I beg to move,

That this House deplores the failure of the USA and the EU to resolve the trade dispute arising from the so-called banana war; recognises the serious impact which the US retaliatory measures are having on British industries, in particular the devastating impact on the cashmere industry in the Scottish Borders; is concerned that these actions are a precursor of further major trade disputes over the importation into the UK of genetically and hormonally modified food products from the USA; and urges the Government to step up its diplomatic and other efforts to ensure that all parties work together to first reform the WTO regime to ensure compatibility with international biodiversity agreements, environmental and animal welfare objectives, and then to ensure compliance with the WTO objectives of free and fair trade.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"recognises the significance of the EU/US relationship and notes that the majority of that trade relationship runs smoothly; commends the efforts of the Government to secure the Transatlantic Economic

Question , That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:--

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 314.

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the EU ban on hormonally-modified meat must end on Thursday 13th May 1999 under World Trade Organisation rules and that the USA is threatening massive retaliatory trade sanctions against member states unless this is adhered to; is concerned that the latest scientific evidence raises serious doubts over the safety of these and genetically-modified products, further undermining consumer confidence; deplores the failure of the EU and the USA to pursue agreed research criteria into the efficacy of introducing such products into the food chain, threatening established World Trade Organisation agreements and ignoring the impact on global biodiversity in the long term; and urges the Government to recognise its responsibilities at the forthcoming Millennium Round and ensure that food safety, the protection of biodiversity and assistance to the economies of developing countries are integral to negotiations on the liberalisation of trade.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

'recognises the importance of open markets between the EU and the US, notes that in general the trade relationship is a good one; acknowledges the work being undertaken by the Government in seeking a solution to the banana disputes in a way that is World Trade Organisation compatible and is helpful to British industry and to those countries economically dependent on exports of bananas; welcomes the Government's commitment to find a solution to issues concerning US food exports that is good for the consumer, respects scientific research and avoids protectionism; welcomes the Government's commitment to consider sustainable development issues in its approach to trade issues as well as the interest of developing countries; and endorses the Government's support for comprehensive trade negotiations to be launched at the World Trade Organisation Ministerial meeting in Seattle in late 1999.'.

remain in place, the ability of affected businesses to find alternative customers for their products, the extent to which orders have been brought forward before these measures took effect and local market conditions."--[ Official Report , 11 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 85 .]

The biotechnology industry's claim that its research is motivated by a need to feed the hungry is clearly unsubstantiated. Few of the foods so far produced are likely to benefit poorer people in the developing world.

In those cases, too, seeds have to be purchased every year. Terminator technology may be an advance, particularly in northern Europe where we would not have to spray chemicals on people out in the fields in the following year.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:--

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 300.

I beg to move,

That this House deplores the Government's mishandling of the consequences of the presence of GM seeds in a batch of conventional oil seed rape seeds imported to Britain from Canada, which were subsequently planted for commercial purposes; and condemns the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's response which has led to a collapse in public confidence and unnecessary difficulties for the agricultural industry.

The episode has not been spectacularly well-handled.

The public are confused, bemused, underinformed and feel disenfranchised in this whole debate.

We moved quickly to establish the facts.

We established the facts and put them in the public domain.

In this whole matter, the Government are proceeding on the basis of professional advice provided . . . to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment . . . on the environmental issues.

looked at this specific incident and concluded that there is no risk.

In conclusion, ACRE considers that the risks to human health and to the environment are very low. However, the Committee welcomes the precautionary steps proposed by DETR to verify and monitor independently the situation in the field and report back to the Committee.

The advice that the Government collectively have received is that it is not necessary to trace . . . the crops.--[ Official Report , 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 473-75.]

I am not keeping any information secret. I have gone out of my way to be candid with the House.--[ Official Report , 25 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 1101.]

I'm even more annoyed there was a total lack of communication between MAFF and ourselves . . . We are writing to them to make it clear that this is unacceptable.

It must be asked why those who had purchased the seed were not informed immediately and, secondly, instructed by the ministry to destroy the seed (or the crop, if it had already been planted) to ensure GM plants are contained in research environments only.

that they would want to make some tests themselves and not to say anything about it until they had sorted that out. I took a lot of comfort from that and as a result did not take any action to inform farmers or seed merchants.

To knowingly corrupt seed products is of course an offence in this country, as is knowingly releasing them into the environment.--[ Official Report , 25 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 1099.]

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

endorses Her Majesty's Government's approach to the development of GM technology in agriculture; believes that the Government has responded in a responsible, open, considered and proportionate way to the recent discovery of the adventitious presence of GM seed in conventional oilseed rape seed; supports the priority the Government

has given and continues to give to the protection of public health and the environment, and its continued determination to act on the best available scientific advice; applauds the creation of the new, independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on GM issues; welcomes the announcement by the seed company Advanta, following discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that they will provide a fair and equitable compensation package to affected farmers; and commends the Government for the action it is taking at both national and international level to minimise the risk of a similar incident occurring in the future.

That's a horse that won't run, Master Secretary.

There will be others.

was raising fears rather than addressing the issue.

The UK statutory nature conservation agencies must be consulted

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been an act of gross irresponsibility on his part to overreact to the hysterical demands coming from Labour Members?

Does he further agree that if the British beef industry is destroyed as a result of that hysteria, voters in the rural economy, which will have suffered a devastating blow, will know whom to blame?

Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if billions of pounds of extra public money were suddenly to be available for the purposes of protecting children's health, it would certainly not be sensible to use that money to pay for the slaughter of millions of healthy British cattle?--[ Official Report , 25 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 720.]

is one that had previously been approved in the UK under our strict regulatory regime for food use.

indistinguishable from conventional rape oil; no modified DNA will be present.

the GM variety is sterile.--[ Official Report , 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 473.]

In addition to the human safety and environmental concerns outlined in the appendices to the notice, CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.

They told me that they would to make some tests themselves and not to say anything about it until they had sorted that out. I took a lot of comfort from that and as a result did not take any further action to inform farmers or seed merchants.

moved quickly to establish the facts.

The advice that the Government collectively have received is that it is not necessary to trace and destroy the crops.

I believe that the response that I have announced today, and which was announced yesterday

is the right one.--[ Official Report , 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 473-74.]

Seed obtained from outside of the UK or the European Union may have different seed production criteria. This may make it difficult to guarantee that it is absolutely free from any GM material.

We recommend that the Government ensure that the separation distances set out in the SCIMAC guidelines be reviewed if there is clear evidence of cross-pollination.

Question , That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:--

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 267.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the safety of and liability for the deliberate release or marketing of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food; to establish a genetically modified organism compensation fund; and for connected purposes.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): --

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 30.

That this House takes note of European Union Document No.8235/04, draft Council Decision concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC, of a maize product (Zea mays L Line NK603) genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance; and supports the Government's view that Monsanto's NK603 maize, to be used as any other maize but excluding cultivation, meets the necessary requirements for authorisation under Directive 2001/18/EC.-[Mr. Ainger.]

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 66.

The majority of MPs voted to remove a requirement for risk assessments, consultation and authorisation prior to the release of genetically modified plants that could have been produced naturally or via certain techniques defined as natural processes.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

The regulation takes effect by means of amending the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002.^[2]

--

• [1] Explanatory notes to the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022, Legislation.gov.uk
• [2] Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002, Legislation.gov.uk

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.