Agriculture Bill

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I now call Lord Taverne, with whom I think a connection has now been made.

[Lord Taverne (LD) [V]]

Hello, can you hear me? Nobody can. Just a moment—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

My Lord, we can hear you.

[Lord Taverne]

Then that is all right.

I have two apologies to make. First, I was listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, having followed the great debate with enormous interest—and admiration, to a large extent. Then suddenly the link with Zoom was broken and it has only just been restored, so I have heard no speeches since then. That is my first apology.

Secondly, I have not taken part in the debate before on the Bill, either in Committee or at Second Reading. The fact is that I was really concerned only to make some sort of contribution on Amendment 275. To declare an interest, I have been interested in this subject ever since I founded the organisation Sense about Science in 2002. I was its chairman for the first 10 years—so that is the background against which I now declare some interest.

I listened with enormous admiration to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. There is no point whatever in my attempting to rival him by saying what the merits of this amendment are, but I will say just one thing. I am very worried about the fact that the Lib Dems, who will debate this in future, have shown some signs—as I think the previous speaker seemed to indicate—that they are against the amendment. The overwhelming evidence, and an overwhelming amount of support from the science community, has come in favour of this amendment. It is not just from the Royal Society and SAGE but from all the agriscience businesses. They have all been very keen that it should be passed. Of course, we will see about this on Report; there will be a debate then and we will find out what the Government’s reaction is.

The Committee should also look at the people who sponsored this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave a wonderful description of his knowledge and experience in this field. He advanced arguments which it will be very hard for the opposition to answer effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is a very eminent member of the Royal Society and a former chairman of the Food Standards Agency—again, a person of great scientific credentials. Then there is the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, our former Speaker, who also had a very good reputation as a Science Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who was another excellent chairman of the Food Standards Agency. Unfortunately I was unable to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, spoke, but I think he would vouch for the fact that Sense about Science, the organisation I am associated with, is very reputable. He too was a very eminent Science Minister.

If somebody says, “We are not anti-science”, in light of the arguments advanced  and the overwhelming support from not only the scientific community but the National Farmers’ Union and the British Society of Plant Breeders—people with practical experience of agriculture—how could they possibly say that the evidence is against them?

I hope that the Liberal Democrats will prove that they are a pro-science party, as I believe they are. How can anyone say that they are pro-science when they completely ignore the overwhelming weight of evidence and support for this amendment? That is really rather like Messrs Gove and Cummings saying, “Don’t take any notice of the experts”.

I hope that the Government will give a favourable response. After all, the amendment proposes a democratic procedure of open discussion and consultation. I hope that, when they come to debate this, the Lib Dems will not take the path of proving—to their great disadvantage —that they are an anti-science party.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as the chair of Rothamsted Enterprises, which is part of the Rothamsted agricultural research institute, and as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, throughout my career I have been inspired by many scientists, and certainly by those I have met in those capacities.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, introduced his amendment with his signature expertise. We have had a very good debate today, with a range of well-informed and passionate contributions. Not everybody was in agreement, but we heard some serious arguments why, when we leave the EU, we should revisit the European Court of Justice ruling that gene editing should be subject to the EU GMO directive. We recognise that some countries within Europe are already calling for that review.

I think we can all agree that, in the right context, advances in science and technology can make a huge contribution to our food production efficiency, environmental targets and climate change obligations. During the passage of the Bill, we have debated the great advantages of, for example, precision farming, robotics and satellite technology. Science can also help at a microbiological level by, for example, giving better analysis of soil health, crop variety resistance to disease and microbes in water quality, as we have heard.

The world of farming is changing, and we need to be alive to the opportunities that this brings for the sector. I am very excited about many of the developments occurring at research institutes around the UK. However, that does not come without risks, and we need to be alive to these as well. Therefore, we argued strongly for the retention of the precautionary principle in UK law when we were dealing with the EU withdrawal Act.

When dealing with food production and the widespread use of pesticides and herbicides, the public need to have absolute confidence that the system of checks in place is robust and secure. The EU provided that security; some might say that it was overly bureaucratic and gold-plated, but it was based on the best scientific evidence and had the interests of consumers at heart. Therefore, when we leave the EU, we need to ensure that any alternative regulatory regime is equally robust. This was a point very well made by a number of noble Lords this evening.

A number of noble Lords have explained in detail the difference between gene editing and genetic modification; of course, I accept that there is a difference. Clearly, gene editing is more akin to the use of classical plant breeding techniques, or even natural variation, whereas genetic modification introduces DNA from another organism. We are therefore talking about two separate techniques. However, I think it fair to say that most members of the public do not make this distinction. They remain suspicious, and they have the right to be heard and to have their concerns addressed. I will not relive the history of our experiment of trying to introduce GM technology back in the 1980s, but much of that concern was fuelled by suspicion of the motivations of the seed and fertiliser companies, so any modern debate has to address those issues head-on as well.

Golden Rice

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I so agree with the noble Baroness. It is worth quoting from Professor Tom Sanders, who is Professor of Nutrition & Dietetics at King’s College London, who said:

“Vitamin A deficiency remains a major problem in South Asia contributing to increased childhood mortality from infectious diseases such as measles as well as being a major cause of blindness. Rice is the staple cereal in most of those countries and golden rice, which contains the precursor of vitamin A, beta-carotene, has been shown to be effective at improving nutritional status with regard to vitamin A”.

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, will my noble friend warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on his remarks? As for the NGOs, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth do much good work and have noble aims. However, their total disregard of the overwhelming evidence in favour of genetically modified crops, which has been available for more than 15 years, means that, on balance, they have probably done more harm than good. Will he ask the Secretary of State to show the same robust approach and transfer the millions of pounds that are available for conversion to organic farming, whose claims are also unfounded, and perhaps make those funds available to our first-class research institutes such as Rothamsted and the John Innes Centre for their excellent work on genetic modification?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there is quite a lot in that question. There is increasing evidence that the development of golden rice is being blocked by anti-GM NGOs, perhaps because they fear that its successful deployment might generate broader public acceptance of a technology against which they actively campaign. As my noble friend said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently drew attention to the damaging impact that such opposition can have, particularly in those parts of the world where its benefits would be most keenly felt. On my noble friend’s point about funding, our recently announced agrotech strategy will go a long way towards achieving the objectives that he desires.

Genetically Modified Crops

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Taverne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in seeking to reform the regulations regarding the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)]

My Lords, the EU has robust and comprehensive regulations governing GM crops. These regulations were designed to provide fair and predictable market access for products that have undergone a rigorous, case-by-case safety assessment. In practice, polarised views across EU member states mean that the scientific evidence is often ignored and crops remain stuck in the system. It is therefore difficult to make progress on this issue.

[Lord Taverne]

I should declare an interest as founder of the charity, Sense About Science. Over 14 years ago, several reports from the Royal Society, supported by every single national academy of sciences in the world, concluded that GM crops were no danger and caused no harm to human health or the environment. Since then, the enormous expansion in the cultivation of GM crops outside Europe and especially in emerging countries has strongly reinforced that conclusion. Will my noble friend convey to the Secretary of State congratulations on basing policy on evidence? Will he assure us that the Government will stand firm against the scaremongering of the Daily Mail, our leading anti-science paper, and recognise that its attacks on GM crops have no more evidence to support them than its disgraceful and scandalous campaign against MMR vaccines?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, first, let me say that my noble friend has a great deal of knowledge in the area of science and GM specifically. His science-based approach is very welcome. I agree with what he says. That is why, despite the difficulties, we will work to unblock the situation. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State says, we are going to need all the tools in the box to feed the rapidly growing world population. As he also says, we want the United Kingdom to have a leading role in feeding the world and increasing the resilience of global food supplies, and not to stand by watching others take the lead and forge ahead. The UK is the natural home for scientific research. We want companies and research providers to know that the UK is the best place for them to carry out their work.

Adapting to Climate Change: EU Agriculture and Forestry (EUC Report)

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, on a delightful maiden speech. We look forward enormously to his future contributions. This is a fairly welcome and very good report which should be read together with the Foresight report and the later one from the European Commission, which has now been published. It is clear from these what the problems are: hunger, rising population, a shortage of good agricultural land, a severe shortage of water and all the effects of climate change.

I will speak only on the question of biotechnology. I have probably made more speeches about biotechnology than any other Member of this House. The reason is that it is not generally appreciated in Europe that while biotechnology is not a panacea for all our problems, and while an enormous amount of valuable research into greater productivity in agriculture is being done, which holds a lot of promise for the future, in Europe we have not recognised quite how important agricultural biotechnology is. Indeed, the Government demonstrate an attitude of considerable caution. Europe imposes severe restrictions on the import of food and feed, which has repercussions for those elsewhere who want to export to Europe. In many countries there are bans on biotechnology. As I have said, the Government are also cautious. In this report, the junior Minister for Agriculture said that the benefits of genetically modified crops have not yet been established. I do not know where he gets that idea from or whether he has really looked at the international evidence, which is quite clear.

What is not recognised is that, outside the European Union, agricultural biotechnology has been the fastest and most effective application of a new technology in agriculture ever. It is an enormous success story. There are now 148 million hectares on which genetically modified crops are cultivated, in 29 countries. Over 15 million farmers now grow genetically modified crops, over 14 million of them small-scale. There is no doubt about the crops’ success. One can look at the emphasis given to them in China, which regards agricultural biotechnology as one of the most important technologies for the future. In India, it is growing at a very fast pace indeed. So far as the problems in terms of greater productivity and dealing with drought are concerned, biotechnology has an enormous amount to contribute, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said.

Under those circumstances, why is there still such opposition? I think it is because we tend to treat the green organisations—Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth—and the organic movement with extraordinary respect. We treat them as though they stand for motherhood. People are terrified of criticising them publicly, yet if one looks at their effect on agriculture one sees that they do far more harm than good. They keep saying that we must prove that the technology is safe, but there have been any number of reports. Every national academy of sciences in the world—those from Mexico, India, China, the third world, America and Brazil, the Royal Society and other European societies—has examined this time after time. Their conclusions are absolutely clear: that so far there is no evidence of harm to human health or the environment, despite 12 years of growth and consumption. That is completely ignored by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, and their opposition is not rational. Many years ago, when this House held an inquiry into genetically modified crops, Lord Melchett—then director of Greenpeace—gave evidence. He was asked:

“Your opposition to the release of GMOs, that is an absolute and definite opposition? It is not one that is dependent on further scientific research … ?”.

His answer was:

“It is a permanent and definite and complete opposition”.

That means that it is a faith—it cannot be influenced by evidence—and nothing has changed. All the evidence of the way in which genetically modified cotton has been a huge success throughout the world—it saved the Australian industry and has spread faster in India than anywhere else—is completely ignored or contradicted. The result is that the European Union is left behind.

Again, as far as the organic movement is concerned, I have made the point several times that at a time of cuts it is extraordinary that we spend £30 million a year subsidising the inefficient use of land; it is used to encourage conversion to organic farming. There is no question about it: organic production is a less efficient use of land. Why does organic food cost more? It is not because organic farmers want to rook the public, but because the yield is consistently lower. That cannot be denied, yet we subsidise it. If we spent that £30 million on agricultural research, it would be of enormous benefit. We would not have to cut the programme at all; in fact, we could give extra help to those excellent crop research institutes in Norwich—the John Innes Centre—and Rothamsted and to the Scottish research institutes.

The European Commission has issued any number of reports stressing the advantages of genetically modified food, explaining why it is no danger to health or the environment. But the Commission also subsidises Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth with €100,000 a year to carry out anti-GM propaganda in India. It is an extraordinary position.

In this country, the opposition to genetically modified food is superficial. That has been shown by some careful research done in Nottingham and Cardiff. The Government should speak out boldly, stop being cautious and give a lead. If we do not support this technology we will continue to be left behind, and Europe as a whole will suffer.

Universities: Alternative Medicine

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Taverne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to discourage United Kingdom universities from offering Bachelor of Science degrees for courses in alternative medicines such as aromatherapy, reflexology and Chinese medicine.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest as chairman of Sense About Science, a charity that promotes evidence-based medicine.

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

My Lords, universities decide what they should or should not teach. This is a key protection of academic freedom and helps to maintain the world-class reputation of our higher education institutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, with great respect, as lawyers used to say when they meant the opposite, will the Minister convey to his department that that is not an entirely satisfactory Answer? How can the Government justify supporting universities that show no regard for academic standards and offer science degrees in courses which teach that certain essential oils cure specific diseases, areas of the foot lead to pathways to certain inner organs, and health depends on the pattern of energy flows within the body? If the Government believe in evidence-based science, can they really remain indifferent to the fact that some of their funds are used to promote quackery and mumbo-jumbo and call it science?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I again remind my noble friend that it is very important to remember that universities are autonomous bodies and it is for them to make decisions about these matters. The Government have no power to intervene. I have some sympathy with the message that my noble friend is getting across but it would be wrong for the Government to intervene in these matters.

Rural Communities: Prince’s Countryside Fund

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I apologise for striking a possibly discordant note in what has been a very harmonious and high-quality debate. I want to say a few words about food and agriculture. It is very widely accepted, especially by the Prince of Wales, that one way to encourage sustainable and local agriculture is to support organic farming. Unfortunately, very few, if any, of the claims made on behalf of organic farming have ever been upheld, because they have no scientific substance.

First, the whole principle of organic farming is based on the idea that synthetic chemicals are bad and natural chemicals are good, which of course is complete scientific nonsense, as there are many thousands of harmful natural chemicals and a very large number of extremely beneficial artificial chemicals.

Then it is claimed that organic farming is healthier because it is more nutritious. There has been a very careful scientific analysis of those claims undertaken by Mr Dangour on behalf of the Food Standards Agency, which went through every paper that has ever been produced on the question of organic farming and has, after the most meticulous and impartial analysis, found no evidence that organic food is any more nutritious than food which is conventionally grown. Then it is said, “It contains fewer toxins, because of the harmful effects of pesticides. Indeed, I remember reading an article by someone from the Soil Association claiming that one in every three mouthfuls we consume contains toxins. That is completely wrong. Every mouthful that we consume contains poisons of some kind, it is all a question of the dose, as was said a very long time ago. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has pointed out, one cup of coffee contains more carcinogens than one would consume in a whole year's consumption of fruit and vegetables because of pesticide residues. The level at which it is set is 100 to 1,000 times below the safety level.

Then it is said—and this is in some ways the main claim and the most relevant to this debate—that organic farming is good for the environment. Again, that is wrong. Indeed, in some important respects, organic farming is bad for the environment. Organic food costs more. Why? Not because organic farmers try to bilk the public, but because organic farming is a much less efficient use of land. That is why it costs more. Yields from organic farming are 20 to 50 per cent lower than from conventional farming. What is the result? It is a less efficient use of land. The world desperately needs more efficient use of land, and we need that in the United Kingdom as well.

It is an extraordinary fact that Defra spends £30 million a year on encouraging farmers to convert to organic farming—on making farming and the use of land less efficient. If ever there were a case for cuts, there is one. I hope that the Government will take note of that. Of course, I would not cut the £30 million; I would transfer it to agricultural research in excellent centres such as the John Innes Centre, Rothamstead and the various Scottish research centres. My point is that I hope that the Government will cease to subsidise the inefficient use of land and that the Prince’s fund will not encourage organic farming.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I have explained to the Opposition that this is a timed debate. The overrun by noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating debate means that there is no longer full protected time for both the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson and for the Minister. In the circumstances, I think that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson should be permitted to continue with the full allotted amount of time. Unfortunately, that means that the House will not be able to hear a full response from the Minister.