbicide use and its effect on the soil and on biodiversity. The merging at this stage of the two regimes used on GM and conventional crops is probably a step too far because public anxiety about GM crops must be addressed. In that sense, we need double assurance. However, the issue highlighted by the crop trial for maize was the detrimental environmental effect of the way in which we have hitherto conventionally cultivated this crop.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. The Minister mentioned the phasing out of atrazine. It was used in the GM trials and it is being phased out because of its overall biological effect. I understand that of the herbicides approved in 2003, nine could be used on maize and that atrazine was one of them. Do the Government have evidence that the other products have a less biological effect? If they found that the other products were more beneficial than appeared in the GM trials, would the Government reconsider their GM approval?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, part of the trial was conducted using not atrazine but herbicides which will continue to be legal. The relative effect as between GM and conventional crops was diminished in that the alternatives were better than atrazine, but there remained an advantage for GM. As part of our consent, we have required that the consent holder will continue to judge the GM cultivation against the current use within the conventional field at any given time. If it were the case that a pesticide regime in the conventional area proved to be better for the environment than the GM, we would obviously have to reconsider it. But that is not the situation now and it is not the situation with any of the alternatives to atrazine currently in use.

Lord Palmer

My Lords, I find this whole situation extremely complicated. Will the Minister confirm that the devolved administrations could go entirely their own way and against the policies of Defra? Bearing in mind what was said by my noble friend Lord Walton, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, do we not need a much better informed public debate on the whole GM policy? I am tilled with horror when I read about "Frankenstein foods", because they are far, far from that. Will the Minister ensure that Defra can help to promote the good effects of GM?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, we have put a lot of information into the public domain. I am not sure that the public have entirely appreciated it and information does not always change people's minds. There is an ongoing responsibility on government and other major players to ensure that the facts are brought out rather than hysteria or over-exaggerated claims in the other direction. Therefore, I would accept that responsibility.

The devolved administrations will be applying the same policy. The issue of whether there could be GM-free zones and how they would be operated will be dealt with in the consultation on the coexistence rules and the liability rules which relate to them. We would therefore see the basis on which a GM-free zone could be designated in England or within the devolved administrations.

Lord Soulsby of Swaftham Prior

My Lords, we should welcome the announcement on GM crops. It will it give a tremendous boost to those people working on the modification of crops. Despite the criticism in this country that we do not need these crops in the United Kingdom, there is no doubt whatever that we need them throughout the developing world. Unfortunately, work in the United Kingdom in this area has lagged behind because of the antagonism to GM crops.

This Statement will provide an enormous stimulus for those people working in this area because the whole GM issue has suffered from the antagonism brought against that science. I am sure that many people in plant and animal genetics will greatly welcome the announcement and help to drive forward this research, which is so urgently needed in this country and overseas.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I accept that the scientific effort here needs to be retained and to operate at the highest level. We have indicated that on the basis of scientific evidence we will take positive decisions. It is to be hoped that the biotech industry, in particular the GM part of it, will continue to see the UK as a good base for that forward research.

The antagonism to GM is not confined to the UK. If anything, it is greater in parts of Europe. Therefore, the transfer of technology out of this country would not be to the rest of Europe. Equally, we hope that Europe, within its new framework of legislation, can allow that research to continue.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, I want to pick up a point made by other noble Lords. One can add to the point made by my noble friend Lord Plumb. The chances are that all of us who are wearing cotton shirts are wearing GM cotton. The noble Lord mentioned China, but the countries which grow cotton have overwhelmingly gone over to GM because they see the advantages.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and to some extent the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the question of how the public debate was conducted. I welcome the fact that the Government have firmly pinned their flag to the scientific mast, but I hope that they will learn the lesson that when there is scientific advance it is no use trying to catch up afterwards. It is no use trying to catch up afterwards if the genie has escaped in the sense that the propagandists against the new scientific advance are half way around the world before its defenders have got their boots on.

There is a lesson for the scientific community to learn. I pick up the points made in the Select Committee report, Science and Society. The scientific community, whether it is in the universities, business or government, must recognise that if there is to be a proper public debate it must start right at the beginning. It is no use having a public debate when the public are already thoroughly stirred up by "Frankenstein foods" and other nonsense that has appeared in the media. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that that part of the lesson has been well and truly learnt.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the timing and nature of public debate are always difficult matters. It is important that the debates are well informed and scientifically based. But it is also important that at all stages the Government recognise public anxiety in the development of certain scientific technologies. It would have been negative if at an early stage the Government had appeared as a propagandist for GM technology and GM crops. Indeed, at one stage they were accused of so doing and acting in the interest of Monsanto and other companies. That would have been hugely damaging.

It is not an easy, straightforward issue. The Government must be seen to be even-handed and to take on board the concerns of the public. After all, at the end of the day our job is not to support one technology or another but to act as a regulator in order to ensure that the anxieties of the public and the dangers to them and the environment are effectively regulated and that decisions are taken within that framework. It is hoped that that will be against a background of rational public debate.

Regrettably—I believe to some extent on both sides in this issue—debate has not been hugely rational. On the one hand, as I have said in this House before, people claim that GM crops will save the world. They may make a contribution but they will not do so on their own. On the other hand, people say that they will destroy agriculture and our society as we know it. Neither claim is true. Therefore, we must focus on much smaller decisions—that is, whether a particular crop growing in particular circumstances can be authorised or whether there is a sufficient scientific basis for banning it. That is the Government's role and I believe that we have fulfilled that in the decision made today.