Do you agree with the public’s perception that the Government is on the side of the pro-GM food lobby?
No I don’t – and it’s always puzzled me why people think this. We are not pro-or anti-GM food. We are pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-consumer choice, as I believe everything this Government has done here at home and internationally on this issue shows. Despite what you might have been led to believe, no GM crops are being grown commercially in this country and the only two GM food ingredients on sale were licensed before we came to power. They had both passed testing procedures here and abroad which were far tighter than those for any non-GM food. We have tightened testing even further, led the way internationally over labelling so consumers know what they are buying and eating and overhauled the regulatory framework so consumers have a real voice. The jury is still out over the application of GM-technology, which has already brought huge benefits in other areas, to crops and food. There is the potential for good in helping feed the hungry by enabling new crops to be grown in hostile conditions, or which are resistant to disease and pests so reducing the need for chemicals. But there is also the potential for harm to health and the diversity of our environment. The potential for good is why we would be wrong to slam the door on GM crops or foods without further research. The potential for harm is why we are proceeding so cautiously. That’s why we have put in place such a tough regulatory system. It’s why, too, we have licensed farm-scale trials, with the backing of groups such as the RSPB and English Nature, to study the impact of GM crops on our countryside. Our scientists are among the world-leaders in this whole field of GM technology and it is exactly the kind of knowledge-based industry which will help provide more jobs and prosperity in the future. But jobs and profit will not come before concern over health and the environment. It’s why I can promise this Government will continue to act on the basis of the best available science to provide the highest level of protection for human health and our countryside The protection of the public and environment is, and will remain, the Government’s over-riding priority.
Are we removing the right to be tried in front of a jury simply to save money?
No. We are bringing in these changes to stop defendants deliberately delaying justice where magistrates can deal with their case quickly and fairly and to reduce worry for witnesses and victims. It follows the recommendations in 1993 of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Narey Review on delays in the justice system four years later. There’s no change to how the courts handle serious offences. They will be tried, as of now, in front of a jury. What we are doing is to end the automatic right of defendants to elect for trial by jury even if their case could be heard in a magistrates’ court and the magistrates are prepared to hear it. The reason for this is to stop the unnecessary delays caused by the many defendants who opt for their case to go to the crown court only to plead guilty before the trial starts. Research demonstrates that this happens in 60 per cent of cases. This delays justice, wastes the time and money of court officials, the police and prison service but, more importantly, drags out the misery for witnesses and victims. Magistrates will, of course, retain the power to decide, perhaps because of the complexity of the case and questions of law, that the case should be heard in the crown court. They will also have to give their reasons to refuse such a wish and defendants will have a right of appeal against their decision. Considering the criticism that’s been aimed at this change, Progress readers might be interested to learn that it will bring England and Wales into line with Scotland where the defendant has never had the right to decide where his case should be heard – a position accepted without complaint.
What have we done to reduce the debts of poor countries?
I’m proud of our record on this long-standing problem which has made the lives of millions of the world’s poorest people so much harder. No government has done more than this Labour Government, led by Gordon Brown and Clare Short. Britain has led by example by writing off the debts from the world’s poorest countries. The debts, around £600 million, from 21 who have shown they will use the money saved for poverty reduction programmes, have already been cancelled. The interest on the debts owed by the other 20 – another £1 billion in total – will be ring-fenced and put into a trust fund to be returned once they, too, show they will use the money to reduce poverty rather than on waging war or buying armaments. We believe we will be able to start releasing the money to some of these 20 countries soon. And we hope other richer countries will follow our example.
Now people trust us with the economy, don’t you think they’d understand if we abandoned our pledge not to increase income tax?
No I don’t – and we won’t. No increase in the standard or higher rates of income tax was one of our key pledges at the last election and like all our key pledges, we will meet it. We’ve done more in fact because we’ve also cut the basic rate of income tax and introduced the 10p starting rate to reward work. But at the same time, we are making record and sustained investment into our schools, hospitals and other key public services. The country can afford this now and in future years because we have taken the steps needed to sort out the financial mess we inherited and tackle Tory boom and bust. So we’ll take no risks with stability or jeopardise crucial long-term investment in Britain.