HL Deb 05 July 1994 vol 556 cc70-1WA
Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

In the case of the genetically- modified virus containing a scorpion gene released into a field at Wytham, near Oxford, whether—

  1. (a) the "precautionary principle" or the "polluter pays principle" operate, and whether this experiment qualifies as an "ultra-hazardous activity" to which strict liability would apply;
  2. (b) insurance has been taken out in relation to this experiment, and if so by whom; and
  3. (c) they are satisfied that the information available to Ministers is sufficient for them to pronounce that this experiment does not pose unacceptable risks.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran)

Both the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle operate. The legislation controlling the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) requires that scientific evidence is considered, and risks are assessed, in advance of consent being given for any release into the environment. Further, under the Environmental Protection Act, where harm has been caused by the release of a GMO, a court has power to order that the offender remedy the harm, where possible; the Secretary of State also may arrange for steps to be taken to remedy the harm and to recover the costs of such remedial action from the offender. Liability under these provisions would be strict where the person releasing the GMO had committed a criminal offence under the Act. In any particular case, however, it would be a matter for the courts to determine questions of liability in the light of the circumstances of the escape and the nature of the harm caused. In some circumstances, strict liability might apply on the basis of the legal rule known as the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher in a case where a GMO, which had been confined on a piece of land, escaped. With regard to the question of insurance, applicants for a consent to release GMOs to the environment are not required by the legislation to take out insurance. We have been advised that no specific insurance has been taken out in relation to this experiment.

The statutory expert advisory committee, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has discussed this case twice. ACRE were satisfied with the adequacy of the measures proposed to contain the virus, but in any event they agreed unanimously that, even if the virus were to escape, on the basis of the information available to them, and under the experimental conditions, a sufficient number of virus particles could not enter the environment to permit recombination or to cause harm to populations of insects. The experiment does not therefore pose "unacceptable risks". The Secretary of State has accepted this advice.