Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Wednesday 15th June 2022
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.
The UK is home to some of the world’s best agricultural research facilities. For some 70 years, plant breeders have used chemical and radiation treatments to generate random mutations in genes, in the hope that these might provide traits that are useful for plant breeding. For decades we have had F1—filial 1—hybrid breeding techniques, which were designed to create far greater genetic consistency in plant varieties that are grown commercially.
Precision breeding techniques such as gene editing are really a natural evolution of conventional approaches to plant breeding. They are simply a modern way of creating more targeted and predictable changes to DNA within a species than would have been possible using induced mutagenesis or natural breeding. They result in nothing that could not occur through natural breeding processes. In that sense, precision breeding techniques are distinct from genetic modification, which can involve moving genes across species boundaries. It is the recognition of this difference that is the reason for this Bill today.
In 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that all gene-edited organisms should be legally regulated as genetically modified organisms. That has hampered our ability to take advantage of precision breeding techniques and of the clear opportunity to help the environment and food producers.
The UK Government disagreed with that 2018 judgment from the perspective of science. Now that we are outside the European Union we are free to consider what a consistent, coherent and science-based policy looks like. What we really need to achieve as we address today’s challenges is a fusion of the traditional principles of good farm husbandry with some of the best technology available to us in the 21st century.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State keeps using this language about precision breeding, but he will know that that is neither a specific technology nor a scientific principle. It relies on the creation of a hypothetical class of GMOs that could have occurred naturally. He will know that there is opposition to that definition from everyone from the environmental non-governmental organisations right through to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and to the Roslin Institute. Given that level of disagreement about the very principles of how he is framing this Bill, will he take it away and look at it again?
George Eustice
We have considered these matters in great depth. We ran a consultation. The overwhelming view of scientists are that these precision-breeding techniques, which do not achieve or do anything that could not be achieved through natural breeding processes, are not in fact GMOs. That is our view. That is why we are bringing this Bill forward today. As the hon. Lady knows, there will no doubt be a debate about these matters in both Houses as the Bill progresses.
Precision breeding techniques give us the ability to produce plant varieties with particular traits far more efficiently than was ever possible with conventional breeding. This opens up huge opportunities for our farmers and growers to produce nutritious food with a lower environmental impact.
Precision breeding techniques can improve crop resistance to diseases, reduce the need for pesticides, increase crop yields, improve resistance to climate change, promote drought resistance and reduce the need for fertilisers.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I do not believe that people need to fear this technology. This is not about creating Frankenstein’s monster or introducing DNA from another species. From developing disease resistant crops to bird flu resistance in poultry to PRRS—porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome —resistance in pigs, there are significant benefits, including: for food security; for the environment; and importantly, for animal health and welfare. Ultimately, there are also significant benefits for public health, as we are reducing medicines and therefore tackling things such as antimicrobial resistance. Does the Secretary of State agree that, ultimately, this can be a win, win, win for food security, animals and people?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about animal welfare issues in particular, raises some very important points. He will know that livestock breeders have long selected traits for polled cattle, for instance, so that they can avoid the need for mutations such as dehorning. It is also the case, as he says, that these new techniques offer the potential for us to breed poultry that is naturally resistant to avian flu, which is a major challenge, and some other issues that I will come on to.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
As the Secretary of State knows, I have long campaigned against the badger culls, so the idea that gene editing may improve disease resistance in livestock is something that I find really interesting and could be, as my hon. Friend put it, a win, win. However, the Secretary of State will also be very well aware that, with the Department’s view that this could drive animals to faster growth and higher yields, there is significant concern from animal welfare charities that this would exacerbate the severe welfare problems that have arisen through selective breeding for increased productivity. Can he give some reassurances to those animal welfare charities that we are not seeking to produce more eggs, bigger eggs, or in any way harming breeding animals?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is already some work going on to breed natural resistance and to select, for instance, dairy cattle that have a higher level of resistance to bovine tuberculosis, and these techniques will allow that to be progressed far faster.
On my hon. Friend’s wider point, we address that in the Bill, and I was going to come on to it. I have listened carefully to organisations such as Compassion in World Farming; that point was highlighted to me some years ago by its head of policy, Peter Stevenson. That is why we have put in some very specific safeguards to protect animal welfare, so that there can be an assessment before any authorisation is allowed. We do not want to have a situation where there could be more lameness in poultry, for instance, or other animal welfare concerns. There will be a dedicated committee to assess that.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Has the Secretary of State considered the impact that this Bill might have on public trust? People might be suspicious of GE food products. For those who are worried, what reassurance can be provided that genome editing will only be used where there are no other less invasive alternatives available?
George Eustice
I think consumers want to see fewer pesticides in their food, and technologies such as this open the door for us to achieve that. As part of the notification process that I will come on to describe, we will ensure that there is transparency and that any seed that is marketed is listed in a transparent way. The Food Standards Agency will also conduct a very thorough and comprehensive assessment of any food safety issues. I think that will give people the reassurance they need.
Returning to some other examples of crops, UK Research and Innovation funded a study that has identified promising sources of genetic resistance to virus yellows in sugar beet, a group of viruses that can cause severe yield losses of up to 50% and are at the heart of the controversy around the use of neonicotinoids in sugar beet. Introducing resistance to virus yellows will reduce the need for pesticides, boost our food security and reduce costs to our sugar beet producers.
With food security high on the agenda, we also have the ability to develop wheat that is more resilient to climate change, helping successfully to grow a crop that 2.5 billion people are dependent on globally. Researchers at the John Innes Centre in Norwich have used gene editing techniques to identify a key gene in wheat that can be used to introduce traits such as heat resilience, while maintaining high yields.
These technologies also have potential to improve the health and welfare of animals, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. Research in farmed animals is already leading to the development of animals that have increased resistance to some devastating diseases. For instance, the Roslin Institute and Genus have developed gene-edited pigs with natural resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, a disease that causes mortality and major welfare issues in pig populations globally.
I turn now to the contents of the Bill. It will focus on four key areas. First, we will remove precision-bred plants and animals from the regulatory requirements applicable to the environmental release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. That will remove the necessity of adhering to the onerous regulations imposed by the European Union for plants and animals that could also have been produced through traditional breeding. The Bill does that in part 1.
Caroline Lucas
The Secretary of State will know that section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires him to be able to affirm that this Bill does not weaken any existing environmental protections. Given that he has more or less just said that it precisely does, because it will weaken the EU legislation that we were following and will erode the existing regulatory system, how can he then sign section 20 in good faith?
George Eustice
As I have set out, as a point of science, the scientific community and the UK Government rejected the legal conclusion of the European Court of Justice. It is important to point out that that was based on an interpretation of the clauses in EU regulations, rather than on any coherent assessment of the scientific evidence. We will assess the scientific evidence, and it is on that basis that we are bringing the Bill forward.
The hon. Lady asks whether I can be confident that this will not undermine the environment, and I can. Indeed, I am confident that it will lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides, which is a key objective that she will share with Conservative Members. It could also lead to a reduction in the use of synthetic fertilisers—currently the primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
What restrictions are there around the world on the agricultural products of this technology? Does the Secretary of State think that in the very near future, when the European Union appreciates the benefits that this can bring to agriculture, it may well change its mind on it?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises an important point. In fact, I was at the agrifood council when the European Court of Justice judgment came in 2018. Even countries that had some scepticism about genetically modified foods, such as Germany and France, were very concerned about that judgment. It is also the case, as he may well know, that the European Union itself is now consulting on a change to its own laws. The EU will be some years behind us, but it recognises that the ECJ judgment in 2018 was scientifically flawed. He asked what other countries around the world do. The vast majority of serious agricultural producers with the scientific expertise to assess these things treat gene editing and these precision breeding techniques as being distinct from genetically modified organisms.
Clause 1 of part 1 describes what a precision-bred organism is. Clause 2 establishes the scope of what is considered a plant and an animal for the purposes of the Bill. Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
On definitions, the Secretary of State may be aware that the British Veterinary Association has expressed some concern that perhaps the definitions have been broadened somewhat in the Bill—in particular, that organisms or techniques that would insert exogenous genetic material could be allowed under those definitions. Can he confirm whether that is indeed the case?
George Eustice
The Bill defines this quite tightly and lists what classes of animals are to be included. On some of these very specific technical issues, I am sure that hon. Members who have read clauses 1 and 2 will see that there are quite a lot of different processes, which we will all have to make sure that we learn a lot more about as the Bill progresses. I am sure that this will be discussed in great detail.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
There is no doubt that a lot of the Bill is potentially of huge advantage, particularly in terms of animal welfare. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that concerns have been expressed that people should at least have the right to know what they are buying. Does he have any comments to make about food labelling in this respect?
George Eustice
There will be transparency in the sense that any authorised product will be listed. No marketing authorisation will be granted for the sale of any food unless it has been properly assessed. However, it is not currently our intention to have some kind of labelling requirement specifically for food, because a loaf of bread might have some of these crops going into it and others produced through other techniques. We do not currently, for instance, require people to label that a crop has been produced using an F1 hybrid technique such as an open pollination. That is the comparison that I would draw my right hon. Friend’s mind to.
Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems—one for research and one for marketing purposes. Developers will have to submit information to DEFRA that will be published on a public register, and this will support consumer transparency. Clause 3 sets out the conditions under which a person may release a precision-bred organism in England. Clauses 4 and 5 set out the notification requirements for the release and marketing of a precision-bred organism. Clause 6 describes the application process for obtaining a precision-bred confirmation. This will ensure that each precision-bred organism is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Clause 7 sets out the requirement for there to be a report of the advisory committee, with further provisions in clauses 8 and 9 regarding the precision-bred confirmation and its revocation if necessary.
The Bill will not compromise animal welfare standards. As I said, it establishes a regulatory system to safeguard the welfare of precision-bred animals. This system is described in clauses 10 to 15. Clause 10 establishes that precision-bred animals will need to be authorised before they can be marketed. Clause 11 describes the application process. Clause 12 describes the involvement of an animal welfare advisory body. Clause 14 makes provision for regulations requiring information on the health and welfare of these animals once they have been placed on the market.
Finally, the Bill also makes provision to ensure that there will be no compromise whatever on food safety and that there will be a comprehensive assessment of the safety of any products placed on the market that result from precision-bred organisms.
Margaret Ferrier
I am keen to understand something. Although the territorial extent of the Bill’s provisions is rather limited, what consultation did the UK Government have with their Scottish counterparts? Scotland remains opposed to GE food products being sold there, but legally cannot prohibit it.
George Eustice
This is a devolved matter, as the hon. Lady says. The Scottish Government have taken a particular position, which is broadly that if the European Union changed its law, Scotland would change its law at that time, but not before, and it would appear that the Scottish Government do not want to move early on that. Of course, many of the leading international research institutes, such as the Roslin Institute and James Hutton, are world leaders in these technologies. They will probably be acutely disappointed if the Scottish Government do not take this opportunity to lead the world, rather than waiting and following the European Union.
Finally, part 3 of the Bill, in relation to an assessment of food safety, sets out the powers for the regulation of food and feed derived from precision-bred organisms and includes a new regulatory framework governing the placing on the market of these products, a public register and a monitoring and inspection regime.
In conclusion, it is more than 30 years since the current GMO legislation was passed. In that time, unnecessary and unscientific barriers imposed by the European Union have stalled the development of the agritech industry in the United Kingdom. Our legislation has not kept pace with our increased understanding of the safety and benefits of technologies such as gene editing. By removing these barriers, we will enable investment in these technologies, which have the potential to tackle some of the great challenges faced by the United Kingdom and the world today when it comes to producing food in an environmentally sustainable way. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the spokesperson for the Opposition, I note that we do not have very much time. It is likely I will have to put on a time limit of about four minutes. I simply issue that warning now so that people can take out six or seven pages of their prepared speeches.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
This Bill comes in a week when food, how we produce it and what it does to us and how food production impacts our planet have been at the forefront of public debate. The Bill was an opportunity to tackle one of the great issues of our time, but instead of rising to that challenge, I am afraid that the Government have flunked it. There was a minimalist response on Monday, when failing to set out a proper food strategy for the future, and a minimalist response today on setting up the right structures to enable innovation to flourish. That is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising. These issues require a long-term view, and an understanding and appreciation of the wider public good. This Government are now reduced to slogans designed to get the Prime Minister to the end of next week. The country deserves better, and many on the Government Benches know that.
Let me set out the position on this side of the House on an issue of significance for the future. Let me start by thanking the many serious people from learned societies and institutions who have done the thinking and spent time briefing me and my team as we grapple with some very big issues. As an example, I wave the weighty report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, “Genome editing and farmed animal breeding”, which runs to many hundreds of pages. I can recommend it to Members—it is actually a very good read. Unlike this Bill, which takes the narrowest possible approach, it stood back and asked the bigger questions about our food system, our treatment of animals, where traditional selective breeding has brought us, how we might approach novel foods, and the great changes that we may see in just a few years. The Royal Society criticises focusing narrowly on just one technology and argues for an outcomes-based approach.
There was a big opportunity, but a weak and disintegrating Government could not take it. I understand that, so I turn to the proposals that we have before us, which are a start. For reasons that I will explain, however, they risk having the opposite effect from those intended. Unless public and investor confidence is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be squandered. Although we will support the Bill’s progress today, we want to see it significantly strengthened and we will propose an array of amendments in Committee, which I genuinely hope the Government will consider carefully.
The Opposition start from a clear principle: we are pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, safety and security of our food system while addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused. That is the challenge that Henry Dimbleby set out in his national food plan, which the Government were unable to meet in their proposals this week.
With that challenge, there is an opportunity for the UK to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others will follow, but sadly this Bill is a rushed job—too thin on detail. With that lack of detail comes a risk, because the public need assurance that those new technologies are being used for the public good, not just for narrow commercial advantage. We have no doubt about the possible benefits. We understand the pressures that are put on farmers when we rightly say, as has been cited, that they cannot use neonicotinoids because of the harm they cause to pollinators. If gene editing can be used to safely ward off virus yellows in sugar beet, that is a definite good that we want to see proceed as quickly as possible.
Andrew Bridgen
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the public good and commercial advantage are mutually exclusive?
Daniel Zeichner
Surely not, but they are not always the same thing, and that is the point.
We do not want a gene edit to modify an animal to allow it to tolerate more cramped conditions; we want a regulatory system that ensures that those technologies are used for the right purposes. We recognise that there will be people who are not convinced that it is right to intervene in these new ways, and who are not convinced that it is right for them or wider society, but we believe that if the system is regulated in the right way, most people can be reassured.
Let us not forget that Labour is the party of food safety. We established the Food Standards Agency, which will play a vital role in giving confidence to the public. Whatever it says and does, however, different approaches to food production must be respected with proper safeguards for organic production, for example, and for those who do not wish to go down these new routes. Their rights matter too.
We fully understand that laws designed almost 30 years ago for genetically modified products do not reflect advances in understanding and technology. We also see that many countries are recognising that gene editing should be treated differently. While we understand that, we must also recognise the importance of that distinction being drafted clearly and transparently, as has already been touched on.
The public will want to be assured that allowing the editing of genes in one organism does not also allow the introduction of genes from another organism. I hope that the Secretary of State can clearly confirm that today, because it is very important. Our reading of those complicated definitions, and the advice that we are being given, suggests that that subject is not entirely clear. I hope it can be explored in Committee.
We want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK. We know that over the years, traditional crop development and innovation has brought us all significant gains, but as we enter this new territory we need that strong regulatory framework to make sure that we get it right. As it stands, we are not convinced that the Bill provides that. It needs strengthening.
As it stands, far too much is being left to secondary legislation. We understand why that is always attractive to Government; it largely means, “Trust us.” As we all know, what is brought forward is unamendable and, almost without exception, it is always carried. It is a blank cheque, and on an issue that so relies on trust and public acceptance, that is not a good starting point.
We need more detail in the Bill, not least because this Bill covers both plants and animals, which makes this legislation much more complicated and difficult. In the notices accompanying the Bill, the Government have said they will only introduce new measures for animals after those for plants and after extensive consultation on the right regulatory framework for animals had been established. So far as we can see, there is nothing in this Bill to make that happen. Frankly, it is the wrong way around: sort out the preferred regulatory framework first, then put it into law.
As we have already heard, animal welfare organisations are rightly concerned. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says in its brief that it is “incredibly concerned”. Compassion in World Farming has joined 20 other animal welfare organisations, including the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, in raising similarly strong concerns. Their points are powerful, and Labour will require much stronger tests on animal welfare impacts.
As I suggested earlier, to get this legislation right the Government must provide a proper mechanism to balance the risks and manage trade-offs. Just saying that there is no risk is not that mechanism. In this country, we have always been pretty good at regulation. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is a highly regarded model for dealing with some of these very complicated issues, and a model the Government would do well to consider.
The case for having a strong regulatory framework is not just a matter of giving confidence to the public; that public confidence in turn gives scientists and businesses the confidence to invest here in the UK and sets the example for others to follow. That will be important as many of our trading partners go down the same route. How much better to have something worth copying, giving us first-mover advantage, but also settling some of those tricky trade issues if we end up with different rules.
As part of that framework, we need to recognise that the modern consumer wants and expects good information. Research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that, while consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from that for genetically modified foods, they want clear labelling and effective regulation of gene-edited products. Just telling them that they need not worry because there is no difference just does not cut it in the modern world.
Clear labelling is the way to help deal with another potentially difficult issue, which is the legitimately held views of different Administrations within the United Kingdom. I think it is fair to say—I suspect we will be hearing this in a minute—that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way this has been handled so far, and I suggest that the Government should tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.
In conclusion, we are in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. The world faces huge global challenges, and although much can be done by reforming global food systems, science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon. We need a regulatory framework that prioritises that. At the moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is to leave it to the market, and that risks repeating the mistakes of the past.
These are big and important issues. They will be explored in much greater depth in Committee and the evidence sessions, and the Opposition look forward to working with the Government to improve the legislation and create the strong regulatory framework that is needed, but currently lacking.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have to start with an immediate time limit of four minutes.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am speaking today in full support of the Bill, precision breeding and our outstanding scientists, who are looking to this House to unlock barriers to solving many of the most important problems facing us on earth. I want to see this Bill unleash their capability and energy on those problems, and I hope to be supporting the Bill throughout the whole of its passage.
Let me explain why I stand up with this bouncy enthusiasm. To take the House back to the 1990s, when I was young and thin, I was honoured to be at the Nottingham University life sciences department doing a biology degree. If the House will bear with me, I have a little practical knowledge of DNA editing techniques, as my undergraduate paper was using transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans as a biological monitor for freshwater sediment toxicity.
Katherine Fletcher
Quite. That is a mouthful, but the key here is “transgenic”. We were putting a gene from Escherichia coli—E. coli—into an itty-bitty nematode worm, an animal, and making a cross-species C. elegans. Those little guys were effectively harnessing natural stress repair mechanisms to produce something that we could measure easily.
I was a scientist; I was fascinated by that, but it did not always sit brilliantly with me, and the mechanisms that were used to produce that transgenic environment were at best embryonic and new. It was effectively taking DNA material in vectors such as plasmid, and pebbledashing a target DNA area. We did not know where it was going to land, and we had a lot of wastage where bits of DNA were going in the wrong place. That is not what the Bill is about, and I look forward to going into that in more detail.
Dr Hudson
We have heard concerns that people feel that an exogenous species of DNA would be coming in. Does my hon. Friend agree that this technology is not about that? This is not about an external species coming in, and perhaps the Bill could be tightened up by clarifying that, which would appease some of people’s potential fears.
Katherine Fletcher
Yes. If the Bill contained a way of opening up the transgenic debate, be that in plants or animals, it would not enjoy my support.
While I have put on a lot of weight since the mid-1990s, science has also massively moved on. In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), this is a bit like comparing a 1997 diesel car with modern zero-emissions vehicles. Yes, they both have wheels, go along in a straight line and are called cars, but the two things are completely different. The British public were right to be cautious at the time, but let us explain why this is different. We now know the genome sequences of other target species and plants, and we have exact tools that are effectively like clever genetic snippers that will go along a genome and only cut in the exact place. There is confidence and science behind that point. We then insert something that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) highlighted, comes from the same species. If we have wheat that does not taste nice but is good at growing in dry conditions, why can we not give it that dry condition gene, so that it tastes nice and is nutritious and can help feed the third world? There are scientists chomping at the bit to have a go at that—I really cannot wait.
As part of my undergraduate degree I went to Rothamsted and saw the scale that has to be put in place for traditional breeding techniques—think fields and fields and fields. Variant 1 has been crossed with variant 2 in a modern way, but it then needs to be tested, because in traditional breeding techniques we basically take the whole genome, throw it up in the air and ask nature to pick one variant out of two. That means we are looking at multiple generations to try to keep the tasty wheat, as well as the dry, coarse wheat. This is a fantastic opportunity to use fewer resources while doing that research, and to use fewer resources from the environment.
Let me highlight some of the extremely exciting opportunities that I have pulled out of the literature: disease-resistant wheat that needs less pesticide, as mentioned by the Secretary of State; tomatoes with a little extra vitamin D; wheat with reduced asparagine to ensure that people are not exposed to carcinogens, especially if, like me, they cannot cook properly and always burn everything; or chickpeas with high protein levels that help those who are making an environmental choice by being vegan or vegetarian. The possibilities for health, climate, environment, farming and our planet are as endless as the natural variation within species that had Darwin so fascinated. We must do this, and I totally support the Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The regulation of genetically modified foods is a devolved issue. It is important to emphasise that at the start because, as in a growing number of policy areas, the UK Government pay only lip service at best to the powers exercised in the Scottish Parliament, while at the same time running roughshod over devolution with their post-Brexit deregulatory agenda.
Although the intended scope of the Bill may be England only, it is explicit that it will have significant impacts on devolved areas. The devolved Administrations were, however, only informed of this just one day before the Bill was introduced, in a letter from the Environment Secretary encouraging them to adopt the Bill’s principles. A UK-wide approach can, of course, sometimes be desirable, but this invite creates an illusion of collaboration and choice when in fact DEFRA is acting unilaterally once again. Frankly, it smacks of contempt for our democratically elected Government.
If the Scottish Parliament refused to allow gene-edited crops to be planted in Scotland, we would still be prevented from stopping GMO products from being sold in our shops under the devolution-violating United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. This is exactly the kind of scenario the SNP warned against when the Tories forced that legislation through this place. I understand that DEFRA officials have now suggested that the Department discuss the UK Government’s plans to diverge from the common UK-wide GM regulatory regimes. Well, thanks very much, I am sure, but any discussions of that nature should have taken place prior to the introduction of the Bill so that potential policy divergence could be properly considered. The fact that they have not is deeply regrettable and unacceptable.
The SNP is committed to ensuring that Scotland operates to the highest environmental standards, and that we protect and enhance the strength of Scottish agriculture and food production. If we end up with unwanted gene-edited products in Scotland, diverging standards with the EU could cause further damage to our sales, risking damage to Scotland’s reputation for high-quality food and drink.
Katherine Fletcher
The way the hon. Lady is talking about gene editing implies that one can tell the difference. It brings in variant genes from the same species. It is literally scientifically impossible to identify a gene-edited product if it is done properly.
Deidre Brock
I accept the hon. Lady’s experience in this area, but there are many scientists who would differ from that opinion.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Deidre Brock
I am going to make progress.
As previously, where the EU offers new scientific advice and moves to change legislative frameworks, the Scottish Government consider the implications for Scotland and seek to stay closely aligned with that approach where practicable. Holyrood passed the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 before Brexit, committing the Scottish Government to alignment with EU standards and regulations. In keeping with that, we are closely monitoring the EU, including its public consultation which I believe is continuing at the moment, as it reviews its policy on certain new genomic techniques.
Andrew Bridgen
Does the hon. Lady not appreciate that farmers are also businesspeople and that a farmer will not grow something that the consumer does not want to buy? Does she insult the intelligence of Scottish farmers by suggesting that they will grow crops nobody wants to buy?
Deidre Brock
This is about the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Government and our intention to stay aligned with EU regulations, as we have committed to in the 2021 continuity Act. We are in constant discussions with farmers and will continue to be.
Surely it would be practical for the UK Government to follow the approach of monitoring the EU and its ongoing public consultation as it reviews this policy, ensuring alignment and avoiding divergence that could further threaten trade with our largest trading partner. As the European Commission’s formal policy announcement is expected in the first half of 2023, the wait would not greatly undermine the UK’s competitive edge but would ensure minimal trade disruption. The UK economy suffered a 4% reduction in GDP, according the Office for Budget Responsibility, thanks to a hard Tory Brexit. The last thing Scotland needs is further disruption to EU trade.
It is worth noting, too, that the EU’s 2021 study into gene editing and new genetic technologies highlighted that research into animals and micro-organisms is “still limited or lacking”, especially when it comes to safety. The SNP would advise the UK Government to return to the precautionary principle in the deployment of such new technologies, especially those developing produce for human consumption.
There is no doubt that these issues are complex and emotive, with a variety of views across science, industry and other stakeholders. The SNP does not oppose further research in this area and it acknowledges the work of the James Hutton Institute, the Roslin Institute and other Scottish scientists and researchers. The more empirical data available in this area, the better we can understand exactly the effects in crops and animals, and in genetically modified organisms. However, the SNP will always listen to the concerns of the public and producers and take them into consideration in agricultural matters or in scientific development. Indeed, DEFRA’s own consultation last year found that 88% of individuals and 64% of businesses supported continuing to regulate such organisms as GMOs. The strength and range of opposition to the use of gene editing should give us pause to reflect.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a lot of points about how this is, of course, a devolved area, but does she therefore disagree with the president of NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy, when he says that precision breeding techniques such as gene editing, led by scientific expertise available in Scotland, have considerable potential to deliver benefits for food, nutrition, agriculture, biodiversity and climate change?
Deidre Brock
I thought I had made myself fairly clear. We are waiting for the EU review of this technology to take place, then we will weigh it up carefully and decide whether to continue down that route ourselves. The trouble with farmers and the NFUS at the moment is that they are so desperate to find something in place of the trade they have lost as a result of Brexit that they have seized on this. I think that the precautionary principle should always apply with new technologies of this sort.
Deidre Brock
I will keep going for a bit.
Let me give the view of some of the organisations that have listed their concerns. The view of the umbrella group of individuals and organisations, GM Freeze, is that the proposed new approach would take away scrutiny and transparency, and as these are patented technologies, it is concerned that big business will be handed greater leverage and control over what we eat. The Soil Association warns that in the absence of a proper governance framework, gene editing is likely to be driven by industry interests. The question has to be asked: without rigorous democratic forms of governance in this area, how can we stop monopolies forming and companies acting in the service of profit rather the public interest? I hope very much that we will hear that question answered as the Bill progresses and, as the Minister is nodding, perhaps even this afternoon.
Deregulating GE products also loosens the strict controls that allow modified plants and animals to be traced with ease, making the impact on the general animal and plant population harder to track and assess. There are also fears that deregulated gene editing risks displacing high-welfare agro-ecological farming systems such as organic farming. If there is no tracing or labelling, the future of organic and other non-GM farming is threatened. Citizens deserve to know how their food has been produced; that goes to the very heart of food sovereignty.
Sir Robert Goodwill
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Is she aware that the last generation of new varieties were often produced using induced mutation, gamma radiation or chemicals such as colchicine, which was equivalent to smashing up DNA with a sledgehammer rather than this keyhole surgery? Varieties such as Golden Promise, which can be grown organically in Scotland and go into the majority of Scotch whisky, have been produced in that way and she has not raised any concerns about them.
Deidre Brock
As I say, we are prepared to consider the technology as things progress but we are waiting on the EU, because the EU has the strictest standards in the world—[Interruption.] The EU has some of the strictest standards in the world, and if it is content after it has examined this process and had its consultation, that is certainly something we are prepared to consider.
Ministers insist that no changes should be made to the regulation of animals under the GMO regime until a regulatory system is developed to safeguard animal welfare. However, as has been mentioned, a coalition of 21 of the UK’s leading animal protection organisations has called those safeguards
“poorly defined and largely inadequate”.
Among multiple other concerns, the group cites increased risk of regarding animals as things that can just be modified for human convenience. That, of course, contradicts the central premise of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.
DEFRA cites the potential for gene editing to address concerns over food security. I held a debate recently on the subject and talked about the need to prioritise sustainable domestic food production and build long-term resilience into our farming system. There is a danger, as the Soil Association points out, that gene editing is used as a sticking plaster for industrial farming systems, targeting symptoms and not root causes. The Secretary of State mentioned porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, which, as I understand it, is caused largely by poor living conditions. Why not try to address that rather than using the new technology as, as the Soil Association points out, a sticking plaster? The UK Government appear to be rushing to adopt untested technologies to distract from the real issues in our food system, such as poor soils, lack of crop diversity, intensive industrial farming and falling domestic production.
I will come to a close shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think you are looking at me sternly. It might be easier to take the Government at their word if they were not abandoning other plans that would have a positive impact on food security and inequality. The food strategy for England, which was published on Monday, has been remarkably watered down by rejecting many of the recommendations in the food system review and dropping the commitment to introduce a food Bill.
In Scotland, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which is making progress, will produce plans that will be scrutinised according to various metrics, including social and economic wellbeing, health and the environment. A draft plan has been published on ending the need for food banks. The Scottish Government’s new vision for agriculture outlines how we aim to support farming and food production in Scotland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.
If the UK Government are serious in their intention that the Bill will affect the market in England only, they must amend it to ensure that products covered by it are not included in the mutual recognition and non-discrimination provisions of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and that the devolved Parliaments can reject those products outright if they are not content. The Scottish Government think that the principle of devolution should be respected by the UK Government. The Scottish Parliament should be asked for its consent before actions are taken hastily that could undermine our trade with Europe and compromise the safety of our food.
This is our food system. We must surely ensure that every possible safeguard is in place before we adopt this Bill.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
As someone who has a farming business, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I warmly welcome the Bill. I commend the Government for pressing ahead on a matter that is vital for national and global food security, protecting the environment, supporting the developing world and advancing UK science and prosperity at a time of economic uncertainty.
In the limited time that I have, I want to firmly refute the misconceptions that have been spread, in and outside the Chamber, about how gene editing is allegedly bad for animals and animal welfare. It is right that we proceed with careful additional safeguards for animal precision breeding, as the Bill proposes, but precision breeding can provide animal welfare benefits so huge that to my mind it is actually unethical not to allow it. Stopping diseases such as PRRS in pigs, bird flu, swine flu and mastitis is obviously a huge advance for animal welfare, not a threat to it. Put simply, regulation should follow the science. It should be based on the evidence, not on superstition or political agendas.
I reiterate that gene editing is wholly distinct from genetic modification, so it is totally wrong for it to be aggressively restricted in the same way. Genetic modification is the introduction of new material from one species into another; gene editing is the adjustment of DNA within one species. It simply speeds up, and makes more precise, genetic changes that occur naturally through conventional breeding methods. Food from gene-edited plants is therefore indistinguishable from food produced through conventional methods. Gene editing speeds up natural changes that can otherwise take up to 15 years. Do hon. Members seriously want to wait 15 years to protect animals from horrific diseases, to aid farmers in sub-Saharan Africa or to start producing more affordable healthy food in the UK? I think not. That is why we have to support the Bill.
The Whips will not be surprised to hear that I have some concerns about part 3, which risks undermining the legislation aimed at ensuring that innovation and investment, through regulation, reflects the scientific evidence; that is what we must base it on. There is already disquiet that the Food Standards Agency has been gold-plating the innovation-killing precautionary approach inherited from the EU. On top of that, on current drafting, the ministerial powers on food and feed safety risk assessments and traceability in part 3 risk adding additional safety assessments and other hurdles, thereby piling investment-destroying costs on to the breeding process, which could ultimately deter scientists and businesses from innovating. We must be careful about that.
In essence, however, this is a great piece of legislation and must be supported. I look forward to following its passage through this place.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I believe that this is a flawed Bill—it is not strategic, it is not clear and it does not do what it says on the tin. Ministers breezily assert that it will deliver access to wonderful new markets, while failing to acknowledge that it actually risks hindering access to our closest significant market, the EU, as we create a divergent regime for regulating genome-edited products. As we have heard, consequences for trade with Northern Ireland are being ignored. With the Scottish and Welsh Governments currently taking a different approach from that of England, the Bill is a recipe for consumer confusion and significant operational difficulties for retailers across the UK.
These big questions are critical, but in the short time that I have, I shall spell out how the Bill falls down on some core principles that render it flawed and not fit for purpose. Those principles are scientific coherence and clarity, properly defined criteria—or the lack of them—and transparency.
On coherence and clarity, in its title and text the Bill uses the phrase “precision breeding”, yet that is neither a specific technology nor a scientific discipline. It is a marketing term: a vague colloquialism for a number of recently developed genetic engineering technologies, which do not form a coherent group of methods, and do not justify being called “precise”—not when the scientific literature contains reports of genetic technologies such as genome editing creating unexpected and unwanted mutations, genetic errors, altered proteins, and extensive deletions and complex rearrangements of DNA in plants. [Interruption.] I will not give way yet.
The Government give a nod to that uncertainty with their caveat that genetic editing of animals will not take place until animal protection can be safeguarded. Engineering the DNA of animals raises major animal welfare and ethical concerns. A wealth of problems are set out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on gene-edited farm animals. As I understand it, there is nothing to prevent biotech-created disease resistance being used as a sticking-plaster for the intensive factory farming practices that are the underlying cause of disease emergence in the first place. That is why, given the current drafting, animals should be removed from the Bill’s scope, full stop.
Katherine Fletcher
Nature makes mistakes; that is how evolution comes about. So the mistakes that are reported in the literature are actually further evidence that such technologies effectively replicate a natural process. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As has been said, she clearly has expertise, but I am looking at the scientific evidence that has been put before me, and it is being suggested that the mistakes that can be made in this area, especially when it comes to nature, appear very different from those that are seen in nature.
I move on to the principle of properly defined criteria. Using a term that lacks any proper definition looks like an attempt to obscure the full scope of the proposed deregulation. The terms “precision breeding” and gene editing help promote a particular narrative—that the process is just a simple “cut” or “tweak”. The Government are also at pains to stress that any changes might have occurred “naturally” and do not involve the insertion of transgenes—so-called “foreign” DNA.
I have read that this is to some extent smoke and mirrors. The Bill seeks to deregulate all manner of genetic manipulations, and genome editing can sometimes involve the insertion of foreign DNA. As I understand it, the argument is that in such cases the inserted DNA gets removed before the product goes to market. That may well be the intention; but by using poorly defined criteria in the title and wording of the Bill, the Government are asking us to pass bad legislation.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Is it the case that, if the EU were to allow this technology to go ahead, the hon. Lady would, like the SNP, embrace it?
Caroline Lucas
I am not making a blanket statement in that way. I am saying that if a whole load more safeguards were built into the Bill and if it were not based on a set of definitions that are being criticised by the scientific community, I would have rather more confidence in it than I do right now.
As we have heard, several learned organisations have challenged the Government’s creation of this hypothetical class of GMOs that could have “occurred naturally” or could have been created using traditional breeding. The Institute of Food Science & Technology has called the approach “overly simplistic”, and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics was
“not convinced that this is either the most proper or most popular framing”.
The Roslin Institute found it “exceptionally challenging”, while the Royal Society of Biology said:
“No clarity can be achieved using this principle—we would not recommend using it as the basis for regulation.”
In response to last year’s public consultation, there was a clear view that this is a fundamentally flawed and unscientific basis for regulation.
Turning to transparency, there are no provisions in the Bill for the labelling of genetically engineered or so-called precision-bred food, despite this being what a majority of the public want, as the Government consultation made clear. In that consultation, 85% wanted genetic technologies used in farming to continue to be regulated in the same way as other GMOs. There are significant concerns over the commercial drivers of genome editing in farmed animals, for example. This makes labelling really important, not least if Ministers want citizen and market trust, and buy-in to any new regulatory regime. The public register idea is welcome, but it needs to be accessible as well as comprehensive, and it should include all genetic engineering events and organisms used in UK agriculture. Reduced data collection is worrying. Data that is not collected cannot be analysed. Ministers are simply assuming that risks are non-existent or vanishingly slight, but there is nothing scientific about such wishful thinking.
In conclusion, we need a national conversation. Regulation and innovation need not be at odds, but products of agricultural genetic engineering, including newer techniques, should be subject to a robust and transparent regulatory and governance framework. This must include a strong traceability and labelling scheme that protects the interests of organic farms and allows consumers to make a choice in the supermarket. This legislation lets down consumers, farmers, the environment and animals. Rushing ahead with a badly conceived and designed Bill because the Government are simply desperate to claim some kind of success on post-Brexit deregulation is unacceptable, and I urge them to bring back something better.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I want to speak in support of the Bill. Anyone who comes to the rural idyll of South Cambridgeshire and sees the fields of golden wheat, yellow rapeseed and barley swaying in the wind, or indeed goes and sees the cattle herds in the south-west of England or the sheep in the north, might think that that was agricultural produce as nature gave it to man—and woman, no doubt— but that is not the case. Since agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago, people have consistently bred the plants and animals they have been given, and those plants and animals have changed incredibly over the last 10,000 years. For example, there is very little in common visually between a chicken and the south Asian jungle fowl that it came from. All of that breeding was done by the natural mutation that happens randomly in nature, and most of those mutations are mistakes and do not get used.
We now have the technology to speed that up. We have radiation breeding, which various colleagues have talked about, where we speed up the mutation and do not just rely on the random happenstance of nature. We now have precision breeding, and gene editing in particular. We have the technology to do that, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) went into detail about how it works. This technology has huge advantages, but we cannot use it because it is banned by the EU and we inherited that legislation. This Bill is clearly designed to allow us to do it.
This is a huge issue in my constituency. It is not just that I have a lot of farmers; I also have a lot of plant breeders who are chomping at the bit to use this technology, and a lot of genetic companies. South Cambridgeshire is the genetics capital of Europe, and there is huge interest in this there. There are lots of advantages to it that many of my colleagues have mentioned. There is a win for food security as it will enable us to have greater crop yields. There is also a win for the environment because we can use fewer pesticides and fertilisers and there will be less demand on water resources, which is a big thing in South Cambridgeshire.
The technology also benefits humans, as colleagues have mentioned. For example, the Japanese tomatoes that are on sale at the moment will reduce blood pressure, there are US soya beans with less saturated fat, and there are less carcinogenic amino acids in wheat. All of those are benefits. It can bring benefits to animals, too, by ensuring chickens are immune to avian flu and pigs are immune to swine flu, but we need to make sure that this is not used in any way to reduce animal welfare standards—I strongly support the Secretary of State’s assurance that we will not compromise on animal welfare standards as a result of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned the industry’s concern that part 3 of the Bill means the Food Standards Agency will require a full risk assessment for food and feed, as if it is a genetically modified organism with genetics from two different species, rather than the traditional breeding approval process. This adds time, cost and uncertainty. The developers and breeders will not know if their crop will be improved at the end, so the measure will damage investment in the sector.
Such decisions should be based on science and evidence. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Health Canada, and the European Food Safety Authority agree that there is no difference between the risk profiles of traditionally bred strains and precision-bred strains, and therefore there should be no difference in the approval process. They are, in essence, exactly the same. It is impossible to tell the difference between them.
The irony is that, by gold-plating in this way, we risk ending up with a more restrictive regime than the EU’s regime. This is meant to be a Brexit opportunity, but it could end up with the EU taking the lead. A few amendments may be needed but, with that caveat, I strongly commend the Bill to the House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
We have heard today of the potential benefits and of how gene editing could have a role to play in reducing our reliance on fertilisers and pesticides and in creating food that is resistant to drought or food that is more nutritious. We have heard about vitamin D in tomatoes, and there has been a long-running conversation about vitamin A being added to golden rice, although it has yet to live up to its billing.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) that the Bill is very thin on the regulatory framework. Perhaps the Government ought to have put those measures in place before steaming ahead with developing these products. His points on labelling were well made, too. The concerns about cross-contamination and support for organic food producers and consumers are valid.
The Soil Association has raised concerns about the commercialisation of crops and tells us that just four companies control more than 60% of the global seed supply. I do not have time to go into detail on those concerns, but they need to be flagged up in Committee. I went to talk to farmers in El Salvador after the Central America free trade agreement, and they want to support organic farms and natural seeds but were told they cannot because, under the free trade agreement, alternatives from Monsanto and others have to be allowed into the market. I would be very concerned if such a situation were allowed to develop here at the expense of people who want to go down the organic route.
The most problematic part of the Bill concerns the gene editing of animals. I accept there are some positives, such as helping to reduce our reliance on antibiotics, but there are other ways to do that. Other countries have been much better than us in restricting the routine overuse of antibiotics.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said the Bill is trying to tackle the symptoms, not the causes. If not for the ever-growing intensification and industrialisation of farming, where animals are crammed together in unsanitary conditions, we would not need to rely on the routine use of antibiotics, as too many farmers do.
We have had an interesting debate on whether we could use technology to suppress the birth of male chicks. At the moment, 29 million male chicks are killed by the poultry industry each year, and 7 billion are killed globally. They are fed into maceration machines—mincing machines—because they do not lay eggs but, again, other countries such as Germany, France and Sweden are already doing things to stop chick shredding without resorting to gene editing.
I am concerned by what the Secretary of State said in response to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) about yields. He did not refute her concern about the Government saying the Bill will enable the development of
“precision-bred plants and animals which will bolster food production”
and “drive economic growth.”
Existing livestock farming methods have already led to the creation of animals that are radically different from their original natural forms. We see turkeys and chickens that are bred to be so heavy that they cannot support their own weight on their legs; the milk yields of cows have more than doubled in the past 40 years, to about 22 litres per day in the UK—that is not natural; and we know that cows, as well as suffering from mastitis, now become infertile extremely quickly from intensive milking. Their life cycle has been reduced from 20 years in the wild to about three or four when raised in intensive farming conditions. Again, the causes, rather than the symptoms, ought to be tackled by the Government as well.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to support this legislation, which is part of the Brexit dividend that gives us the freedom to regulate to support innovation. Unlike the stifling, overly complex EU regime, we have the exciting opportunity to take a proportionate, science-based approach to precision breeding. This is a welcome part of the Government’s focus on science and technology to drive economic growth. My county of Norfolk, and specifically the Norwich Research Park, is well placed to help realise these benefits, as it is home to not only world leading research institutes, but gene editing companies. Of course, it also plays a crucial role in our food production.
It is important to be clear what this Bill is about and what it is not about. Precision breeding is about enabling DNA to be edited much more efficiently and precisely than current breeding techniques to produce beneficial traits. Crucially, these traits can occur through traditional breeding and natural processes. Indeed under clause 1 that is a requirement in order to be classified as a “precision bred organism.” As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) said, this does not involve adding DNA from a different organism, so this is not about genetically modified organisms. Of course, people will want reassurance about the safety of these techniques. The expert independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has stated that precision bred organisms
“posed no greater risk than their traditionally bred or naturally arising counterparts.”
By adopting a more agile regulatory approach, the time taken to comply with existing GMO regulation for getting precision bred crops to market will be cut from an estimated 10 years to just one. That is a huge win to accelerate innovation, and secure productivity and efficiency gains in crop production.
The real world benefits are significant, as we see if we just think about the disease-resistant crops that reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers. In my constituency, the yields of sugar beet have been wiped out considerably in recent years, as the Secretary of State said. The UK Research and Innovation-funded study has identified sources of genetic resistance that would reduce the need for neonicotinoids—for pesticides—thus helping to protect the environment, increase food production and reduce costs to farmers. There is also the potential for crops to withstand changing climates, and there are also health and nutritional benefits. Colleagues have referred to the pioneering work that the John Innes Centre is doing to produce precision bred, high vitamin D tomatoes. In addition, tomato leaves are usually only waste material, but by editing the genes, those leaves could be used to make vitamin D supplements, thus reducing waste.
The disproportionate approach by the EU led to advanced breeding being moved outside the EU, and now we can take a lead in catalysing food science and innovation, and attracting inward investment. We can do so on the basis that precision bred organisms that have occurred naturally, or through conventional methods, should not face unnecessary layers of regulation. That was the original rationale of the Bill. As others have said, there are real concerns among crop and plant breeders that the power to introduce sweeping new regulations under part 3 of the Bill could see the introduction of additional new hurdles that are not scientifically justified—new requirements that do not apply to conventionally bred crop varieties. That would be a major disincentive to bringing these new techniques in. It is essential that we do not remove the EU bureaucratic rules only to allow the FSA to reimpose requirements that are not proportionate or necessary. Otherwise, what is the point in diverging from the EU approach?
In conclusion, I look for an assurance from the Minister that this opportunity to boost our agritech sector will be based firmly on a proportionate approach, and that during the passage of the Bill commitments will be made and included in the legislation to ensure a light-touch, low-cost and pro-innovation approach.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In broad terms, I support the idea of encouraging a science-based approach to technologies such as genetic editing for precision breeding. In general terms, I accept that such methods will be helpful in the fight against climate change and excessive antibiotic use, among other things, and that they have the potential to reduce the need for pesticides in farming. I welcome that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the European Food Safety Authority have advised that no more risk is attached to precision-bred foods than to those from traditional breeding methods.
I would like clarification on some other implications of the Bill. First and foremost, I am concerned that it is a slight distraction from the current crisis facing British farmers. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s assertions this morning, Liberal Democrats are broadly supportive of the concept of the environmental land management scheme and the sustainable farming incentive, and we welcome a replacement for the basic farm payment. However, the farmers we meet, such as those I met on Friday, tell us that the reduction in the farm payment this year, when the replacement scheme is not yet in place, is causing genuine hardship. They would like to get on board with the new schemes, but the up-front costs make it unlikely that they will bother. A deregulated environment for precision breeding will not help them, because they might not be in business to benefit from it. We need to back farmers with a smooth transition between subsidy schemes to make sure we still have farmers who can benefit from the changes the Government propose.
The Bill is a bit light on detail on the new regulatory requirements for these crops and animals. Will the Minister clarify how the Government will identify any unforeseen environmental consequences once these products are released into the environment? It would be useful to understand how unintended downsides will be dealt with if they happen.
As many Members have suggested, there are concerns about animal welfare. While editing the genes of a pig, for example, to make it resistant to the worst types of disease is welcome, that must not be a shortcut to allowing pigs to be reared in less hygienic and more crowded conditions. Not only must their welfare continue to be protected; it must be continuously improved.
Given the amount of rhetoric over the past couple of years from Government Front Benchers about a bonfire of regulations, how can consumers be reassured that the Bill is not a back-door route to reducing animal welfare and environmental standards, in which our farmers have led the world? It certainly makes no provision for food labelling, that would allow consumers to decide whether or not they prefer a precision-bred product. Those concerns are a direct consequence of the fact that it is not at all clear how the precautionary principle outlined in the Environment Act 2021 and the Government’s environmental principles policy statement of 12 May will be applied in this area. At points, the two seem to be directly at odds with each other. I ask for clarity from DEFRA on that point.
We are proud of the progress our farmers have made and the high standards they have achieved. We do not want all that effort to be wasted now through a back-door watering down of standards. I am worried about the impact that any reduction in confidence in British food and agricultural products would have on the export of our excellent food products to the EU, which we know takes a more cautious approach to gene-editing technologies.
I would like a complete overhaul of food labelling so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. Then, if there is a Union Jack on the package, they can be confident that the animal has been reared on a British farm by a British farmer, or that the carrot has been pulled from a British field, and that they have not just been butchered or peeled here. If the animal or carrot has been bred through a gene-editing process, that should be clearly marked on the package, so that the consumer can make the choice. It is vital to empower consumers with as much information as possible, so that they can make informed choices and have trust in the quality of the food they buy.
In conclusion, I support the Bill, but with qualifications. We need to build trust and confidence in our food chain. Transparency in labelling, appropriate regulation to provide readiness for unforeseen circumstances, and maintaining and improving animal welfare standards would help deliver that. I urge the Government to consider those points in Committee. As I said, the priority at the moment must be the viability of our family farms in the short term. They need short-term support—
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
It has been said, but it bears repetition, that gene editing is different from genetic modification, because it does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species. Gene editing creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced more slowly by traditional natural breeding processes. Without this legislation, that process would continue to be regulated in the same way as genetically modified organisms.
The Bill will introduce simpler regulatory measures to enable these products to be authorised and brought to market more easily, but not without the appropriate controls. The devil, as they say, is in the detail, and however the legislation is progressed and scrutinised in Parliament, and whatever final form it takes, we can be assured that it will be more fit for purpose for our country than the EU regulations it replaces.
I am, of course, aware that the legislation will apply only in England, but I welcome the UK Government’s invitation to the devolved Administrations, particularly the Scottish Government, to take part in this process on a UK-wide basis. Although disappointed that the Scottish Government have so far declined to accept that invitation, favouring rather to remain aligned with the EU, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that that door remains open for them to take part. I am hopeful that, ultimately, they may welcome the opportunity to participate in that programme.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that the Scottish National party would like to move at the more pedestrian pace of the European Union, some two years behind us on the introduction of this technology?
David Duguid
I may be tempted to agree with that, but, in my experience as a Scotland Office Minister, I think that it is much more productive to work with Scottish Government Ministers behind the scenes; outside the sometimes febrile mode of this Chamber, we can work together on these things. Again, I encourage the Scottish Government and my SNP colleagues in this House to come to the table and work on that basis.
From talking to farmers and food producers in my own constituency, as well as to the National Farmers Union of Scotland, I know that gene editing technology in food production is not only desirable, but one of many crucial tools that can be made available to all British farmers. I quoted the president of NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy, earlier. He did go on to say that the NFU of Scotland
“is disappointed that the Scottish Government has chosen not to partake in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in favour of a European ruling on gene editing.”
In my regular ongoing discussions with NFU Scotland over the years, one of its major concerns—not its only concern, to be fair—is maintaining the integrity of the UK internal market, which is something that I very much hope will not be impacted by any divergence in legislation across Great Britain.
Gene editing, as has been said, can improve crop yields by allowing scientists to modify crops to be more resilient to the changing climate and produce more nutrient-rich produce. I therefore believe that such a Bill will advance the UK’s crop resilience and agricultural economy for years to come.
I am glad to see that the UK, including the Roslin Institute and the James Hutton Institute in Scotland, are leading gene editing technology across Europe, promoting agricultural development in an environmentally sustainable way, and prompting, we hope, an increase in investment in United Kingdom businesses. I therefore believe that this Bill will help to energise the UK’s agriculture and food production industry.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to establish a proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred animals, which will allow the UK to retain its high animal welfare standards while increasing livestock resistance to health issues, such as respiratory syndrome in pigs, improving their welfare and quality of life. I do not think that it is an either/or proposition. We can be improving living conditions for animals and using this technology.
In conclusion, this Bill is a valuable piece of legislation that should benefit our food production industry right across the UK, and I look forward to seeing its progress through Parliament. I again express my hope that, at this early stage of the Bill, the Scottish Government and SNP colleagues in this place—with their customary challenge and scrutiny, of course—decide to take part in this process for the good of farmers and food producers in Scotland as well as across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition this interesting debate on gene editing. I must say that the level of input has been high quality, with important points made across the House.
I trust that the Minister was listening carefully to the words of advice and guidance given to her by hon. Members across the House, but in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who has led on this topic for the Opposition for several years.
Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system while addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused. We also recognise, as has been said, that laws designed 30 years ago for genetically modified products need to be updated and that most countries are recognising that gene editing needs to be treated differently.
We are more than willing to work with the Government to achieve real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. We want the Government to prioritise innovations that would provide public benefit and prosperity. We want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK, and we know that crop development and innovation has brought us all huge gains. But that requires a strong regulatory framework to get it right, and this Bill does not provide that. It needs substantial amendment. We need a strong regulatory framework that will give scientists and businesses the confidence to invest here in the UK, while giving confidence and knowledge to consumers so they can make informed decisions—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made eloquently.
We welcome the research and innovation currently under way, but to get this legislation right, the Government must have a strong plan to balance the risks and manage trade-offs. Of course we cannot afford to let risks paralyse our course of action, but we do need a system that manages those risks and provides security and transparency for businesses and consumers alike.
The Bill provides for the deregulation of genetic editing of vertebrate animals and includes a provision to establish a welfare advisory body. That advisory body must report to the Secretary of State to inform them whether the originator of a genetically edited organism under consideration has identified any adverse impacts on animal welfare and made an appropriate risk assessment for their proposals.
However, the Bill as it stands does not specify which adverse impacts on animals would be grounds for a GEO application’s being denied, nor does it lay out what evidence the advisory body will consider with regards to animal welfare. Several non-governmental organisations and civil society groups have criticised that element of the Bill.
The Government’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 made provisions for an Animal Sentience Committee to scrutinise and consider the impact of legislation on animal welfare, but the committee has not yet been fully established. Can the Minister explain in her wind up why she is pressing ahead with this legislation before the Animal Sentience Committee has had time to consider it?
Research has overwhelmingly found that consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from that for genetically modified foods, but they want clear labelling and effective regulation of gene-edited products so they can choose the products that suit their lifestyle. Surely that is not an unreasonable ask.
Here we have a much-needed Bill, given the need for agri-innovation and scientific development, and of course the Opposition welcome the concept. But why oh why is this legislation being rushed in? We need strong and robust regulation of this important and developing field. We need clear scientific evidence and strong protections to safeguard animal welfare. We need clear and transparent labelling to protect and inform consumers. Yet again we see truth in the saying “Legislate in haste, repent at leisure”, and I urge the Government to consider our concerns and those of stakeholders and consumers and be open to constructive criticism in Committee. If they are prepared to do that, we will not push for a vote on Second Reading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). I also thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and the Opposition for the constructive way they have leaned into this debate today. I would immediately say, “Yes, we need to work together on this.” I think the majority of those in this House see the huge opportunity we have here.
“The emergence of genome editing is a significant moment, as it represents a possible step change in introducing a new generation of potentially transformative biotechnologies into the food and farming system.”
Those are not my words; they are from the Nuffield report.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, which will hugely enhance our future food security. May I draw the Minister’s attention to pioneering new genetic editing techniques being developed at the University of Nottingham’s Sutton Bonington campus, and invite her to join me on a visit there to see that groundbreaking research in action?
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend very much. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble is an alumna of that august institution, as indeed am I, so I would be delighted to visit it. That intervention raises a key point that, because of the limited time, I will address in a general sense.
We do have some of the finest institutions, and many of them are lodged in Scotland. The James Hutton Institute and the Roslin Institute are beyond good in this space. They need to be supported. They do not need to wait for others to follow. Our door is open. We want to get this right. We want to work with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Professor Colin Campbell of the James Hutton Institute has said that it is right. Professor Helen Sang from the Roslin Institute has given evidence to say that this is what we need. She is working on ensuring that we can beat avian flu, which attacks both animals kept inside barns and those kept outside.
We have the opportunity to improve animal welfare here, and I would like to address that point full on. Animal welfare is currently of a high standard in this country, and it is not true to say that this Bill will affect it. Our animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, passed by Labour. These provisions help to reinforce the fact that the welfare of animals is a key priority, and it is simply not true to say that the Bill will lead to a diminution in those standards.
The Bill allows us to take the opportunities that have been presented to us through leaving the European Union. It is important to celebrate our country’s strengths at Rothamsted, James Hutton, John Innes and Roslin, all of which I have visited, and I hope to go to Aberystwyth soon. It is important that we move on this as a country. By encouraging greater research and development in the use of precision-breeding technologies, we are supporting that drive. Innovation is key to enhancing the sustainability and resilience of our agricultural systems by harnessing the benefits of precision breeding to eradicate disease, as we have discussed.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer addressed the issue of section 3. The Bill provides the Food Standards Agency with an opportunity to build from scratch a tailor-made framework that is proportionate for the UK. This will allow swifter progress for businesses wishing to market precision-bred organisms while still ensuring the safety of our food.
I could not agree more that safety, transparency, proportionality, traceability and customer confidence is what we are building here. The EU is currently reviewing its systems and has acknowledged that its current system is not fit for purpose. I would indeed be happy to share that documentation, which is publicly available, with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. It is important that we move ahead in this area, and our scientists, farmers and researchers all want us to do it. It is simply not true to say that this will allow multinationals and conglomerates to drive forward in this space. Actually, in the countries that have already driven PBOs into their system, we see democratisation, with a greater proportion of precision breeding patents being held by smaller and local businesses.
In response to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in her place, I agree that food security is a top priority. We have taken account of the Nuffield report and public concerns, and we are constantly in dialogue with our stakeholders. On Monday, we met animal welfare stakeholders to talk about the declaration and how they can feed into that. I agree that consumers need clear labelling, but the FSA will authorise products for sale only if they present no risk to health and do not mislead customers.
As this technology brings no safety risk, labelling will not be required to indicate the methods used in breeding. It is unnecessary because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it is the same as traditional breeding. The countries that are already in this space—Canada, Japan, the United States, Brazil and Argentina—do not do that. A public register will be available on gov.uk to ensure further traceability.
There is a great deal more that I could go into on the particular things that were brought up, but I want to finish by saying that this is a huge area of advantage. We need to go forward as a country making sure that we take our scientists with us, enhance our research and breeding practices, and enable consumer confidence. Ultimately the key aim of the Bill is to ensure that precision-bred plants, animals, food and feed products are regulated proportionately to their risk so that we can fully embrace the benefits and advantages of scientific progress that has been made over the past 30 years. The Bill is good news, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill: PROGRAMME
Wednesday 15th June 2022
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill: Money
Wednesday 15th June 2022
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements: Hansard colleagues will be grateful if hon. Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk; I ask hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent; and a reminder that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I have also been asked if hon. Members may remove their jackets: you have my permission to do so—it is quite warm in here. Date Time Witness Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 10.10 am NFU Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 10.35 am Professor Gideon Henderson, Chief Scientific Advisor, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 11.00 am Food Standards Agency Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 11.25 am Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 2.35 pm The Royal Society; The Royal Society of Biology Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 3.15 pm Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd; Rothamsted Research Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 3.50 pm Organic Farmers & Growers; Soil Association Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 4.30 pm NIAB; Crop Science Centre Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 4.50 pm British Society of Plant Breeders Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 5.10 pm The Center for Aquaculture Technologies Thursday 30 June Until no later than 12.15 pm The Roslin Institute; Genus; The Pirbright Institute Thursday 30 June Until no later than 1.00 pm Nuffield Council on Bioethics; Dr Madeline Campbell, Senior Lecturer in Human-Animal Interactions and Ethics, Royal Veterinary College; Compassion in World Farming Thursday 30 June Until no later than 2.20 pm RSPCA Thursday 30 June Until no later than 2.50 pm Beyond GM/A Bigger Conversation Thursday 30 June Until no later than 3.30 pm Professor David Rose, Professor of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Cranfield University; Michael Edenborough QC, Serle Court Chambers; Professor Sarah Hartley, Associate Professor, University of Exeter Thursday 30 June Until no later than 3.50 pm Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) Thursday 30 June Until no later than 4.10 pm Paul Temple, Farmer, Member of the Science Agriculture Advisory Group Thursday 30 June Until no later than 4.30 pm Benchmark Genetics Thursday 30 June Until no later than 5.10 pm NIAB; John Innes Centre; KWS
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private, if we so wish, about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally. I ask the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 28 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 June;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 30 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 July;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 7 July;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 July;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 12 July.— (Jo Churchill.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members via email.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jo Churchill.)
The Chair
Informally, I discussed with the Minister and the shadow Minister whether the Committee might wish to sit in private to consider the structure of the questioning, but both agreed that there is no need for that, so I will not put that motion. We can therefore now commence the oral evidence session. If Members have any relevant interests to declare, now is the time to do so. No.
Examination of Witnesses
David Exwood and Dr Helen Ferrier gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from David Exwood, vice-president, and Dr Helen Ferrier, chief science and regulatory affairs adviser, both of the National Farmers Union. Thank you for coming this morning. I can see that you are both there—both our witnesses are appearing via Zoom.
Before calling the Minister to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must also stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. This session will finish at 10.10 am. With all witnesses, I will first call the Minister and then the shadow Minister, before opening up to questions from others in the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Q
David Exwood: I think farmers welcome this Bill, because of the possibilities it offers. I am really clear that the big gains, the big changes, in farming are all around breeding. Yes, there are gains in productivity around my machinery, but really the exciting things in the future are all around breeding and the possibilities that brings, and the Bill will help with that.
For all my farming career, I have used pesticides as part of the process. I am very happy about that, but we now genuinely have an opportunity to produce as much food as we do now but with much less impact. So I think farmers welcome the Bill, which opens a world of possibilities and addresses the challenges we face at the moment. There is so much pressure on land use, and the ability to produce the same amount of food as we do now but with less environmental impact and more sustainably is something all farmers welcome.
Dr Ferrier: Ultimately, the market will decide whether this technology is adopted here, but I think that, before that happens, the regulatory system and the legislative process will decide whether farmers and growers have access. The technology is clearly being developed around the world, and regulatory processes are being reviewed and put in place around the world. Farmers and growers are not going to be able to access the products of the technology and realise those benefits that David has talked about if companies are discouraged or regulation is not enabling. So the impact of the Bill depends on how well it is written and whether it will be proportionate and fit for purpose and will therefore encourage the investment of breeding companies that then enables farmers to adopt the products of the technology.
Jo Churchill
I have other questions, but I would like this process to be collegiate, so perhaps we should go to others, because they may ask the same questions as I will.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
David Exwood: Virus yellows in beet is something carried by aphids into the sugar beet crop in the spring and it can have a dramatic effect on yield. We saw two years ago reductions of up to 80% in the beet yield in affected fields. So that is a real-life example of a pest that can dramatically affect the productivity of a crop. We produce about 1 million tonnes of sugar beet in this country each year, and that can be dramatically reduced through virus yellows.
Through precision breeding, we have the ability to breed in genes resistant to virus yellows so that the plant just will not be impacted and all the issues of neonicotinoids and using synthetic insecticides to try to control the aphids and control the impact of virus yellows will disappear. That is a real gain in an industry that clearly needs support and could be really impacted. That is the really clear gain and potential of this technology that the Bill will allow. And there is the point about the sustainability of that business. It is such a concentrated business in a certain area of the country.
To move on to the trade environment, this technology absolutely has to be one that is used widely. I am really clear that the EU is moving on gene editing and precision breeding; it is very clear about that. Actually, my greatest worry is that the UK gets left behind on this technology. The rest of the world is moving, and we need to move with it. We absolutely live, work and trade in a European environment and a world environment, but, given that the EU is moving, my concern is more that we get left behind, rather than us moving ahead of them and nobody coming with us.
Dr Ferrier: Obviously, it is very difficult to predict, but the indications from companies are that, should this legislative change happen, it would be at least five years before products start come on to the market for farmers and growers to use. Clearly, the international trade impacts will depend on the harmonisation across trading partners in terms of the legislation in their jurisdictions. I believe that within the period necessary for those products to come on stream commercially, there will be much more harmonisation. As David said, that will also happen in the EU, which plans a legislative proposal by quarter 2 of 2023. We are not concerned about imminent trade issues, because no products are available for us to use at the moment.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
David Exwood: Absolutely. We run our consultation process and work up our policy as one organisation that brings in all sectors—organics being one of them. I think everybody recognises the advantages of technology; everybody recognises the benefits that breeding brings. That goes for organic farmers and smaller farmers as well as large farmers. We have to co-exist alongside organic farming in all circumstances—we are very clear about that. We do not see that as a challenge; we already run slightly separate systems and it does not significantly alter business in any way.
The key element of the Bill for small farmers is that it is drafted in such a way as to make it as widely available as possible. It needs to be open to as many farmers as possible—that is how it will bring the most benefit. Breeding actually brings benefit to all farmers, and a good variety of wheat or sugar beet, say, is something that all farmers will benefit from, regardless of their size.
Deidre Brock
Q
David Exwood: Yes, I do. As I said, we run existing codes, and conventional and organic already co-exist. This does not change that in any way. We have to make sure that we are able to do that. There has to be a co-existence—I am very happy about that—which is a key part of our policy and our ask. I do not see the Bill as being a challenge to that.
Dr Ferrier: The market for organic versus conventional or other systems currently enables segregation for different specifications that the market might ask for. We see that continuing to run as it does at the moment. When a buyer has particular specification, there is certification for organics. As we understand it, the certification for organics would not currently allow the use of precision bred organisms. Obviously, that could change, allowing for segregated supply chains, just as with food-grade versus industrial-grade oilseed rape, or with sweetcorn and forage maize, which are kept apart.
If you are getting a new variety of a particular crop, for example, and you grow a crop for seed multiplication purposes, the high-purity requirements for that seed are there and are managed within the supply chain. We see that continuing to apply for organic farmers.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Q
Dr Ferrier: Certainly, the most recent development in countries reviewing their legislation, and one that I think would be really useful for you to look at, is what Health Canada, the Canadian authority, has done. It has recently reviewed its legislation and put out some technical guidance. The key thing is that it confirms that precision bred organisms do not pose any additional safety risks compared with conventionally bred plant varieties. That is driving Canada’s regulatory process. It is not proposing different authorisation and risk-assessment processes. It does not believe that that would add any significant benefit for consumers or the environment, because the science does not show any additional risks—that is very similar to the European Food Safety Authority opinion from the end of November 2020.
Argentina is certainly a very interesting case. Since it has put in place proportionate and enabling regulations—such as those that the Government propose in this Bill—it has seen a real increase in the number of small and medium-sized enterprises and public-good breeding R&D activities taking products through that regulatory process, so that it is not just the preserve of the largest companies that are able to pay for and absorb any uncertainty in a less ideal or dysfunctional regulatory process.
Japan is another example of where a product—a tomato—has been through that process. In countries that put in place proper regulation, the actual process is functional and works well for the companies. Those countries then see investment in R&D and into commercial companies. That is bringing through the products. South America, North America and Japan are investing in this. It is interesting to see how quickly the science develops into commercial opportunities once the regulations are right.
David Exwood: The challenges that we face as farmers in the UK—sustainability, climate change and so on—are the challenges faced by farmers across the world, and we are all looking for solutions to those problems. It is interesting that across the world, there is a move on this technology, which we are seeing quite widely. That is because everybody is looking for answers and solutions to the challenges that we all face.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Dr Ferrier: There is no evidence that that would be the case, but we understand that people have concerns about existing farming systems. We see that expressed, and we work hard to address it. To me, that is a separate issue from the Bill. We can have discussions about how to improve animal welfare, but I really do not think that it would be sensible, I guess, to design special elements of this particular Bill to address general concerns about farming systems.
The other important thing to be aware of is all the existing animal welfare rules and activities within Government and industry. Obviously the Animal Welfare Act 2006 applies, so we need not duplicate elements of that in the Bill, and there are codes of practice for each sector that are being reviewed all the time. Also, the action plan for animal welfare is in place, and the animal welfare pathway is being developed. We therefore think that concerns in the area, which are freely expressed, are being, and can be, dealt with through appropriate parts of legislation and industry action.
The Bill, which relates to just one particular technology, is not the place to address those areas. We have talked about the challenges. It is not just a challenge for growers of crops; there are a lot of difficulties that are climate change-related, and disease, health and welfare-related production challenges for farmers. There are genetic solutions to some of those challenges that we would like to see explored. We would like farmers to have the benefit of them, but we will only be able to explore them if the legislation enables companies to invest in the technologies to work out whether some of them could help. We can only see benefit from using this technology to address some of those problems.
Ruth Jones
Mr Exwood, do you want to add anything specifically on gene editing and animal welfare?
David Exwood: I understand the concerns about animal welfare, but it is really important to say that with animals the ability to produce sustainability with less impact applies just the same as with crops. I have dehorned thousands of cattle in my farming career, and the ability to breed out horns in cattle is a clear gain for people and livestock. It would be good for everybody. I would be very happy if I never had to dehorn another calf again. I understand the nervousness, but there are things that this Bill will offer that are clearly a gain. It is wrong to assume that it will just lead to an intensification of production.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Q
David Exwood: Yes, we do have concerns. The main concern is that farmers across the UK should have access to this technology. I would urge that the gains we see are available to all. I understand the politics of the situation, but again I think that the fact that the EU is moving on this and has made clear signals about the direction of travel gives us some reassurance that across the whole continent we are moving to a different position on this technology. Therefore, the other countries of the UK should be looking to where everybody is moving and our market is moving, and think about how they might want to be in line, alongside what we could do in England.
Dr Ferrier: To be honest, I think it is a real shame, because clearly some of the best scientists and geneticists are operating in Wales and Scotland. There is a real strength. A lot of investment goes on under our devolved Administrations to invest in the science, but in order for there to be a return on that investment, it needs to lead to some kind of commercial adoption. It is a real shame for those scientists to consider that their work will not go beyond the lab if those Administrations’ positions remain the same. I do not think this should be a political issue, because it is about recognising a technology that has a lot of potential to do good things for the environment, society, animals, and farmers and growers; it would be a shame if it were a political issue. We will see. Time will tell whether movement within the EU—which certainly for the Scottish Government, as you know, is a key place where they are looking to see what approach they should take—will change the position. It would be a shame if this were derailed for political reasons when the issues are not political.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
David Exwood: A key example might be soya beans. The current situation is that people have tried over a number of years to grow soya beans. Clearly, it is desirable to grow more of our own homegrown protein, but given that that is quite difficult, it is the sort of opportunity that this technology could give us—the opportunity to make varieties better adapted to our climate, so that we can grow such crops. I do not want to promise too much, but clearly breeding, as I said, offers some of the big solutions in the future. It is those sorts of solutions that we perhaps cannot quite see yet but that may well help us to be much more sustainable in what we do.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Ferrier: We have really excellent scientists. We have some really world-leading plant science organisations here. An example is NIAB in Cambridge, as Daniel Zeichner will know very well. The scientific capability is certainly there. Obviously, it needs funding, and increasingly research funding is seeking to enable impact from research—impact beyond the academic world, but on society and the economy. Based on that, if research funders see that there is a route to market eventually for the science that they are funding, that will increase the investment in research and development. Of course, the statutory instrument passed a few months ago will enable and make easier the R&D for these particular technologies, which is a good first step. Then, if we have a clear route to market, that will be a further incentive to explore those funding streams.
Of course, with funding comes greater capability, because research organisations are then able to recruit the best researchers. When we were doing our consultation of our members on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation last year, we had scientists come and talk to our members, including a wheat scientist from the John Innes Centre, who explained the science he was doing and the potential for that to address some of our members’ challenges. We have seen in the food White Paper the reference of protein crops and finding ways to get sources of plant-based protein. Some considerable investment in R&D is required in order for that to become a greater commercial proposition for growers in this country.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Q
Dr Ferrier: I guess we are talking about a new, not genetically modified food. I have not done a comparison of current GM foods on the market—the chocolate bars and the oils, for example—so I am not sure where they sit. Organic commands are premium partly because of the greater cost of producing organic. Maybe David could talk about that. On potential products that might come through precision breeding, it depends on the product. I think there is potential, as we have already seen with some conventionally bred products, such as a broccoli with higher antioxidant levels or eggs high in nutrients, for some premium products that have nutritional benefits, but initially there may not be any difference in the final price in shop.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
Dr Ferrier: From conventionally produced wheat, for example, for baking a conventional loaf. It depends on the products that come through. It is difficult to judge, but there are examples, such as a heart-healthy tomato in Japan that has an extra benefit that may command a premium in shops. It is very difficult to tell. I think organic always has that premium. As I said, currently that premium will include the fact that they do not use biotechnology. They do in some of their veterinary medicines, for example, but I mean in the actual production of organic food.
There is a premium for organic. I do not know whether there is a premium for GM or if it is cheaper. Clearly, if it is easier to grow a food product, there is potential to pass that on to the consumer. One relevant element that we may come to later is other requirements around the marketing of precision bred organisms. For example, extra labelling always increases the cost of getting food on a shelf. That could be a cost for the final consumer.
David Exwood: Could I just add to that? It is worth pointing out that, rather than perhaps massively increased yields, what this will increase is the sustainability and reliability of crops. Being able to grow crops consistently with less volatility is the real gain here. You will not see wild swings due to crop impact, or maybe a pest impact such as we were talking about with sugar beet earlier. Its sustainability is the great offer, and that is clearly a real advantage at a time when the global food supply chain is under pressure. That is probably one of the main advantages offered by this technology.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
David Exwood: It is really interesting. What is happening in the world grain market is a coincidence of problems: the political situation in Ukraine, obviously, but also production problems in the rest of the world. We have serious drought in the US midwest and problems in India, so it is that combination of climate and politics that has created the current spike in prices. Clearly, for example, if we can breed varieties that are more drought-tolerant, that will help with the food supply chain. Again, it has the potential to offer quite significant gains in the sustainability of our food supply.
Dr Ferrier: It is many years away, but I am sure these kinds of shocks will return. Obviously, whatever happens with this Bill, we are not going to have an immediate silver bullet to answer our current issues and shocks within the supply chain.
The Chair
I have three Members indicating that they want to ask questions, and we have nine minutes left, so the time allocation is fairly obvious.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Q
David Exwood: I can make you aware that my counterparts—the presidents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—wrote to their respective Ministers in support of the Bill, and urged them to support this legislation. I hope that gives you comfort that farmers across the UK see the benefits of the Bill, want to have access to this technology, and are urging—as Helen said—that politics should not override the clear gains here. Yes, we have consulted: we all agree as the four unions, and we would all like to see this technology adopted and available to all farmers in the UK.
David Duguid
Q
Dr Ferrier: Yes, they are. We are having to ensure that at the moment, as I said, the certification requirements are obeyed and can be delivered on. It is the same as for other things that the organic sector cannot use that the conventional sector can, or for certain specifications, so I definitely believe that the current segregation arrangements would also apply here, enabling that certification rule to be followed.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Q
Dr Ferrier: We are definitely not opposed to transparency, and we are very much in favour of the notification arrangements that are set out in the Bill. That is something that we worked with Government on over a period of time—to be able to have a system within the supply chain, from breeder all the way along, as far as it needs to go, so that the supply chain is aware of the particular breeding technology used. That enables the transparency and the traceability to be there.
We are also not opposed to labelling, as such, because a lot of voluntary, market-led labelling exists already, outside of the statutory system, enabling a retailer, manufacturer or producer to alert the public to something that it particularly wants them to see to try to persuade them to buy that product. Market-led labelling is definitely something that could be achieved, if the market demanded it at the point where products were being used, because we have the notification transparency system within the Bill.
We are opposed to statutory labelling—I guess that position is in line with DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency—because there is no scientific basis for statutory labelling for products that could have been produced through conventional breeding or natural mutations. We therefore believe that, actually, it would be misleading for consumers to have products that were labelled as different when they are not different from their conventionally bred counterparts. We are pleased to see that in the Bill—that any marketing of these products must not mislead the consumer. Of course, the food information to consumers regulations mean that producers of food cannot mislead consumers anyway. So, there is not a scientific basis for statutory labelling, and it would not benefit the consumer. It is really about the safety of the food, so it would not apply to this particular technology because all of those authorisation processes would be in place.
On consumer surveys, which are often quoted, if you ask, “Would you like this particular thing to be labelled?” consumers will generally want that. However, with lots of other breeding techniques, such as radiation-induced mutagenesis, polyploidy induction—don’t ask me to explain what that means—or somatic hybridisation, if you asked consumers “Would you like to see that on a label if it is being used?” they would say yes. We need to be led by the science of whether these products are actually different if you are going to put a statutory labelling requirement in place. If the market wants to label when the time comes, that will certainly be possible with the transparency arrangements in place.
Clive Lewis
Q
Dr Ferrier: I just do not think labelling is a way to deliver policy. It is very blunt.
The Chair
Thank you, Dr Ferrier and David Exwood, for your time and valuable contribution. We now move on to our next witness.
Examination of Witness
Professor Gideon Henderson gave evidence.
The Chair
We have before us Professor Gideon Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at DEFRA, who is on Zoom. For this session, we have until 10.35 am. Professor Henderson, would you like very briefly to introduce yourself for the record?
Professor Henderson: Hello, I am Professor Gideon Henderson, and I am chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Apologies for not being in the Committee Room with you.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Henderson: Yes, I would. I think I can reassure the Committee on both those questions. I have been involved since the very early stages of the preparation of this Bill in consulting widely with the scientific community, advising Ministers and officials in my Department and others, and talking to stakeholder groups about the science and its implications. The Bill has taken into account the science and the most expert views of it in a very diverse way. I am personally content that it is fit for purpose and will ensure the continued safety of the environment and food.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: There is an interesting question about how far deregulation into genetic technologies ought to go in one step. Some groups of scientists would certainly favour a model in which you relax the regulation much more widely and base all the outcomes on the traits that are produced through that technology—the outcome in the product—rather than having any view about the technology or the process by which the product is made. That is certainly a view that some scientists would hold.
The view of Government—this has played out in a number of stakeholder groups— has been that moving more cautiously to deregulate or lower the regulation of some aspects of genetic technologies first is a cautious and stepwise way to move. That takes account of the science, enables us to be aware of the issues as they arise, and most importantly builds the confidence of the public as those technologies are used more widely in food production. That is the justification for moving first into the use of technologies only to mimic breeding processes through precision breeding, as described in the Bill.
There is a difficulty in describing the limits of what is possible with breeding. It is clear that some things that are possible—we know they are possible because we have done them—are very similar to things that have been done, and they are therefore clearly in scope. There are other examples that are clearly not possible through breeding. In between those, there is something of a grey area. There is now detailed advice from an expert group—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—that lays out the definition of the circumstances in which something would be considered possible through breeding, and therefore would be considered a precision bred organism, to define the line within that grey area.
You also asked about exogenous material, by which I take it you mean material from another species. That sort of material can occur entirely naturally, and it can occur during breeding processes as well, but in general it does not lead to any functional change or any phenotypic change. The Bill is designed not to allow exogenous material, if it has any functional or phenotypic outcome in the product. In that way, it does mimic the action of traditional breeding. I hope that answers your question.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: The Bill is designed to exclude the intentional inclusion of exogenous material, or the residual accidental inclusion that has any outcome that matters. That is probably the shortest way of summarising it. If there happens to be a bit of exogenous material in there that is similar to what might happen through the natural breeding process, or entirely naturally, but it has no functional outcome—no phenotypic change on the crop or the livestock—that is not considered an issue. Any intentional or accidental change that leads to a phenotypic outcome—the crop being different in a way that could not have been possible through traditional breeding—is not allowed under the terms of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: GMO is a broad church of definition. A thing that is clearly outside of the terms of the Bill is the intentional insertion of a transgene—genes from another species—in order to create the effect that you wanted. That would be in order to make the product different in some way by bringing in an—[Inaudible.]
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: It is to do with intentionality, but it is also to do with the outcome—[Inaudible.]
Daniel Zeichner
We are losing you, but I get the drift. I will leave it there.
The Chair
Professor Henderson, I do not know if you can hear me, but you are frozen on our screen.
Jo Churchill
Perhaps we can ask Professor Henderson to dial off and dial back. Let us see if we can retrieve him.
The Chair
You are back, Professor Henderson. We move on to the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Henderson: I can. There is a very wide range of peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the benefits that can arise from the use of gene editing for precision breeding, for building better crops. The list is long and I would be happy to share a long list of some of the references. There was a review paper published in Nature in 2019 that I often refer back to, which summarises the many routes by which we can use gene editing to enhance crops.
I am wary of time, but I could talk at some length about the different sorts of crops that might be beneficial in this context. There is also an extensive peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the safety of these technologies and the fact that the unintended consequences through precision breeding are generally lower than those through traditional breeding, and particularly some of the more extreme mutagenic forms of precision breeding. There is very extensive scientific literature.
You started your question by pointing to the differences of opinion politically on the different sides of the national borders within the United Kingdom. I should say that scientifically, there is not a difference of opinion as you change nations in the country and certainly leading scientists in this sector in Wales and Scotland have also been very instrumental in the peer-reviewed literature that I have mentioned, and they agree with the sense of direction of this Bill, although their political leaders do not.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Henderson: As a scientist, trade is less my area of expertise, but to some extent you could argue that this Bill would enable more trade, because it will enable better crops and more crops to be produced, and therefore they could be more readily traded overseas, giving more market opportunities for UK farmers and markets. [Inaudible.] Therefore, I do not see an immediate problem with any trade with the EU, either.
It is also true to say, as I believe your previous—[Inaudible.] Sorry, are you still there?
The Chair
We are. We missed a little towards the end there, Professor.
Professor Henderson: I am sorry; if it happens again, I will switch wi-fi on to my phone. I do apologise.
I was saying that, from an EU perspective, the final thing to say is that the EU itself is of course consulting on changing the law in a way similar to the way that we are considering, and it is quite likely to change on the same timescale that we will be producing marketable crops.
Ruth Jones
Q
I note in the Bill that the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals; therefore, it follows that it is obviously not just farm animals that we are talking about here. I just wondered what you see the Bill actually covering in terms of applications beyond farm animals—what sort of areas do you see the Bill taking us in?
Professor Henderson: I am sorry; could you repeat the question, please?
Ruth Jones
Yes, okay. In the Bill, the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals. Therefore, it follows that if we are not just talking about farm animals, we are talking about animals outside farms. What sort of applications you were thinking of? As you said, you have been involved in the development of this Bill. What sort of areas are we looking at in terms of the application of gene editing here?
The Chair
Did you hear that question, Professor Henderson?
Professor Henderson: I heard something about—[Interruption.] The application for animals outside the farm is something that will need to be addressed before secondary legislation can be enacted. It is not something that I am willing to discuss now, because I—[Interruption.]
Jo Churchill
I understand, Gideon, that you are on a visit. May I suggest, with the Committee’s indulgence, that we slot you in on Thursday, if people are agreeable and you have the time? Your evidence is both welcome and vital, and we would like to hear from you.
Professor Henderson: Again, I can only apologise for the bad wi-fi I have here. I would be happy to come back to you at any time that suits the Committee.
The Chair
We have 10 minutes left in this session, so let us have one more try. If that is unsuccessful, then, with my co-Chair, we can consider changing the programme motion. We have agreed a programme motion so it would have to be formally changed. Will you ask the question again, Ruth?
Ruth Jones
Did you hear the question, Professor Henderson?
Professor Henderson: I think your question was to do with animals that are not on farms—non-livestock animals—which I take to mean things like pets. In that area, there is a piece of work still to do to ensure that animal welfare is looked after and continues to be well looked after following the passage of any Bill on precision breeding. That is a piece of work that scientific information will need to feed into.
There is a body of evidence on animal welfare, including on-farm and off-farm welfare. That is a process that I believe will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.
Ruth Jones
Q
Professor Henderson: That is our expectation.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
What do you see as the parameters of that? How will the Bill protect animal welfare? Because of the popularity of those dogs, breeders may make use of the new technology to breed even more extreme examples. Would that be desirable? How can we prevent that from happening? You may have answered that in response to my colleague and said that it needs more time, but how do you see that in terms of the desire for increased yields and increased production on farms? Is there not an argument for not including animals in the Bill while this further research takes place?
Professor Henderson: Scientifically, the application of these technologies to cross to livestock or other animals is identical in terms of the changes it can cause. It can mimic the impact of breeding more efficiently, effectively and rapidly. In the livestock and animal area, this has identified more clearly a problem that was already there and the fact that we know, with respect to animal welfare, there are some negative outcomes that come from traditional breeding processes. If we are able to speed that process up through precision breeding, those negative outcomes may occur more quickly.
The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals. That is not because the science is different but because the existing regulation around animals differs from that needed around crops. That is why the instrument is set up as a secondary instrument, so that there is time to fully consider and deal with the animal welfare processes before that is changed in law.
The Chair
Thank you, Professor Henderson. We will end the session there. It has been a difficult session because of the technology. I will consult the Front-Bench spokespeople and we will consider whether to change our programme motion and possibly invite you back, if you would be good enough to return. Thank you for the information you have given us and for your time.
Examination of Witness
Professor Robin May gave evidence.
The Chair
We now come to Professor Robin May. We have until 11 am, so we have gained five minutes. Thank you for giving us your time and expertise this morning. Could you briefly introduce yourself?
Professor May: Certainly. I am Robin May, chief scientific adviser at the Food Standards Agency and a professor of infectious disease at the University of Birmingham.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor May: There are probably two answers to why this is necessary. Currently, precision bred foods and feeds will be encapsulated within the existing GM framework. If they are moving out of that framework, it is important to be sure that those products are safe. The key difference here with traditional breeding is one of pace. The entire point of this technology is to do things that could have been achieved through traditional breeding, but much faster. It is important that we have safety checks along that pathway.
On your question about balance, I think the key balance to strike here is between supporting innovation and ensuring safety. At the moment, our thinking around this is to have a two-streamed process for regulation, where there is a very light-touch process for anything where there is unlikely to be a substantive change in the food and more scrutiny of anything where the final food product is different. I think that is quite appropriate for this blend of technology.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: We have undertaken quite a lot of consumer research in this area, as have many others. There are various take-home messages from that. The first is that there has been a perceptible shift in public views over the last 10 or 20 years, and there has been more interest in the potential benefits of this technology. That is mirrored by a really strong view that the public want some level of regulation and safeguards in this and other genetic technologies.
Specifically around labelling, there is a very strong majority of the public that we have polled, and that others have seen, who would like labelling of these products. There is some difference of views about what that labelling should entail, but there is a strong feeling around it. From an FSA perspective, we would in principle support that, because we stand very strongly for transparency. The problem, sitting here as a scientist, is that this is not really achievable for this particular group of foods, because the entire nature of the precision breeding legislation is to consider things that could have been produced traditionally.
Consequently, you may end up in the future with two apples, for instance, and one was produced by precision breeding that involves gene editing and the other was produced by traditional methods. It would be scientifically impossible—at least, at the moment—to tell those two apart.
Then, from my perspective, my view is that a label that is not enforceable and that might be misleading is actually worse than no label at all, because you then start to spread doubt about the validity of other labels in the food system: allergen labels, nutritional labels. While in principle I think labelling would be a good thing, the fact that we cannot enforce it makes me feel that this is not appropriate for this type of food.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: Labelling in the UK is quite a complex system. There are different legislative responsibilities in the different devolved Administrations, for instance. Broadly speaking, there are a whole variety of things, as we know, on a food label. The most obvious that most of us look at are things such as calories, fat content and salt content. There are very tight legal guidelines around what must be present on the label and that it must be accurate. Clearly, if you say that it contains 6 grams of salt and it contains 7 grams, that is not legal.
That holds also for other aspects. There are safety aspects of labelling, such as allergen information, which is critical for many of us, and country of origin. Then there are a raft of labels that may not have a legal framework, but which have recognition under guidelines—Red Tractor and animal welfare standards, those kinds of things. There is quite a lot on the label already. Under the current legislation, any food that is approved as a genetically modified food is labelled as such.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: That is a good example of somewhere where I think we would have a different approach. Just to go back on the approach we are currently proposing—I stress that there is nothing set in stone yet. This is an approach that we are working quite closely on with our advisory committee on novel foods and processes to develop firm guidelines. At the moment, our thinking is around this two-tier process. Tier 1, for instance, would be foods where there is no compositional change in the thing you eat. A strawberry with a different root system, but the strawberry itself is identical, would not need substantial regulation. In contrast, with the vitamin D tomato that you mentioned, the thing you eat is now different; there is vitamin D in there. Those would be risk assessed and under that risk assessment the key issue there would be one of safety.
In an example such as that one, where there may be a subset of the population for whom this is dangerous, absolutely, we would incorporate that into the risk assessment and our guidance to Ministers then would be that it would be entirely right and appropriate to label that food, possibly with a label that says, “Not suitable for certain groups.” You could imagine a scenario where a food is not suitable for pregnant women, for example, and we would certainly stand strong on the fact that the bottom line is that the food needs to be as safe as it is today. Anything that might compromise safety should clearly be labelled as such.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: That is correct. At the moment, part 3 of the Bill encompasses the direction of travel, but not the details. That is something we are working on at the moment.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor May: Happily, I am here as a scientist, so I can say that, scientifically, we have an extremely close working relationship with FSS and other regulators around the world, but the closest is with FSS.
If I give an example, at the moment, risk assessments that we might do in FSA are shared very closely with FSS. All that process is done together. Often we are using the same sets of experts—for example, to provide information. Once the risk assessment is done, it passes to a risk management process. I cannot think of an example where there is a difference in the risk assessment part between nations, because the science is the science.
Where there are sometimes differences is in the risk management area. A current example is raw drinking milk, because the science around the risks of drinking such milk is the same, but England and Scotland have different views on how much risk is acceptable. Under this framework, I would fully intend that we would share all the science around the risk assessments of a precision-bred product. Ultimately, though, the decision on a risk management basis and whether to authorise it would fall to Ministers in each of the individual countries.
Ruth Jones
Q
Professor May: Previously, prior to Brexit, everything was handled at the European level. As I just mentioned, we share informally the scientific advice, which is very international. Often the people who are providing evidence for a risk assessment are the same people—they may not even be within the EU, but wherever that expertise is available in the world—so there is quite a lot of sharing at that level. Currently, our only formal arrangement with the EU on food safety is around alerts. An alert for a food safety issue that may have an impact on the UK is passed to us, but something that affects countries outside and has no impact on the UK would not necessarily be shared.
I think all of us hope that there will be a reciprocal arrangement for sharing information in future. It is in everyone’s interest to share as much evidence and data as possible, but that is obviously not in my gift to control. There is recognition in the EU that the current GM framework is not fit for purpose for these kinds of products, so the process is already rolling in the EU to look at how it might be changed. How long that will take, and what the outcome might be, will obviously be very different. I would anticipate that it is going to take longer than it will in the UK to get resolution on that.
Ruth Jones
Q
Professor May: Sitting here as a scientist, obviously I hope very much that there will be good sharing. As I said before, it is in everyone’s interest to share the best science and the best evidence around this. Happily, building those relationships is not in my purview to organise, but I hope that there will be sharing, particularly around the horizon-scanning function. For us as a regulator, it is really critical to think about not just what is on our desks now, but what will be there in two, three or five years’ time. What is the science that we will need to assess the potential risks of products that I have not even thought of yet? Collaborative agreement around what might be coming down the road is really critical for all of us.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor May: That is a very good question. It is hard to predict based on the estimation of what might be coming to our desks. On the one hand, the Bill will remove a tranche of products that would otherwise have been assessed as GM products. We already regulate GM products, and there is the capacity. On the other hand, the purpose of the Bill is to stimulate development in this area, so we may end up with a lot more applications, in which case we are going to need additional resource. We have taken steps in that direction, including recruiting independent experts in this area to provide scientific expertise, but if there were a large volume of applications needing consideration, we would need additional support.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Q
Professor May: Our statutory mandate is to protect consumers and represent their interests as they pertain to food. That includes a communication role ranging from allergy alerts and food withdrawals through to a more nuanced understanding of the food system—food security, food poverty and those kinds of questions. At the moment, we do a fair bit of public communication around issues that we know consumers are interested in. Precision breeding, on which we have done some work, is a good example. An explainer on what genome editing and precision breeding are, and what impact they might have, is available on our website, for example.
We do a limited amount of work with schools—particularly in some regions of the UK—mostly on food hygiene. There is an opportunity to do more to explain to people the honest truth about food, and to help them to make decisions about safety and their purchasing decisions in that space. There is always room to do more. There is a lot of consumer interest in this class of foods, and I anticipate that we will do more to make sure that people have the facts about it that they will want.
Kate Green
Q
Professor May: That depends very much on the type of misinformation. Local authorities usually enforce in that area. When a product is not what it says it is, for instance, it gets seized or withdrawn from retailers at local authority level. We issue alerts, and we have a national food crime unit that is very actively involved in looking at deliberate crime in the food sector, including people selling things that should not be sold or that are misrepresented. We also do quite a lot in the detection and enforcement of large-scale issues, including supply chain problems, incorrect labelling and so on.
In the case of precision breeding, it will clearly depend on what Parliament decides, but if there were a regulation on labelling, we would need to look carefully at how that responsibility goes out to the different regulators. We would undoubtedly have a view, and we would issue information for local authorities to enforce on what should and should not be on a label.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: That is exactly right. As the legislation stands, you might introduce what is called a single base pair chain—a tiny, one letter change in the DNA code of that apple. Those single letter changes happen all the time. If you have a field of apple trees, they will all be slightly different, even if you cloned them all initially, so we would not be able to take that apple, sequence the DNA and definitively say, “This one was created by someone using genome editing, and this one just turned up by chance in the field.” As you cannot tell those two apples apart, if there were a label on one saying “Precision bred” and a label on the other saying “Not precision bred”, I could not, as a scientist, say that that was true. That therefore raises questions in my head about why you would have a label if you cannot be sure, in the first place, that what it says is true.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: In principle. There are ways that you might do that. One way that some developers are thinking of—in the context of protecting their intellectual property—is to make that single letter change in a background of lots and lots of other single letter changes that you already know, as a kind of barcode. Then, the concept would be to mount a defence, so that if someone steals my apple, I would be able to say, “But this apple that you are selling has that single letter change, and the other 15, all of which were in my original stock apple, so this is my apple, not yours.”
That is a reasonably good way of protecting intellectual property if you are trying to claim that something is yours. It is very difficult to use that the other way around and say, “That is definitely precision bred.” I could be growing my apples and say that those 15 changes occurred spontaneously. Again, it is not currently possible to say definitively that they cannot have appeared naturally.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: The idea behind the register is to have a public awareness of the products that are going through this pathway and are ultimately out on the market, in a similar way to the public registration of foods at the moment. To take a current example, if you applied to us with a novel food, you would apply with a dossier of data that says, “This is the food. This is how I produced it. Here is how I have considered safety risks.” At the point that we say the dossier is complete and sufficient for us to consider, we publish and say, “This company has put its proposal in. We are now considering that product.” In the fullness of time, we will either recommend approval or not for that product. If we recommend approval, that will get registered publicly as well, so people can see what this novel food is and where it came from, and be reassured that there has been a due process behind it.
My view as a scientist is that this should be the same for precision breeding. We should have a register that says, “Here is a product that has been considered. We have looked at it; it hasn’t rocked up without any kind of due diligence around it.” It is there in the public domain for people to see what process it has gone through and be reassured that those products have had some level of scrutiny.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: It is aimed at some consumers, and that is true now. On average, most of us spend less than six seconds considering each food item we purchase in the supermarket, which is not enough time to consider the label. Some consumers, depending on their concerns, spend more time looking at labels. If you are an allergen sufferer, you spend a lot of time looking for allergens. If you are a vegetarian, you check that the label says it is vegetarian. We know most consumers are a bit uninterested in some of these issues, so they probably will not stop in that garage and check whether the product is on the register or not, but there will be some consumers who have strong views on this, and they may or may not wish to purchase something accordingly. It is important that the information is available for them, so that they can pause if they want to and find out. Even if most people do not, it is available, should they wish to do so.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: There is a slight threshold—yes, that is true. That is not unique to precision breeding. People are quite rightly demanding more and more information about their food. The labels are not getting any bigger, and certainly my eyesight is getting worse, so there is already a shift, and we see that. Many of us are doing more and more of our purchasing online. We actually never look at the sticky label on the food item because it is on a webpage instead. People are getting more used to looking elsewhere for information, so it is not the hurdle it used to be. You are quite right: there is a limit on how much we can fit on a physical label, and it is jostling for space with allergen, nutritional and the country of origin information, so there is limited real estate on the back of the label to get this information across.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: That is correct, yes.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor May: There is a range of approaches across the world. It is probably true to say that no two countries have exactly the same approach at the moment. Perhaps I may give some examples.
At one end of the scale, you would have the current approach in the European Union, where all genetic modification, even genome editing that would fall within precision breeding, is regulated as GM and goes through a full risk assessment, often involving toxicology and quite a lot of analytics. At the other end of the scale, you have the US, for example, which has a default setting: if it is similar to something that was traditionally bred, there is no regulation.
Perhaps in between, the Canadian example is an interesting one. In Canada, they regulate the product and not the technology that has created it. They ask—let us go for an apple—“If you have created this apple, is it different from an apple I can buy currently?” If it is not different, it is not a novel food and it is not regulated; if it is different, it is a novel food and it gets assessed, regardless of how you made it. If I made that apple by precision breeding and it is different, it would be regulated; if I made it by crossing two apples in my orchard and creating a new apple tree that was different, it would still be regulated through that process. Scientifically, that is a very valid approach, but it means that you encompass within it all of traditional breeding and all the things that are done but not regulated in that way in this country.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of this session. Thank you for your time, Professor May, and for the contribution that you have made.
Examination of Witness
Professor Jim Dunwell gave evidence.
The Chair
Good morning, Professor Dunwell, and thank you for giving us your time. We will finish this session at 11.25 am. Will you introduce yourself briefly?
Professor Dunwell: I am Jim Dunwell, professor of plant biotechnology at the University of Reading. I am also chair of ACRE, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, and have been for the past nearly three years.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Dunwell: Absolutely not. Some people suggest that speed, when it is applied in this kind of science, somehow has an intrinsic risk attached to it. That is slightly strange, as in most areas of science and innovation we are striving towards efficiency, whether it be in producing better vaccines or better batteries for electric cars. We are in a competitive world, and we can be sure that, as a nation and a scientific group, we are up against people who are having the same discussions elsewhere. If you are a plant breeder—not that it is a particularly profitable business—the ones who are successful are those who make genetic gains more efficiently and more quickly. Ever since we have known how genes control plant development, there have been advances in plant breeding to try to go through generations more quickly, so that people can capture, create and select genetic variation more quickly, and get their products to market more quickly. This is another element in that, which allows further increase in efficiency. Therefore, I have no intrinsic doubt about it.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Dunwell: No, not at all. It is something that ACRE as a group has had discussions about in the past decade, saying that the traditional methods of regulation were not really keeping pace with the change in the scientific information. Some 10 years ago nearly, we produced a report leading the way on that. Some of those issues have now fed through into the present proposal for regulation. Something you do with gene editing is to make slightly different, smaller genetic changes—that is the precision—enabling you to take a good variety and make it slightly better, just by making an existing change. In the past, you would have to put together different hybrid combinations. You would then have to go through massive selections of the best progeny, and that takes time. In terms of breeding a new variety, it may take five, eight or 10 years. That, now, can be cut back substantially.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Dunwell: I think it is very appropriate. Obviously, it follows on from our removal from the EU. As for the legal case that created this, I suppose, concern, most scientists in the UK and the EU realised that it was a sort of perverse judgment when it comes to traditional so-called mutagenesis, where you apply chemicals or radiation—that is considered a traditional method and has been for 50 years. If you go back to the ’50s, there was a society of atomic gardening. That was when atomic energy was “good”. There was a very popular and interesting character who set up the atomic gardening group. She used to demonstrate her plants at Chelsea; she used to have dinner parties and carry round irradiated peanuts to offer to people. It was considered a good thing, but it was a complete unknown. But there was no evidence of any problems relating to it. We can now make particular small genetic changes in a much more precise way, and I think it is a good time for the UK to take a lead and apply the best scientific principles that we have at our disposal.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Dunwell: I think this comes back to our understanding of genomes. Some of the wording in here comes out of the discussions that we have had within ACRE and the recognition that, probably 20 or 30 years ago, we assumed that one crop had one genome and that was it, but we now know, because you can sequence genomes very easily and quickly, that in fact there is an enormous underlying diversity of genetic material. The number of genes in one variety of maize or corn is different from the number of genes in another. There are also structural rearrangements. You can have great pieces of chromosomes interchanged or moved; it is still a maize plant. These so-called structural variations are an intrinsic part of plant breeding—and also animal breeding. The more we see the diversity of this variation, the more we pick up the fact that many, many plants have DNA that has come from other organisms throughout their evolution; it is the same with animals. Plants have segments of DNA from, say, virus infections hundreds or thousands of years ago perhaps. They have been incorporated into the genome and so, in old-fashioned definitions of GM, those organisms would be considered genetically modified organisms, because they have material from another organism in them. But we accept now that that is the baseline—that many, many organisms have small parts of DNA from many, many organisms. We have nematodes that have plant DNA. We have insects that have plant DNA. These have been moved around during evolution. They do not change the purity of the species. In evolutionary terms, they create the diversity that enables evolution to take place.
That is the background in which the term “natural transformation” has been created. The simple presence of a small fragment or a bit of DNA from another species, which might have been there anyway, is not something that has any impact on hazard or risk.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
I want to press you a bit further on some of these vexed issues of definition. We have “precision bred organism”, “qualifying higher plant”, and the EU now has “new genetic techniques”. We have three new definitions, which the learned societies have suggested in their evidence do not really mean very much. I may be being slightly unkind, but they are not very precise in their definition. The evidence that your committee, ACRE, produced to give guidance, which unfortunately came after the statutory instrument a few months ago, makes for very interesting reading. I will not read it all out—I assure you, Mr Stringer—but it is a very nuanced account of how you might go about coming to conclusions about what any of these things are, but it lacks precision and certainty. As legislators, we are trying to put into a Bill some fairly precise definitions. Am I wrong about that?
Professor Dunwell: No, it is a nuanced approach. It is nuanced because it takes account of the developing science. That is something that our committee does; part of the responsibility of all committees is horizon scanning. We want to see where techniques that we think of as traditional now are in a few years. There will be even better means of changing not just bits of DNA, but perhaps epigenetic effects, which is where you change not the sequence of the DNA but whether the DNA is expressed in a particular cell. That can also have an advantage.
What you see in these definitions is something that takes account of the advance in science. As I said, it takes account of the background genetic variation that exists. There were a couple of papers recently in Nature, for which something like 50 potato genomes were sequenced, and something like half a million quite big genetic variations were identified, in terms of the position of genes. It is against that background that this definition is pitched. That is where we have to take account of the variation. You cannot say now that one particular fragment of DNA is going to produce any particular risk.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: Well, we realise that the jurisdiction is different. We have observers at ACRE meetings from the devolved authorities—not at every meeting, but they are clearly invited to attend, and some of them do. They can add their own input into the discussions, even though it will not apply within their jurisdiction. Then of course we have the fact that much of the good science goes on at the James Hutton Institute, the Roslin Institute and elsewhere. Those are world-class centres of science doing this type of research. I am sure that among those scientists there is an intrinsic frustration about the political environment that exists, but I am not going to comment on the policy at that level. ACRE as a committee had sessions in Edinburgh some three or four years ago, and we have spoken to the relevant committees directly. I was part of those discussions.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: Under the EU system a lot of the discussion was part of EFSA. Obviously it is different now, but in those days it fed back information to ACRE. Even though we have kind of split, we still take account of and look at the EFSA reports on a regular basis. We keep up to date with the discussions in the whole area of science looking forward, because it is our responsibility to make sure that ACRE is not just an isolated UK silo. We have those reports and there still are UK people who sit on EFSA committees, even though we are not part of the official system. It has not disqualified the scientific input from the UK into the EU, which is an interesting element in its own right.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: Well, it is the terminology “escape”. Perhaps it comes from releasing things into the environment, which has some implication to it, but there is no evidence that any existing genetically modified things that are on the market have any greater impact on the environment either through pollen dispersal or propagule dispersal than any existing variety has. Just because it is genetically modified or, in the future, gene edited, it will not intrinsically expand the danger of gene contamination, which is often an objection.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: It is not relevant. There is no evidence for that.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: No, they would be excluded. You have taken a gene or genes, and you accumulate the numbers of genes. Some of the things that are being grown in the States now might have eight or 10 transgenes —separate genes—all inserted into the same variety. That is completely different from what we are discussing today, which is minor changes that are much more equivalent to forms of mutation that have existed for ever. The domestication of crops relied on mutations, but we did not know at the time what they were. Agriculture and what you eat today is a product of natural mutation.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: There are lots of maize varieties that have been proposed and are grown commercially in the States over large areas. Initially, 20 or so years ago, they just had one or two genes, which were to do with insect resistance or herbicide tolerance, but over time the numbers of genes have been pyramided together, either by introducing them all at once or by crossing together a transgenic plant that has one insert and one that has two, so there are varieties now with six, eight or 10 different genes from different sources in one commercial product.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: Yes, and it has been done by—
The Chair
Order. May I just say that there are a number of people who wish to speak? If there is time at the end, I will come back to you, Deidre. I call Andrew Bowie.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Professor Dunwell: Yes. The science is clearly not different. A plant grown in England or Wales or Ireland or wherever is no different. But there are differences in jurisdiction. Where you have devolved authorities, that element of allowing or not allowing cultivation is a devolved issued.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Dunwell: We could debate the precautionary principle for a long time.
Clive Lewis
But you are obviously happy that it has been resolved.
Professor Dunwell: Yes, but the discussions and the recommendations we have had are proportionate to the scientific debates that ACRE takes part in. Under the traditional remit, our major remit is to advise on potential risks of GM to human health and the environment. That is the core of our debate. At the same time, we have to do that in this area of moving scientific expertise. We continually adjust that, but those are the core features in what we are tasked to do. Clearly, more tasks might come out of the Bill. In that area, we have for years had flexibility about elements of those core principles. Yes, we are satisfied that the precautionary principle is not an issue.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Q
This might not be a fair question, but has science ever got to the point where it could effectively give us a legal definition that we could use to erase some of the confusion on the Opposition Front Bench, or is biology itself too complicated?
Professor Dunwell: Biology is not physics—you cannot measure every charge of every atom. The appearance of any plant depends on not just the genes that are in it, but where you grow it.
Katherine Fletcher
On what gets switched on and what does not.
Professor Dunwell: Yes. The so-called genotype-environment interaction is what determines how big the weeds in your garden grow. It depends on whether they are watered, whether they have fertiliser, whether they get mildew on them and so on. The plant itself is a consequence of that interaction.
As you say, that is an extraordinarily difficult thing to put down in words to be subject to legal enforcement. I am not a lawyer; I admire the people who put our advice into this Bill. There may be bits that people can tweak, but it is the job of the lawyer to try to compose something that fits legal standards but is also compatible with the kinds of—
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Professor Dunwell: I have not spoken to the drafting lawyers, but I imagine they have struggled at times with trying to pin down something that is, as you say, flexible and messy. Biology is something that perhaps does not always fit or meet strict definitions.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Professor Dunwell: Taking one step back, any form of agriculture and any form of domestication and multiplication of a crop in the last 10,000 years has been to put something into the environment that was not there. In the case of maize 10,000 years ago, someone somewhere in Mexico found a unique plant with characteristics that they had never seen before, and he or she—that very bright individual—said, “This has got attributes that I can see are good and I want to keep.” That was the beginning of the agricultural system.
Katherine Fletcher
And she—let us make it a she—almost environmentally released it into a field.
Professor Dunwell: Yes. That is the context, and I think it is important just generally that people—well, that is me producing a sermon. That is the context in which we are now working.
Ruth Jones
Q
Professor Dunwell: That is a whole other area. Science in this area has not been applied in the same way to a micro-organism. Obviously, it has been applied to animals. You talked before about asking the question about gene edited animals. One of the things I should add before I get to the other question is that the best example of that on the market at the moment is gene edited fish in Japan. There are two varieties of fish whose growth rate has been modified through gene editing, which have been on the market—I do not know whether successfully commercially, but they are one of the prime examples of that.
On micro-organisms, we hope at the next ACRE meeting—we have not had an in-person meeting since covid started—to start to explore the applications in the microbiology area. We have invited people along from outside, as we do quite regularly, for consciousness raising at a scientific level, to get the best experts to say where they see this type of technology going. Microbiology at the moment is not specifically described in here. It will develop over time because there is an increasing interest in applying different microbes—often ones that have been selected, because the soil is full of tens of thousands of microbes, and some of them are good and some are bad. Many companies now have huge collections of hundreds of thousands of microbes that they go through to try to pick ones that may have an antagonistic effect on other microbes, so they can be applied as inoculants into the soil to improve soil health.
All that is really admirable and exciting stuff. It depends, again, on our ability to identify, extract and sequence genetic information. I went to a meeting probably 20 years ago in Paris, when somebody for the first time said that their PhD student, having spent three years, had got the sequence of one bacterium. He was so proud of that student. Now, you can probably do hundreds in a day. The rate of change is orders of magnitude just in 20 years. It is in what grows out of that and how we develop the regulatory boundaries that the challenges lie.
The Chair
That brings to a conclusion this morning’s session. Professor Dunwell, thank you for your time and evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Chair
The Committee agreed this morning not to meet in private to discuss the lines of questioning but to go straight to the questioning, starting with the Minister, then the shadow Minister and other Members. Are we happy to proceed with that? Okay. We can bring in our panel of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Robin Lovell-Badge and Alessandro Coatti gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: I should say that dealing with plants and animals is not my day job—I work at an institute that is better known for medical research—but I do know an awful lot about genome editing methods and genetically modified organism techniques. I chair the Royal Society’s genetic technologies group, in which we discuss plants, animals and humans in this context. I helped to develop the Royal Society’s submission to the whole process at various stages.
I guess the main point that the Royal Society has been trying to make is that we are a little uncomfortable with having yet more regulations based on techniques rather than outcomes. For us, it would make much more sense to focus on the outcome—the purpose of what you are doing—rather than on the method you are using, partly because scientific methods evolve so rapidly that it is hard to keep track. When reading the first part of the Bill, which includes the definitions, I struggle in some places to understand exactly how certain techniques would fit into it. That is one issue.
If the argument is that genome-edited plants and animals are essentially the same as those that could be bred by traditional methods, yes, that certainly can be the case, but it is not always the case. To give one simple example, if you have two genes right next to each other in the genome, and they both need to be altered to have the trait that you are after—that is possible in normal circumstances—you can do that with genome editing, because you can target both genes at the same time. To do that by conventional, traditional breeding methods may be impossible, however, and it would certainly take an awfully long time to ever get both changes together in the genome. When two genes are next to one another, it is very hard to separate them in normal breeding processes.
There are all these complications that I envisage because that is what I do—I think about the techniques all the time. If your approach is based on outcomes, it is easier to justify, “I’m doing this; the outcome is this.” You can also judge what effect your change has on other things like farming practices, environment and so on. This is a little bit narrower, I think, in that respect.
The Chair
Thank you. Alessandro, please introduce yourself to the Committee, and then you will have questions from members of the Committee.
Alessandro Coatti: With pleasure. Thank you for having me today. I am one of the science policy officers at the RSB. I am biologist by training, and particularly a molecular and cellular biologist. At the society, I provide support to our animal sciences group. I look a lot at policy and research developments in the animal science field, so less so in the plant sciences, which are very important for the Bill. I have been involved, however, in writing our response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on the future regulations in genetic technologies, and that is why I am here today.
I agree with Robin Lovell-Badge’s statement and with the approach that the RS takes. The RSB has also argued that it would be better to have regulations based on looking at the traits and products that you would develop using the technologies, and to monitor the impact in risk assessments of the outcomes, or the impact of the organisms. However, in our response we envisioned a bit of what is happening with the Bill, because there is a need to enable development and innovation on a faster timescale, in the sense that the United Kingdom has inherited the EU regulations that have a process-based trigger. They are designed to list a lot of technologies that are “modern” biotechnologies and not block their use, but make it subject to additional risk assessments simply because the technologies were new 30 years ago. They pulled out some of those techniques to create exemptions, to allow the use of mutagenesis in plant breeding in the past few decades.
Basically, we inherited that, so in a way I see what the Bill is trying to do: to define a new category of exempted organisms from that GMO framework that would allow research and innovation to progress faster in this country at this stage. However, this should not be the end of the story. There are good things in the Bill, but in order for the technologies to be properly regulated in the future, a move towards a truly trait and product-based regulation, which looks at the outcome, is really important.
I also commend the report of the Regulatory Horizons Council on regulations in genetic technologies. They consulted us and many other stakeholders, and they have provided a view on how the evolution of regulation in the UK could proceed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: I am, yes.
Jo Churchill
I would like to take a little from the narrative that you have given us, and from something that you stated in your returns to the consultation. Thank you for saying that the Bill has been consulted on widely; we are trying to get it right, so any advice would be gratefully received. You stated:
“If appropriately managed, precision breeding offers a route to achieving many potential and much-need benefits to society.”
That rather articulates your argument that it is outcomes-based. With that in mind, you stated that you support the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment that precision breeding poses no greater risk than traditional breeding methods. Can you explain why, and can you refer to whether you think the current regulatory framework has held up? I think that was what you were saying in the narrative about research and development. Where would you go with that regulatory framework in order to optimise the R&D so that we can evolve into being outcomes-based, both in environmental and human health terms?
Professor Lovell-Badge: Right. There is a lot there.
Jo Churchill
There is a lot there, but there was a lot in your opening remarks to try to encapsulate.
Professor Lovell-Badge: The first question was about risk, I believe. Generally, on the risk of a random mutation versus a genome-edited one, you are actually better off with a genome-edited one because you know what you are doing. Of course, there can be some examples where you might not know exactly what is happening. There is very little mention of human health in here and so there is concern about zoonosis, where an animal virus can jump to humans, for example. You could, in theory, make what you think is a fairly simple change to give a trait that you want, but inadvertently you allow an animal virus to jump to humans. That needs to be looked at, in terms of risk. Exactly the same thing can happen with traditional breeding, but I imagine it is not generally looked at. That is a risk.
Alessandro Coatti: The case that Robin used before is quite important, where you think about adding multiple changes to genes in the same organism. The Bill covers plants and animals, but it does not cover micro-organisms, which are an interesting aspect that we can discuss later. You also really have to think about the fact that the dynamics of the genomic changes in different organisms are different, just like the way they reproduce is different. The type of gene flow that you would see in plants is different from the one you would see in animals.
The case that Robin was discussing of adding multiple changes in neighbouring genes in an animal is harder, through traditional breeding, than it has been in plants. For example, you can mutagenise into this very big screening. You might get to that point faster in plants than in animals. Perhaps the fast pace where this technology now allows development is not, as you say, either a morally or a practically neutral question. It is interesting that the Government have decided to frame it as something that could have arisen through traditional breeding or spontaneously. There is a reason why that is. However, at some point, it becomes a bit stretched, because in traditional breeding it would take many generations, and it would be quite hard to do it in certain animals.
However, this is again talking about the techniques. When it comes to adding those two traits in neighbouring genes, you might end up actually making the life of the animal way better. That is why you look at the outcomes. By using genome editing, people have corrected genetic defects that have arisen traditionally in breeding, for example of cattle. There is this Japanese breed of cattle that has a genetic syndrome. With genome editing, they corrected it because it was due to a single gene. In fact, even if it were very unlikely that you might have done it with traditional breeding, it is a very valuable use and we should do that because it enhances the welfare and the health of the animal.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: The question would be: if someone made a plant or an animal where you have targeted two adjacent genes, would that be permitted or not under these rules? It is hard to think that it might be, because you could not simply do it by traditional methods. You might have to wait thousands of years and it would cost you a lot of money. That is the question.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
I want to explore something slightly different: the role of advisory bodies. You began to touch on that in your last answer. The Bill at the moment is very thin on what the advisory bodies are there to do. In some of your written evidence, both your organisations suggested that the different bodies should have some kind of remit to look at the wider public good. Could you say a little bit about that? I have been taken by the example of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, or some aspects of the work that it does.
Professor Lovell-Badge: I have been very much involved in the HFEA public engagement exercises. When you are considering a broad area, or potential uses and outcomes, it is really important to have proper public engagement, including democracy, dialogue, or however you want to refer to it, where you really get to understand what the public will think about a topic.
When it comes to assessing technical aspects, it will be challenging. It is fine to have a lay member on a panel, but I do not know whether consulting the public about really detailed, technical issues might be challenging. It depends on what the advisory committee’s role is and whether it is to look more broadly at potential uses and outcomes or to focus on the specific techniques that are being used.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: This is another point. I was a bit confused because there is quite a lot of emphasis in the Bill on animal welfare and how they would have a role to play in that. If you are doing an experiment with an animal, you have to have Home Office approval. Animal welfare is a top priority. Many of the things that you might want to do would already be weeded out at that stage. If you wanted to make an animal that felt no pain, for example, you might just about be able to get away with justifying that for research purposes, but certainly not for developing any product.
The regulations about welfare are already there. Sure, it is important to have some input into your advisory committee that says, “This has to be looked at. Have they thought about all the consequences of what they are doing?” Exactly how you would achieve that under the Bill, I am not certain.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: I know little about that.
Alessandro Coatti: It is an interesting new player, welcomed by many parties across the House. It looks like it will be an expert committee. Mostly the members will be people with relevant expertise in veterinary sciences, potentially neuroscience, so it would not be an arena for a public dialogue, but that is not to say that they cannot commission it and then take recommendations on board. In my view, they could play a role, but it would be hard. The new animal welfare committee that would overlook the authorisations in the Bill would look at a notifier that said, “We want to do this on an animal, but we do not foresee any health or welfare implications for it.” That committee would focus very much on the health and welfare of the single individual animal, but it is not clear to me whether it would consider higher-level questions such as, “What does it mean for the production of that livestock, the density, the husbandry and so on?”
Of course, the existing DEFRA Animal Welfare and Animal Sentience Committees could be brought in. You could say, “We have a new line of pigs that are resistant to this disease. On paper, it looks very good, because we made a very small, tailored change to a part of it, not a rough deletion of an entire gene. The animals under research and development look fine in contained circumstances and they are well. Would you be happy for us to license them to go on to a breeding trial to expand the number of animals from the 20 in the research study to 200, and to map whether there are any health and welfare impacts on a bigger number of animals?” Those committees could advise the new animal welfare committee on that matter.
Following on from that, the bigger question is: “What do we want for UK farming, agriculture and so on?” That is one of those pillar questions that bigger Government policy, not the Bill, will resolve.
Professor Lovell-Badge: My colleague makes a very good point. If you take things out into the field, the conditions are different from lab conditions in which you originally generated the animals. If you introduce another breeding programme, or a different genetic background, the consequences of what you have done could change. It is the same with traditional breeding, but on all those things, there needs to be long-term feedback. As you would have with humans in clinical trials, you get a phase 3 clinical trial in which you get a lot of people feeding back information—much more than in a phase 2 trial—and then there is always post-market reporting whereby any adverse effects are notified over the years.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: Nor do I.
Alessandro Coatti: Under clause 11, when a marketing notice is given in relation to a precision bred animal, the Secretary of State reserves the right to get information from the notifier, over a specified period of time, about the health and welfare of the animal, so that is already covered in the Bill.
Professor Lovell-Badge: But how you do that is not clear.
Alessandro Coatti: No, and a lot will depend on very good guidance from DEFRA or ACRE about how to do that. But that power is in the Bill, at least.
Again, the need for post-marketing monitoring comes down to the trade that you are introducing, not whether you use a technique. It will be important for whoever advises the Secretary of State to be able to tell them, “This change warrants longer-term monitoring, but this other one does not, because we have seen it in the species over many years. This is just a better way of doing it, and it will not dramatically alter what we already know about the trait.”
Professor Lovell-Badge: Remember, many genes have effects in multiple tissues, so you may be focused on changing something—modifying CCR5 for HIV resistance, for example—but not realise that it may also be active and play some role in the brain. That is a clear example of where you may have an issue.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
“competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts”
should be included in the Bill. Would you agree that there is insufficient detail on that in the Bill currently?
Professor Lovell-Badge: I think I would agree it is insufficient. You have to factor in everything: the environment, farming practice—how whatever you are doing, whether it is with plant or animal, is going to fit in with or change farming practices. I think there needs to be a lot more thought about those issues.
Alessandro Coatti: I am not entirely sure I agree. Could you tell me again—those people said that the Government have not made a case for deregulation of these organisms?
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: It depends. If you are saying it is the same as traditional breeding, then yes, it is probably the same, often, or very similar.
Alessandro Coatti: The case for deregulation—let us put it that way—is that basically, with these technologies, you can achieve changes in the genome that are potentially done already in traditional breeding. You are just doing it in a more energy and resource-efficient way—faster, etc. So there is definitely a policy case for this Bill, because research and innovation in this country can really provide those beneficial traits in plants and animals that we desperately need at the moment.
On the question whether this Bill captures all the potential impacts on the environment, for example, from a release of one of these organisms, you would think that the organisms that are passed through this Bill will not particularly need extra monitoring relative to the traditionally bred counterpart, if you see what I mean.
However, there could be boundaries or grey areas where a change could have arisen traditionally but it is not so common. Therefore, the committee should be able to trigger an additional risk assessment; and in my view, it looks like it can. Now, the question is this. On the environmental risk assessment, there is not much detail in the Bill—that is true—so it will be down to ACRE to provide more detailed guidance and analysis on how it would want the environmental risk assessment to be done.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: That is a hard one. The EU will have to change—that is my view—because it is going to be way behind other countries, too. We are not talking just about the UK and the EU; we are also talking about the US, Canada, Argentina and other countries. If the whole regulation about genetically modified organisms and genome editing is not made more compatible with actually getting on and doing stuff that is useful, the EU will suffer, because it will ultimately—
Deidre Brock
But the impact here, in the UK, on trade? Obviously, it is the UK’s largest trading partner, so if it continues to be—
Professor Lovell-Badge: I can imagine there could be an impact. It is hard for me to tell what that might be. It is not my area of expertise at all.
Alessandro Coatti: Yes, I would not be able to discuss in detail how that might be. You probably need to have experts on it. But I am aware that the Food Standards Agency has produced a report on these changes in regulations and this evolution across the globe, and there is definitely a case for the UK to try—we say we would like the UK to lead the way, as it has done with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The UK could still lead the way by making legislation—regulation—that other countries would copy, but there is already a lot out there, so it has to harmonise with the regulations in other countries, such as Japan and Canada. It seems like the Bill is going one step in that direction. In terms of the relationship with the EU, as the closest economic partner and one of the biggest markets that the UK trades with, it is important for the UK, not necessarily to slow down excessively, but to maintain dialogue with the EU Commission while it reviews. The UK in the past has created legislation that the EU has then taken on. For example, when it comes to animals and research, the UK has led the way on the protections—eventually the EU adopted some of those elements. Even though the EU is not politically obliged to anymore, it could still value that.
Professor Lovell-Badge: You may be about to get to labelling. I think the registry is a good idea, because if someone wants to import something from the UK, at least it is then obvious that it could have been genome edited—otherwise they might not know.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Alessandro Coatti: In our response we commented mainly on plants and animals, while making some reference to other uses. There are already leading labs in the UK looking at genome-edited livestock species, for example, and how doing genome editing in those species could be beneficial on many levels. I am quite sympathetic to the fact that animals are included in the Bill, even though there is less of a history of genome editing, and genetic modification, in animals than there is in plants.
It seems to me that more safeguards are added here for animals than for plants. There is animal health and welfare assessment as part of the Bill. With animals, it seems clear to me—but Robin can correct me—that genome editing can be used quite safely. We are talking about the techniques and the process, not the outcomes and the traits. If you look at the techniques with the animals, with a number of species you can be pretty sure that you are making the right change in the genome that you wanted and that you are not adding unwanted changes anywhere else. We can say that there are not many additional risks when it comes to technique, relative to traditional breeding. However, that still has to be caveated a bit.
Professor Lovell-Badge: Some of the methods of genome editing are now so efficient and precise that I do not think it is a great concern, but you always have to check. There are good ways of checking what you have done and what you have got. I would not be that concerned. You would have to check the original animal that has been modified, but once you get to subsequent generations, you will be pretty certain of exactly what you have, and of anything wrong. The methods are being used in humans for somatic genome editing. We know a lot about them and how accurate and safe they can be.
Alessandro Coatti: We pointed out two things in relation to the methodological aspects. Robin mentioned one aspect before: how the gene relates to the phenotype. You change something and then you have a trait change in the animal. Some genes have functions in different organs and tissues, so you want to ensure that by doing something you are not messing up something else. That can be done and has to be done as part of the Bill—you should make sure that it will be done.
The other question is about the reproductive techniques you sometimes use to work on the embryos. Those can also have health and welfare implications for the animals, but it should all come down to an expert committee reviewing the application for the genome edited animals, which could say, “Okay, it looks like they checked everything they should have on the technique.”
The Chair
Order. Sorry to interrupt, but that is the end of the time allocated for this panel. I want to thank the panel very much for coming today to give evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
William Angus, Professor Johnathan Napier and Professor Nigel Halford gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from William Angus, owner of Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd, who will join us via Zoom, Professor Johnathan Napier, research group leader, and Professor Nigel Halford, who is a crop scientist. Both are from Rothamsted Research and are with us in person. Could you introduce yourselves for the record? I will go first to William Angus.
William Angus: My name is Bill Angus—christened William, but anyway. I am a wheat breeder, and my job is to breed new varieties of wheat. I have been doing it for quite a long time. I started in the public sector at the Plant Breeding Institute, and then moved to the private sector with Nickerson. I started my own wheat breeding and oat activities in 2016, which has resulted in us being the largest privately owned wheat and oat breeder in the UK. That is not too hard, because the agricultural landscape is dominated by multinationals. I am also vice-chairman of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre board of trustees in Mexico. This is the largest publicly funded wheat programme on the planet, breeding for 200 million hectares. To put that into context, that is 100 times the size of the UK. Their focus is primarily on the developing world.
Professor Napier: Hello. My name is Johnathan Napier. I am a project leader at Rothamsted Research. I am a plant biotechnologist. I have a degree—PhD and DSc—from the University of Nottingham. Rothamsted is a publicly funded research institute. I am passionate about using basic research for public good and translation. I am very keen to see the research move beyond just discovery. I ran the first gene edited field trials in the UK in 2018. I have run GM field trials at Rothamsted since 2011 or 2012, and I am looking forward to talking with you.
Professor Halford: I am Nigel Halford. I am also at Rothamsted Research. I have been there a long time—all through the biotech period. In fact, I was involved in GM wheat trials in Bristol in the 1990s. Like Johnathan, I am very passionate about taking our research through to products that are actually going to help British farming, agriculture and consumers. I am currently running a gene edited wheat field trial at Rothamsted. We are looking at reducing the acrylamide content of wheat products, so it is a food safety target.
Jo Churchill
Q
From the point of view of small and medium-sized enterprises, do you think this Bill will help smaller players to have some access to market, or would you like to see this Bill enable smaller breeders, such as yourself, to have access to these technologies?
William Angus: That is a good question. I have worked for a large multinational company. I was interested to hear both Johnathan and Nigel talk passionately about public good—that is what I do. When I was at the PBI this was part of your culture and it became part of my culture when I was at Limagrain.
I love the entrepreneurial spirit that we have in the UK. We started off this, which may be considered by some to be a slight mission of madness, but I had the opportunity to do it. We started in my lounge, then we moved to the greenhouse and then the garage, and now we have built up quite a significant activity.
I am worried about perhaps an agenda that this could be dominated by large multinationals, although one of the joys of wheat-breeding globally over the last 100-plus years has been the freedom to exchange germplasm. As soon as we start putting constraints on that, as soon as we start having people talking about ownership of genes and ownership of genetic material, or licensing genes that are already in the public domain, it starts to fill me with a great sense of foreboding.
Also, being on the CIMMYT board, I am really concerned and very passionate about the smallholder farmers that we have around the world. It has changed my life being on CIMMYT, in that it opened my eyes to the fact that there are millions and millions of people in very dire circumstances. Many people do not realise that the vast majority of farmers in the world are women.
So, yes, I am concerned about that and I would like to see some mechanisms whereby the freedom that currently exists for small companies, or individuals, to start up is not diminished. Therefore, I hope that some protection will be put in place.
Johnathan and Nigel may agree or disagree, but what we have in the UK is that, if you go back 40 years ago, we had a publicly dominating plant-feeding activity in the PBI. We have a really mature situation now. Globally, we are probably the best, and I have seen a lot around the world, of having these public-private partnerships. These guys at Rothamsted, or the John Innes Centre, or whatever, cannot take it to the market and we have a wonderful relationship with them, in that they do the fundamental research and then we, as the plant breeders, translate it into the field. And I include the multinationals in that.
We have a very mature situation and we must make sure that, whatever comes out of this Bill, that relationship is not damaged in any way and continues.
Jo Churchill
Q
However, I will direct my next question to both professors, in the hope that you both cover it to a degree. You have both expressed a passion, and have longevity about looking at this issue, and I think it was Professor Halford who said that he was involved in the GM trials in the ’90s. Can you please help us to understand how far we have come and say what benefits we should try to capture through this Bill in order to drive things forward?
Professor Halford: Any target you can think of for plant breeding—whether it is something that aids farmers, such as nitrogen-use efficiency or simplifying weed control, climate resilience, which is an urgent problem that we have to address in agriculture, or the kind of things that we are working on, benefits to consumers—gene editing can play a role in it. It is not sweeping anything else aside, but it certainly enables you to do some things that other methods in plant breeding do not allow you to do. That is what we are talking about.
Professor Napier: Nigel and I are veterans of the GM of the ’90s, the problems that emerged from that and the hiatus of seeing none of our research translated for a decade. Then, at Rothamsted, we restarted GM field trials in 2012, just because we realised that there was this urgent need to translate the research. The UK has a fantastic reputation for doing basic plant sciences, making lots of fantastic discoveries in labs, but that is no good to feed people or to solve the challenges of climate change and food security. You cannot eat promise; you really need a product.
The reason I am in agriculture is that it is the ultimate scalable solution: once you demonstrate that you can grow something in one field, you can grow it in a million fields. But until you have actually done it in the first field, you do not know whether the technology works. That is the exciting thing that has already changed in the regulation in the past few months—it is easier to do experimental gene edited field trials. Nigel and I are doing those at Rothamsted under the new regulations, and that is great, that is enabling. That is what we need.
We want to enable the technology to advance, which is not to say that we ignore the importance of safety and all those other things. On one level, it goes without saying that those are important, but it should not go without saying—you have to say that those are of paramount importance. What we want is enabling regulation. I am not totally sure I have answered your question, but it gives you the idea.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Napier: That is exactly right. Even if you look at the situation in the US, which is imagined to be the most tolerant and enabling of regulatory environments for GM, for example, it still costs probably $10 million to deregulate a crop. That is an utter barrier to entry to any small or medium-sized enterprise. The reason why the market is dominated by the large corporations is that they are the only people who can afford to pay those costs. If the barrier to entry is lower, basically you make it much more open to the more entrepreneurial, smaller, nimbler but less deep-pocketed organisations.
Professor Halford: The GM revolution is now a generation old. It is a 20th-century technology. We see varieties in the Americas and Asia with multiple input traits, output traits, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, high lysine with a cherry on the top. None of that is available here—absolutely nothing, not a single GM crop plant grown commercially in the UK. We have completely missed the boat on that one, and it is really important that we do not miss the next boat.
We will have to go some way to persuade plant breeding companies, biotechnology companies, that there is a market in the UK. Currently, I can tell you, nobody is thinking about developing a GM or GE commercial crop for the UK or Europe. We will have to have regulation in place that gives breeders confidence that when they get their product to market, they can actually sell it. If my wheat all pans out, it works really well and I hand it to breeders to incorporate into their breeding programmes, we are still talking probably five to 10 years before we could possibly see anything on the market. That is a lot of work and investment. So farmers need to be confident that, at the end of that, they have a market.
The Chair
I remind people that we have until 3.15 pm for this session. A couple of Members have caught my eye. I will start with Daniel Zeichner.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
William Angus: At the moment, what I would like to see is no change to the status quo. Let us take this as an example: company A produces a variety and he introduces a trait into that variety. In two years’ time, once that variety has been added to the UK national list, another breeder can use that trait. That is the freedom to operate. It is really important that that is sustained and that people are not locked out of new developments. What may happen—this is an area I feel quite uncomfortable with—is that we may start to see larger organisations move the goalposts in terms of trying to stop other breeders from using genetic resources that have been developed.
Now, I am quite happy—here, we develop our own genetic resources and we give those away freely, to anybody. If anybody on the Committee would like some wheat, I will send them some genetics, no problem at all. That is freedom to operate. That is really all that I would look for—that we do not change the current status so that people think that, somehow, a naturally developed product or a GE product is any different, and that there is still that freedom to operate.
Can I make one comment on Johnathan and Nigel’s remarks? I have sat on a number of Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council committees. I chaired the horticulture and potato initiative and so on. I am not saying this because they are here, but the UK is absolutely blessed with the best public research on wheat around the world. They are absolutely right to make the point about the fact that this is not developed as well as it could be, primarily because the promotion system is based on paper publications. It is lovely to hear both of these guys talking about taking stuff to the market. That would be another comment that I would make. It is great to hear.
Going back to your question, let us be careful that there are mechanisms in place to protect this freedom of exchange of germplasm that happens not just in the UK but globally. It is really important that we do that. There have been steps in America to patent genes. We really must not go down that route. In my opinion, it will stifle innovation and it would put the control of our food supplies in the hands of large multinationals, which I would be very concerned about.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
William Angus: Yes. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say it occurs naturally and then I am going to change it and now it is different. I agree.
It is very difficult when I come from the environment I do—my views tend to be slightly different from those who come from large multinational companies—but I think it is a really important point, that we protect innovation from big companies and so on, but that we also protect the right of individuals to start up their own businesses. The way I look on it is, you know, Richard Branson started Virgin Atlantic—he was allowed to do that. One man started with one aeroplane, and off he went; brilliant, great, good for him. It would be sad if people like that or companies such as easyJet were excluded from the market because someone said, “This is an aeroplane, and you’re not allowed to fly it.” I would like to reiterate that we need that protection in there.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Napier: I think it was mentioned earlier that with innovation, it probably needs to be developed as a public-private partnership, which sort of implies that there needs to be a market pull. Using the term “market” can be slightly perturbing because, in reality, the drivers for what we want to see translated are much bigger than the economics. They are things like global climate change, food security and all the global pandemics associated with malnutrition and overconsumption. Those are the challenges enshrined in sustainable development goals and things like that. Those are the things that we should be occupying ourselves with. We need to use everything we can to try to fix those challenges. Rothamsted and other places like that—in fact, everybody—should be working towards those goals and overcoming those challenges.
Listening to what Bill said about IP, I spend an enormous amount of time thinking about IP because it is an area that I have to think about a lot. The beauty about the UK is that we have a really strong research use exemption, which allows us to operate in a way that is not encumbered, at least at the research level, by IP. We are in a really good place. I think the bigger barrier to innovation is what I have already mentioned: it is not IP but the cost of regulatory approval. That is why I am so worried that in new legislation, if we start building in layers of costs associated with more regulation, we are just replicating what we had previously under the EU regulation. I think that would be an enormous missed opportunity if we go down that road. That is my personal view.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Napier: You cannot patent a gene. There was a case in the US that made it quite clear that you cannot hold a patent on a gene. That legal precedent is quite clear, from the famous case of Myriad. I am not too worried about that. In reality, it is analogous to what you see in the pharmaceutical sector and relates exactly to your point about understanding the drivers for innovation. You need to couple it with economics.
All these things are moving parts, which you need to make the whole thing work. To pull it forward, you need to have an economic case and some form of protecting your invention—patents are a good way of doing that. The example I always give is that my mobile phone probably has 2,000 patents-worth of components in. Nobody gets upset about that. It is about understanding how you can best use this technology. I also do not want to sound like some sort of gung-ho free marketeer, because I am absolutely not. I work in a Government-supported institute. I do not work in the private sector. I probably want the best of both worlds.
Professor Halford: As public sector scientists, at times in our careers we have been told we should be patenting everything, and at times in our careers we have said, “Well, it's unethical to be patenting this stuff.” I think we have a pretty robust patents system. You cannot patent discoveries of genes; you have to patent an invention. That seems to have worked for mobile phones and it works with pharmaceuticals, many of which are biologicals. I do not see why it cannot work in crop high technology.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Halford: We have used CRISPR-Cas9 to knock out a gene that makes an amino acid called asparagine, which gets converted to acrylamide. That is our target.
Deidre Brock
You are giving Hansard a few challenges today.
Professor Halford: Acrylamide is a processing contaminant, so it only forms during processing; it is not in the plant. For consumers, it is not an issue—we could talk about that all day—but it is quite a big regulatory compliance issue for the food industry. We are trying to reduce the potential for acrylamide to form during processing by reducing the amount of asparagine in the grain of the wheat. That is where we are at the moment.
Because you do a GM step to put the CRISPR machinery into the plant, some of those components are still in most of the plants we have, so the field trial is running under GM regulations at the moment. The editing has been done, and it has worked. We have very low asparagine wheat grain growing in the glasshouse, at least. We are in the process of crossing away the GM bit, and we do have some plants now—not in the field trial, but under glass—that are now GM-free. They are a qualifying higher plant, and we have registered them as such.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Halford: We have five plant breeders working with us. If it pans out in the field and it all looks good, we could hand our genotypes over to those breeders and they could start incorporating the trait into their breeding lines. That process would take probably five to 10 years. We have five years’ consent to run the field trials. You need several years before you are going to convince a breeder that your trait is stable and it will give them what they need. There is nothing rapid about the process.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Napier: In my opinion, it is regulatory approval that is the barrier.
Clive Lewis
Why? What does that do?
Professor Napier: It is mainly the cost and the uncertainty. If you think about the way GM crops are regulated, for example, in the US it will cost you something like $10 million and take several years to get regulatory approval. In Europe, you could spend that money two or three times over, and because the approval process also has a political component, it will never be approved, so you have this uncertainty. From an entrepreneurial point of view and a commercialisation point of view, what you want is certainty. Even if you think, “Okay, the horizon is five years and I know I need to spend $10 million,” at least you know what it is. If there is uncertainty, I am not going to go on “Dragons’ Den” and say, “Here is my pitch. I don’t know how much it’s going to cost. I don’t know how long it’s going to take. Can I have some money, please?” I suspect they will tell me to—
Clive Lewis
Q
I am interested in your views, as individuals who operate in the private-public sphere. When it comes to food security and the climate crisis, I would have thought that profit maximisation will probably not be the route map to solving those problems. What is going to be needed is a private-public partnership where we get the best of both, but some things may cost more. It is going to cost us to tackle the climate crisis; it is going to cost us to ensure that we can feed the world with a climate crisis in the 21st century, so it is even more important that we get the regulatory framework right and that it is robust. Freedom from regulations for businesses means freedoms against consumers, the public and those who do not have access to those sciences to be able to utilise them.
Professor Halford: Look at what has happened to GM technology in Europe. The last GM crop approved for cultivation in Europe was approved in 2010, I think. Only one GM crop is grown to any extent in Europe, and that got approval before it became difficult in the mid-’90s. So nothing is happening—for climate resilience or anything else.
Clive Lewis
That is the extreme version, isn’t it?
Professor Halford: Everyone pats themselves on the back and says, “We’ve got a great regulatory framework,” but nothing is happening. Burkina Faso has more experience—
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Halford: The simple answer is that it has to be proportionate to the risk. You can also compare gene editing to what we have already. We already have chemical and radiation mutants; that technology has been going around since the 1950s. They are already on the market, with exactly the same kinds of genetic changes that gene editing introduces, but completely random.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Halford: You could make exactly the same comment about anything in plant breeding. The argument is, “Why should you look at gene editing as being different?” Is it more risky? Is it more likely to be misused? I would say no.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Napier: I know what you are trying to say. I tried to write an article about this a couple of years ago, taking the example of Golden rice, which was developed to deliver a public good and took decades to get to market. Why? Because it had been demonetarised. Effectively, all the economic drivers had been taken out of it, so the impetus for it to be delivered to market was not there. You could not monetarise it, which on one level is exactly as it should be: why should you be monetarising what is effectively misery—childhood blindness and things like that? But it also basically depowers the way the world works—the way that modern economies work. That is just the way of the world, isn’t it? We all know that.
I understand what you are saying. For us, we really want to see stuff applied and translated. People get far too hung up about intellectual property. I am not an IP lawyer, but I know a lot about IP. People feel it is a hindrance in plant biotechnology, but compared with the costs of getting regulatory approval, IP is not the barrier. The reason why we have all these big corporations dominating the field of plant biotechnology is that they are the only people who can afford regulatory approval.
When we ran GM field trials in 2012 at Rothamsted, there were big demonstrations about it. Most of the people had come from the Occupy London demonstration, so they were anti-globalisation protesters. They were protesting about the globalisation and corporatisation of the world; they were not actually that concerned about GM. That is not to dismiss their concerns, but that is what they were really worried about. You can end up conflating a whole load of things and saying, “These are all the things that people should worry about,” but I am not sure that is what you need to worry about. It sounds like I am telling you what to do, but I am absolutely not. There are other things to think about in the Bill.
Professor Halford: If you are going to say that you should regulate how people use the technology—can you do that?
Clive Lewis
Q
I am sorry, Mr Angus, that I have not brought you into this conversation very well, but that is not my job. If you would like to come back on anything—
The Chair
William Angus, would you like to say a few words on this subject?
William Angus: Yes, and I assure you that I will be brief. First of all, I have some comments about various things. This is not a short-term solution. It has been bandied about by many that this is like, “Oh, well, in three years we can do this and that.” We can develop genetic resources in three years already; we do not need that. I am actually a really big supporter of gene editing. I think it allows us to short-circuit when we have major key traits that will be of significant global benefit. Gene editing comes into that very well.
We already have a very strong regulatory system for national listing of varieties. The Committee may or may not know that currently, before we can put varieties into the marketplace, they have to go through a pretty robust national listing system. They have to be distinct, uniform and stable, and they also have to have a value for cultivation and use, so those mechanisms are already in place. I would feel confident that, by beefing them up a bit, we could cover the regulatory issues without huge quantities of over-regulation in terms of entry to the market.
I want to make the point that this is not the shortcut that people perceive it to be, because once you have your trait of interest, you then have to transfer it into a variety or something that is genetically good; then you have your in-house testing process, which is usually three to four years; then you have two years of statutory tests; then your wheat, for instance, gets a recommended listing, and then you have two or three years of seed modification. The idea that we can somehow wave a magic wand with gene editing and create something within three years is complete nonsense; it would take 10 or 11 years. This is the thing about plant breeding: it is a long-term venture.
I am weird—I admit that I am slightly strange. You are quite right that all the big companies are profit-driven. I have absolutely no interest in money, but as a plant breeder you can make a huge difference, not only globally but domestically. I suspect that if you have had a bit of bread today, you will have had part of a variety that I was involved with. That gives me a huge amount of satisfaction, and I hope you enjoyed the bread. That is what plant breeders do: it is about impact. Now that I work on a more global scale, it is helping so many people whom I have met who live on $2 a day. That is really the important part. I do not necessarily represent the interests of large multinationals, I am afraid.
The Chair
Thank you, William. We have less than a minute left. I know the Minister wants a quick question—it is less than a minute for your question and the answer.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Napier: Yes.
Professor Halford: Yes.
William Angus: Yes.
Jo Churchill
This feels like “Britain’s Got Talent”. There we go; we have finished before 3.15 pm.
The Chair
That brings this session to an end. I thank all our contributors for a really informative session.
Examination of Witnesses
Roger Kerr, Steven Jacobs, Joanna Lewis and Christopher Atkinson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Roger Kerr, chief executive, and Steven Jacobs, business development manager, both of Organic Farmers & Growers, and from Joanna Lewis, policy and strategy director, and Christopher Atkinson, head of standards, both of the Soil Association. All the witnesses are with us in person. We have until 3.50 pm for the session. Will each of you in turn introduce yourself for the record, and then we will come to questions?
Roger Kerr: My name is Roger Kerr. I am chief executive of Organic Famers & Growers. I am also a trustee of the Organic Research Centre, which is an independent organic research organisation. I am also a director of the Organic Trade Board.
Steven Jacobs: I am Steven Jacobs. I am the business development manager for Organic Farmers & Growers.
Joanna Lewis: I am Joanna Lewis. I am the policy and strategy director for the Soil Association and a trustee at the Food Ethics Council and at Sustain, the alliance for food and farming.
Christopher Atkinson: Hello. I am Chris Atkinson. I am head of standards at the Soil Association charity. I am also an elected board member of IFOAM Organics Europe, our European umbrella organisation.
Jo Churchill
Q
Christopher Atkinson: Organic is a regulated activity, so the requirements for organic production, including separation and segregation, are laid out in law. In the UK, that is currently a retained European regulation, No. 834. That mandates an inspection and certification system based on international norms for product certification. The way in which producers who are under the control system specified in the regulation notify their activity and interaction with independent third-party certifiers, such as Organic Famers & Gowers and the Soil Association, is described in that regulation.
It is very much a farm-to-fork regulation: it covers all parts of the production process, from the farm, beyond the farm gate, right through to the point of sale. There is complete traceability, which is overseen by the certification bodies and maintained through record keeping and some elements of testing and checking, which are carried out both by those who are subject to the regulation and by the certification bodies that oversee their activity.
Roger Kerr: The question was also about the risk of GM to the supply chain.
Christopher Atkinson: Yes. At the moment, there is prohibition of GMOs in organic production, and organic producers rely on the current labelling regime to verify and identify freedom from GM. There is also a testing regime based on detection thresholds for GM specified in the legislation, and there are duties both on the producers and on the certification bodies to apply those requirements.
Jo Churchill
Q
Joanna Lewis: Your mention of PRRS offers a good way to explain why the global organic movement currently does not support the genetic engineering approach. That movement is very much founded on the principle that you harness natural processes to stop pest and disease problems arising in the first place. For instance, PRRS is widely accepted to be a disease that arises from industrial farming systems as a result of overcrowding. The crucial thing is to make sure that there is a public interest test at the heart of the Bill, and that is what we are calling for.
We noted that the Regulatory Policy Committee has raised a red flag about the impact assessment—I am sure that it has been discussed before. We found that the impact assessment had overlooked three crucial areas: first, clearly, the freedom of choice for citizens; secondly, the needs and interests of organic agroecological farmers and growers, who have a key role to play in the Government’s ambitions for a sustainable farming transition; and, thirdly, the impact on the Government’s ability to achieve their own really important legal biodiversity and climate targets, and to address their professed concern about animal welfare and their desire to improve those welfare standards.
One does not need to doubt the good intentions of the research institutions that are involved in the research, but there are strong commercial drivers at play here. It is no accident that current and recent developments on gene editing of crops relates overwhelmingly to herbicide resistance. When you have four companies controlling 60% of the global seed market and two of them, Bayer-Monsanto and ChemChina, which owns Syngenta, account for more than half the agrichemical market, it is no accident that there is that commercial bias.
When it comes to the interests of farm animals, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics held a public dialogue on gene editing and farmed animals. The concern expressed by the public, now backed by the support of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and Sciencewise—I am on the oversight group for that dialogue—was clearly centred not so much on the distinctions between gene editing and conventional breeding, but on the fact that the direction of travel for conventional breeding had been to prioritise traits that came at the expense of animal welfare and which facilitated the keeping of animals in inhumane industrial farming systems. The concern was that gene editing might accelerate that trend.
That brings us back to the question of where the public interest test is that could allow the Government to do more than just presuppose and gamble on the benefits of this for climate, nature and health. Norway has developed a gene technology Act, which places that public interest test at its heart. I do not know if that has been discussed yet, but there is a test that requires evidence of community benefit and support for sustainable development, so we would like to see that considered in the deliberation of this Bill.
Steven Jacobs: Just to pick up on where we stand as an organic control body, our role is to maintain integrity through the whole chain of custody, from farm to fork and from seed to shelf. You cannot necessarily tell that a bottle of milk is organic by testing it—actually, there could be tests for that. You can tell a bottle of milk is organic because we have inspected every stage of the process. According to our licensees—and we license more than half the organic land in this country—that is not onerous. They already do various certifications, such as Red Tractor. Our inspectors will be able to do two, three or four of those in one visit. Asking the same question can generate two, three or four certification requirements.
The situation we have is one where there is an established market. In this country, it is worth around £3 billion. Globally, it is worth around $100 billion. It has been going for 60 or 70 years. The regulatory regime has been in existence since the early ’90s. That integrity is accepted in the marketplace and is being bought by shoppers. In the consultation, something like 85% of respondents said it was not that they necessarily objected to gene editing, but they would like to see existing regulatory frameworks upheld. We work in a regulatory framework. We have ISO standards. We are audited by a Government-approved auditor every year. That is how we ensure that that integrity is maintained. For us, those customers have said they do not want GE or GM.
Jo Churchill
Right, okay. I am not sure that I entirely understand why you feel it would be any different with GE, which is a completely different technique—with all due respect—from GM. If I could tease out that animal welfare point, you are predicating your argument on the idea that everything is detrimental on a welfare front. Surely the eradication of avian flu—particularly as we have had the challenge in the last year—would be beneficial to free-range birds as well. I am keen that the rest of the Committee has its chance to contribute, though.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Roger Kerr: From an organic regulatory basis, as Chris has already indicated, GE is still defined as GM. We need to be much clearer about what GE is being defined as, and we still do not have that clarity. As things stand, it is not allowed within the organic regulation, so the risk is where there is a lack of co-existence measures in place, which means that organic crops are contaminated. Organic consumers make these purchasing decisions because they believe they are avoiding GM, and that is a right they should have.
By not having robust co-existence measures in place, we are obviously putting our consumers at risk, because they are purchasing organic products on the basis that they do not believe they are consuming GM. It is a personal choice—I am not saying that you should not—and the organic sector is not saying per se that we should not have genetic editing. What we are saying is that it is incompatible with organic. Organic is out there, and there is a market for it, as Steve has clearly stated. There is a significant opportunity, both domestically and internationally, for the UK organic sector.
We should protect the organic sector, and there should be some visibility in terms of GE—where it is being grown, what is being grown and what the potential risks associated with that are for the organic sector—so we can ensure that the organic sector remains free from GM or GE, as it is at the moment. There is concern that if we are looking to provide consumers with the choice of having GE or not, we will end up with quite a significant cost within the supply chain to ensure co-existence, in terms of space and time, between GM and non-GM. This is not organic per se; it is just GM and non-GM. We will then have to have extra storage, more vehicle movements and a much higher level of testing. There are concerns that, without real clarity about what is going on and where the potential points of contamination arise, a significant cost will be borne by the food sector, which is already under significant pressure.
Joanna Lewis: I understand that you are addressing us as the organic industry and the organic sector, but I just want to reiterate that the Soil Association is a charity of 70 years’ standing that represents all citizens, farmers, growers and scientists who want to see a mainstream transition to agroecological farming and regenerative farming for climate, nature and health.
The response to the consultation on the Bill—85% of people and businesses were opposed—reflects a deeper unease not just about the safety issues and technicalities around the distinction between gene editing and GMOs. That is what I was trying to bring through with reference to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’s public dialogue. It is really important to emphasise the very legitimate public concerns about the fact that breeding as a whole—plant and animal breeding—has been on an unhelpful trajectory that is not up to the challenge of the Government’s goals on sustainable farming transition. We therefore need to ensure that we are not accelerating that trend through carte blanche deregulation.
There is an opportunity to put good governance at the heart of this Bill, set that public interest test, and ensure full supply chain traceability, transparency and labelling for citizens who want and deserve the right to choose whether this is the solution for them. I would not want it narrowed down to saying we are representing an economic sector. This is a broader movement, and it is very much one for mainstream transition.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Joanna Lewis: I would really recommend that you look to Norway’s gene technology Act. I have not gone through it line by line, but it feels like a valuable precedent from a country that also sits outside the European Union and is looking at what governance can apply—to make sure we are not just presupposing the benefits. Commercial drivers are not given free rein, and if there is to be a relaxation of regulation, you can do it with the confidence that it is going in the direction of supporting more sustainable farming. I believe the test that it set is that something is of community benefit and supports sustainable development. I do not know whether that is fully adequate, but it is a precedent that is out there and merits some consideration.
Deidre Brock
Q
Christopher Atkinson: You are right in supposing that we feel the measures are insufficient. We need a high degree of traceability and the ability for organic producers in particular to understand where crops are being grown and the risk of contamination.
Roger Kerr: The other aspect is that, as we have heard from previous speakers, there is not going to be a significant amount of investment in producing this material unless there is sufficient visibility over where it is, because of the likelihood that it will disappear into the food system and the businesses that have developed the technology will not be able to recover the costs. There is an issue in understanding the full and public visibility over where these crops are being grown, who is growing them and where they are going, so that there is the opportunity to see where that product has gone, so that people can recover their investment.
Steven Jacobs: The Bill says that the organism is
“a marketable precision bred organism”
and
“the qualifying progeny of a marketable precision bred organism”.
One of the issues is what will happen if there are—and we are assuming there will be—many precision bred events put into one product, whether that is livestock or crops. In crops, for instance, you can have stacked traits. The issue is around that crop being bred with something else and some of those traits being passed over, perhaps unknowingly.
We have seen incidents where herbicide resistance has gone out into the wilder environment and that has caused problems. For instance, there was a case on the Swiss-Italian border where herbicide-resistant oilseed rape that was not grown in Switzerland was found on the railway. It had leaked out of the railway carriages. That is a problem because they spray herbicide to keep the railway sidings—all the ballast—stabilised. Now, they have a situation where there is a herbicide-resistant weed in a location that would normally be sprayed in order to keep the railway safe. There are incidents where one would need to see some measure of traceability in order to evaluate. It is not just our need; I would suggest that there is a public and commercial need.
Roger Kerr: On livestock, take a genetically edited bull, for argument’s sake—I have picked cows because I like cows. He will have sired innumerable daughters that will go on to be crossed back. They may be crossed back with a non-GE sire. At what point do they become non-GE? Obviously, going back through their parentage, there will be GE material in there. From our point of view—from an organic standpoint—the question is: at what point is it no longer a genetically edited animal, if its forebears were genetically edited? There is a lot of concern around how we manage this issue, how those things are defined and who, ultimately, owns the genetic material within that animal, albeit it is the great-great-great-great-granddaughter of something. There are concerns there.
Joanna Lewis: It also feels that the solution in terms of implementing supply chain transparency, traceability and labelling is eminently achievable. It does not feel like a big barrier to bring that into the scope of the Bill in order to address those concerns and allow the legitimate needs of citizens who reserve the right to choose to reject this technology, and to preserve the integrity of organic systems. We are obviously at a point in time where the industry is buzzing with big data supply chain solutions and wanting a whole new resurgence in food labelling to show the citizen everything about the provenance, origin and production practices of their food. It should not be a big barrier to this Bill’s intent to include that requirement for full supply chain transparency and labelling.
Deidre Brock
Q
All witnesses indicated assent.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Some witnesses who gave evidence this morning said that it is not the Bill that is at fault. There is a completely separate argument, they said, about whether we want to increase the intensification and industrialisation of animal farming. Where do you sit on that argument? They said that the animal welfare codes deal with some of the concerns. I would say, however, that they are not operating in the right way at the moment, because we already allow a degree of intensification and, to my mind, animal welfare standards are not good.
On the separate issue of increasing yields from animals, cows produce an awful lot more milk than they would have done a few decades ago, and certainly a lot more milk than they need to feed their own calves. Where do you sit on the use of this technology for that purpose? Finally, do you think that the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to refer things to a welfare advisory body is a sufficient safeguard? Sorry, that was an awful lot of questions, and you do not have much time to answer.
Joanna Lewis: You asked whether you can separate the intention of gene editing to solve animal welfare problems from the broader challenge of facilitating the perpetuation of systems that result in very poor animal welfare. I think it is important that we bring these together—as the public brought them together in the Nuffield Council on Bioethics public dialogue. We know that conventional animal breeding trends have been to prioritise greater yield, litter size and fast growth over the welfare of sentient animals, and we know that the argument for gene editing is partly that it speeds things up and is likely, therefore, to accelerate those trends. The public were saying, through that dialogue, that this is where they want to see governance. They want the Government to come in and say, “This is our vision for the future of animal farming. This is how it is going to become a higher welfare system that also delivers for climate, nature and health. This is the role we want to see gene editing play in that context.”
I know that you will be hearing evidence from Compassion in World Farming on Thursday, and I know that amendments will be proposed to try to make sure that there are additional tests—which could be linked to the Secretary of State’s powers, secondary regulation or the role of the welfare advisory body—on whether these traits are going to focus on yield, litter size and fast growth and cause lasting harm to the welfare of the animal. Also, are they going to perpetuate, facilitate or enable a farming system that is very detrimental to the welfare of animals? Those are the amendments that will be coming through from animal welfare bodies.
Roger Kerr: In terms of the disease-resistance issue, we have to be really careful about how we approach this. What we have seen, albeit through the use of antibiotics, is the reduction of disease. Again, unfortunately, I am referring back to the dairy industry. We have seen farmers driven to reduce cell counts in dairy cows to a point where the cow’s immune system has been suppressed to such a degree that the more virulent diseases come in, because there is not the natural, more benign flora around any more. Therefore, you have cows going down with E. coli and other things, which is killing them. We have seen this continual drive to reduce the immune system and reduce the cell count.
What we have found more recently is that allowing the cow to have a more natural immune system actually allows it to live a longer and healthier life. We have to be really careful when we start talking about disease that we do not start messing with something but then find that we end up with a whole lot of unintended consequences in terms of opening the animal up to other disease implications. Ultimately, we will just end up on the same old wheel of trying to continually firefight because the animal is going down with disease.
On the yield aspect, again, we can keep saying, “Oh, well, we can genetically breed them to produce high yield,” but what we find is that the longevity of the animals is massively impacted. These cows that can produce 12,000 or 15,000 litres of milk do not live very long because, unfortunately, cows are just not designed to do that. We have to be really careful about what we consider to be a farm animal and what it is there for. If we continue to drive it, we are effectively supercharging its physiology, and therefore it will ultimately not be able to live as long.
Using cows as an example, if you go into a collecting yard or a cubicle shed, you will see the cows breathing really quickly, even though they are lying down, because their physiology is going so fast. What we are effectively doing at the moment is turning what was a very low-input, low-output animal into a Formula 1 car. Unsurprisingly, they do not cope with it and they fall over. What we are doing now in terms of genetically editing is stepping that up a whole other gear. We have to be really careful about what it is that we are seeking to achieve here, and I think we have to look, in terms of welfare, not only at disease resistance but at longevity, quality of life and ability to withstand other disease impacts.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Roger Kerr: It can affect—
The Chair
Order. I just point out that we only have just over two minutes.
Roger Kerr: Sorry. Chris was going to say something.
Christopher Atkinson: Going back to what you said about what sort of tests should be applied to animals by any regulatory committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee introduced the concept of a good life for animals. Our view of animal health and welfare is based on positive aspects of an animal’s life. You have referred to the codes of practice; generally, they are based on absences of harm. For a long time in animal welfare science, absence of harm was equated with good welfare. We have moved significantly beyond that, so we would encourage you to look at the good life framework and ensure that those tests for a good life for animals are applied to any traits and outcomes.
Roger Kerr: On your point about slaughterhouses, we talk about a good life, but we also talk about a good death. It is important to recognise that a lot of stress is experienced when animals have to be moved a significant distance, or even away from the farm and environments that they are familiar with. The fundamental issue is how many abattoirs we have and how far animals have to move. To say, “Oh, well actually, what we’ll do is we’ll genetically manipulate their genes so that we can transport them hundreds of miles before we kill them,” seems to be a perverse and illogical approach.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Roger Kerr: I am not sure. We were talking about dairy cows, which, as you know, are not bred to be eaten. Beef animals would be different again. There is an issue around stress with killing an animal, but that is more about the environment that it is in. I think we should look at that in a holistic way in terms of the environment and not necessarily just say, “Let’s tweak something so that we can still treat—”
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that I am going to have to bring the session to an end. Our allocated time is over. I thank you all for another interesting session.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Richard Harrison and Professor Giles Oldroyd gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dr Harrison: I am Richard Harrison and I am director of crop research at NIAB. NIAB is an independent research organisation based around the country. It receives both public and private funding, and it sits in the area of strategic and translational research in crops. My role in NIAB is as the director of Cambridge Crop Research, which encompasses most of the arable crop research we do in the organisation. That include genetics, biotechnology and some of the statutory work that we deliver in seed certification and variety valuation for the Animal and Plant Health Agency on behalf of DEFRA. My own research is in the area of plant-microbe interactions in complex trait genetics. Most of that work has been done over the past 10 years in horticultural crops—strawberries, cherries, raspberries and other tasty things—where my group have worked on disease resistance but also developed and implemented gene editing technologies in those crops.
Professor Oldroyd: I am Professor Giles Oldroyd. I am professor of crop sciences at the University of Cambridge. I am a fellow of the Royal Society and I am director of the Crop Science Centre, which is an alliance between the University of Cambridge and NIAB. I am the University of Cambridge component of that alliance. My research focuses on how we improve the sustainability of farming systems, with a particular focus on removing the need for inorganic fertilisers from farming. I work on driving sustainability in developed-world farming, but also for smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. I get most of my funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I currently have a field trial ongoing in Cambridge that uses a combination of genetically modified lines as well as genetically edited lines.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I think that the current Bill would be truly transformative in our ability to see impact from the foundational research that happens in many of our universities around the country. The UK is a world leader in plant sciences. It has been very frustrating for plant scientists to struggle to see impact from their research because of the restrictions that are placed on the release of potential products from their work.
I believe that gene editing is equivalent to what you can achieve from conventional natural processes, but the level of precision that it provides allows us to do things in a way that we could not—or found it difficult to do—when restricted to only what is available in the natural diversity of that crop. It really does allow us to move things from the lab to the field to the consumer in a manner that is much more straightforward, to apply the phenomenal knowledge that we have developed in plant research in the UK over the last 30 or 40 years, and really to drive what I believe is a crucial transformation in food production. We have phenomenal challenges facing us: we have to feed a growing population, drive sustainability and cope with climate change, all over the next 30 years. That is not easy and we cannot do it with our hands tied behind our backs.
Dr Harrison: I could not agree more with that synopsis. One of the major strengths in the UK is our fundamental research base. Over the past 30 years, we really have understood at a deep level how genes function—in plants and in animals—and the ability not only to capture what is there in nature through conventional breeding, but to use technologies that allow the directed introduction of mutations that could occur naturally but are not necessarily present or are not in the right pre-adapted germplasm. Bringing those into the gene pool and using them for crop and animal improvement is, as Giles says, transformative to our abilities to address the major challenges that we face in food production and the sustainability of food production.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Oldroyd: There are currently very tight restrictions on validating the health and safety of GM products. For products produced by conventional breeding, we also have tests with regards to their performance in the environment, their performance relative to other varieties and their health. We have a robust regulatory framework in place that addresses the safety of the consumer, and it has served us well over many decades. I cannot think of an example where we can say, “Okay, this line has caused genuine risk to human health,” and that is because of the regulatory framework that exists.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
My questions are about public confidence. We know that this has been a vexed debate over many years. There is fantastic science being done in Cambridge, but it often strikes me that the wider public have very little idea about it; that is hardly a unique issue there. Do you think there are sufficient measures in the Bill to secure the public confidence that is needed? If not, what extra could be put in to secure that?
Dr Harrison: The key point is proportionality. In all the preamble to the Bill, it is suggested that there is a proportionate response to how the technology is regulated. What we must never forget about gene editing and the scope of the types of changes that can be introduced is that they are indistinguishable from nature, so fundamentally we are not doing anything that could not happen or arise through natural processes.
The level and proportionality of the regulation of, and the transparency of, those products is important, and it is important that the public are aware, which I suppose is why there are systems in the Bill to register intent to put into the existing system gene edited products, but I do not think we need to stretch much beyond that. We have, as Bill Angus said, very well established regulatory frameworks in which to evaluate the performance of crops. We have the DUS system—distinctiveness, uniformity and stability—and we have the value for cultivatable use system. They have shown over many years that when varieties are put on the market, they are safe. The legislation that exists beyond that gives any country the right, if they find a problem with a variety, to remove that from what is the common catalogue in the EU, or, in our case, from our national list. As long as the proportionality is adhered to, the Bill is appropriate.
Professor Oldroyd: There are a lot of studies that have looked at the general public’s position on biotechnology. There are really only a few at either extreme—who absolutely support it outright or who are very scared of it. Most of the general public are looking to people like me—to scientists—and to the regulatory framework to define what is safe to consume.
Within precision breeding, as is intrinsic to the Bill, is the fact that these are events that could happen by exactly the same natural diversity and so already could be introduced, theoretically, through a conventional breeding process. One of the issues is that some—in particular, those on the previous panel—have taken as a presumption that anything that is biotechnology is inherently dangerous, and that is not correct. It is not correct to say that just because it is being developed by this mechanism there is an inherent danger in that approach. That is the erroneous position to take when comparing with conventional breeding.
We use many varieties that have been generated by mutagenesis breeding, by double haploid production. These are conventional breeding approaches. There is very little about gene editing that is different from that in the end product; it is just how you get to that event.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: My personal view is that I do not think there is any scientific rationale to have additional labelling criteria for gene-edited products, because they are fundamentally indistinguishable from nature. There is a sort of logical incoherence in saying, “Well, they are indistinguishable in nature, yet we must discriminate and show that they are different.” I think there is transparency in the system because there is a register. When farmers choose to grow varieties or there is a protected chain of production to discriminate one set of things from another, people are growing varieties—it is not magicked out of thin air. When people are planting, they will know whether it is a gene-edited variety or not. That is the point at which the choice can be made. I do not think there is any scientific rationale for then extending that labelling requirement to the post-marketing of products.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: Everybody has said, and many panels have shown, that there is a need, when you are bringing a new technology into the market, to have an additional level of transparency in order to inspire public confidence. I think the question is what level of balance you need for public confidence. I think that the registers are there in order to say, “This is a product that has been produced with this technology,” and there is therefore then the ability for people to choose it, should they want to. That is what I see them being there for—to give people freedom of choice.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: That is why I was saying that, at the time of planting, people can choose. The supply chain fits around that decision, at that point, much as it does with other production systems. To distinguish a gene-edited product on the basis that it is somehow different from a conventionally bred product is the thing that I am saying is a bit logically incoherent.
Professor Oldroyd: If I may add to that, the Bill itself states that only those that are considered to be equivalent to something that could be achieved by natural transformation are included under the Bill. So by definition we are saying that this product could be achieved by more conventional methods. Therefore, it is illogical to separate it out at some later stage and say, “This product is different”, when intrinsic to the Bill is the fact that it is not different. That is the only way it can be taken forward.
Daniel Zeichner
Which begs the question of why you had to register. However, I think we could probably go round in circles on this. Chair, I am quite happy for us to move on to other questioners.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: Let me describe how we get to the point. For instance, I have some gene-edited material out in the field right now and we measure everything we can possibly measure in that material, from its effect. These are affecting plant microbial interactions, so we are particularly looking, for instance, at what is happening in the soil. We have the wild type and we have the gene-edited line, so we can precisely compare, to understand any differences in the local environment caused by the gene-edited type or the wild type. That is intrinsic to the research programme and we have to do those field trials before anything even gets close to commercialisation.
Therefore, intrinsic to working with this material is that we are already putting it out in the field. If I then hand it to breeder, they will then be doing breeding in their lines with that material and also doing extensive field trials, testing many factors, according to their performance relative to other lines. Ultimately, if it gets released as a variety, then NIAB, under the jurisdiction from the Government, tests and compares those lines relative to other lines on their performance in the field.
So there are many points along this track where we are actually testing the performance—as a researcher myself; as a breeding company; and then as NIAB, creating the recommended list. There are multiple factors all along the way that are already intrinsic to the process.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: That is the process that we have put in for mutation breeding, for instance. For mutation breeding, I irradiate the seed to create mutations in the seed, look for the lines that give a trait that is useful, and then breed that into the conventional lines. That is already happening; it underpins a lot of our food production and we have a regulatory framework to ensure that what we are actually releasing out into the world is safe and effective.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I think it is certainly sufficient for assessing the validity of material produced by methods that are no different from what happens in nature.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Yes.
Deidre Brock
What are your thoughts with regard to, say, Mr Angus’s previous points about the ownership of genes or the licensing of genes, and trying to ensure that that does not become a problem for breeders such as Mr Angus, or indeed for growers. We have discussed that in a few panels, so I just wondered how his point could be addressed.
Dr Harrison: Bill was talking about the breeder’s exemption, which means that once a variety has been protected it is put on the market, and any other breeder can then take that material, cross with it and do onward work.
If I understand it correctly—this is an area that is changing rapidly—there is still uncertainty, as Jonathan Napier said, about what can and cannot be protected. Patenting genes is very difficult, so it is more likely that the technology will be protected than the genes themselves. Even so, there could be some instances where there is some level of protection around a particular trait.
There are schemes now being set up that would allow the breeder’s exemption still to apply in the event of a licensing for a particular gene-edited trait in that variety. So those systems are being set up by industry at the moment, because ultimately there is a win-win there, because the licence holder of the intellectual property will want to see that out there at some level, and the plant breeders will want to use the material. I am not an expert in this area, and I am not a legal expert, but I understand that there are schemes being set up to take account of that. That is only in the instances where stuff is actually protectable; most stuff probably won’t be protectable, so the breeder’s exemption will still apply and people can still cross with it.
The bigger issue—the one raised by Jonathan—is that if you have an overly burdensome regulatory landscape of pre-authorisation to take something to market, for many that will be the thing that kills the technology. It is really important that that proportionality remains. It is only for things that may substantially affect nutrition that you would go down a route whereby the FSA would even class it under novel food regulations. I would expect that the majority of things being developed are agronomic traits, which would—as they do in many jurisdictions, such as Canada—sit outside the purview of food standards and are not classed as novel food in any way. They would progress to the market just as conventionally bred things do at the moment.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Do you mean in terms of additional—
Deidre Brock
If they take over and buy out smaller breeders, for example.
Dr Harrison: You have to look at the situation. The market is one thing, and the Bill is talking about gene-editing technologies and whether they are substantially different. Personally, I do not think that the two are really related.
Deidre Brock
Although it is certainly bound up in the arguments about gene editing and genetic modification.
Dr Harrison: In many ways, among the small and medium-sized enterprises such as Bill’s, in a landscape such as the UK, where there is a lot of innovation happening, there are start-ups starting now that want to do breeding and gene editing, so you may well see the opposite happening: a democratisation of the process and more people entering the market as the barrier to entry is much lower because of the regulation change.
Professor Oldroyd: The food production sector is no different from any other sector in this free market economy. I hear a lot of concerns about a few companies owning most of the seeds, but I do not hear the same about a few companies owning most of the drugs, cars, phones, clothes or any other product. That is a reality of our free market economy. The food production system is just like any other sector; there are major players who have a sizeable part of the market share.
Richard made a very important point. The phenomenal restrictions that are being put on traditional genetic modification have actually meant that only the big players that have deep pockets can use that technology. I feel as though we have ended up in the situation that most people feared, where a few companies have total control of a technology, and that is principally because of the cost of releasing those traits. If we follow the Bill and treat them as equivalent to conventional breeding, we absolutely liberate the technology for SMEs to get in the game. At the moment, they could not afford to do that with GM.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Q
I do not think that is a model that I would want to apply to food. Some of us would like to see something more robust that did not make the mistakes that we have made on pharmaceuticals, for example. Food supply is critical, especially as we move through the 21st century with the climate crisis and a growing population. When I was asking you questions as a BBC journalist a long time ago, I was always struck by your passion for the science and for communicating the science. As currently constructed, does the Bill provide the protections we need? Outside your laboratories, away from the pure science, there are free-market corporations for which the bottom line is the end game and the main driver. Do you feel that this science is beyond abuse and beyond being used in the same way that perhaps big pharma have cornered those markets?
Lastly, I understand the notion that reducing barriers opens up the market to small and medium-sized companies, but the history of any industry shows us that big players begin to hoover up small players over decades, and you end up back in an oligopoly or monopoly situation. That does not necessarily have to happen, but that is what usually happens with new tech. There is a free-for-all when everyone piles in, but ultimately people sell up and move on, and the big companies hoover up. When you get past the science and it reaches the real world, do you feel that there is the opportunity for abuse? Does the Bill protect us from that?
Professor Oldroyd: With the caveat of clause 3, legislating gene editing as equivalent to conventional breeding is the best way to allow small to medium-sized enterprises to become involved in the technology. If you really want to see a break in major corporate ownership, lowering the barriers to how you get a product from that technology is almost certainly going to facilitate that. As I said earlier, the big problem currently with GM is that it is so costly to release a GM variety that only “the big four” can afford to do that. I think that taking this approach will help that ownership of lines.
Certainly from me, as a researcher, the Bill as it currently stands greatly facilitates me to work directly with plant breeders and move products through the conventional plant breeding mechanism into the market and on to the consumer. Some of that plant breeding is in the big four, but quite a bit of it is not. Those are more the medium-sized enterprises, not necessarily BASF or Bayer, although they do have a role in some of that. I think the current Bill will certainly facilitate that broadening of ownership of the technology and a speeding up of the impact to the consumer.
Dr Harrison: If I could add one small point, our public research institutes in the UK have a pivotal role to play here. We do research funded by the Government in this area and we publish that. We can protect it before or we can just publish it so it is free and able to be used by many.
You could really think strategically about how those research organisations are used to direct change in the way that one would want to see, so that varieties come on to the market either nearly complete, so breeders can take them up, which is often what happens, or even release complete varieties, as happens in many other countries, from public funded research organisations. Again, that allows freedom of choice, so varieties come on to the market that have traits that are desirable and do not suffer from the problem you point out, which is that some small companies may become subsumed into larger companies.
Thinking about it more broadly—this is outside the scope of the Bill—there is an absolute opportunity for the UK to lead on bringing those traits to the point at which they can be taken to market, in a variety of different ways that are not just dependent on the big four.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I am probably the best person to answer that, because my research is entirely focused on trying to remove the need for the addition of phosphate and nitrate as inorganic fertilisers for food production. I am absolutely driven by a desire to have sustainable productivity for both rich and poor world farmers. Historically, I got most, if not all, of my money from the British or European Governments, but now, as I said, I get money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and also from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In that regard, it is absolutely policy driven for sustainable productivity for smallholder farmers.
Dr Harrison: I echo that. For the UKRI-funded research that NIAB delivers there are two key components. One is scientific discovery. When you are working in crops, that is about strategic discoveries of things that are important to the strategic objectives of the research councils. Of course, BBSRC is the primary funder of agricultural research in the UK. It is absolutely in that zone of looking at how crop science and net zero intersect and how we can generate more sustainable farming systems. Much of the research, even if it is discovery and frontier bioscience, always has a strategic element to it.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Harrison: There is certainly a clear research strategy.
Professor Oldroyd: Absolutely. In fact, it is more driven by that policy. The drive for sustainability is very much an active area of research in the public sector, probably more so than in the private sector. A lot of the public sector research is pushing towards some of those policy issues, in contrast to the private sector, which is looking principally at productivity.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I guess so. The subsidies are changing quickly.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Oldroyd: In the case of my research, we hope that what we are testing right now in the field are lines that will be productive at lower levels of treatment of phosphate as a component of fertiliser. By that it is absolutely measurable how much fertiliser you are putting on the field relative to your productivity. The landscape for subsidies for farming is changing rapidly, and I think within that there are great opportunities for incentives for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester more carbon in the soil. The challenge will be how you measure that, and it is probably going to be by encouraging farming practices that we know on average reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr Harrison: I think you absolutely have to measure it at a farming system level; the genetics alone, in isolation, will not do it. Of course, the system that we have at the moment, the value for cultivatable use, includes some public good traits, for example, disease resistance traits, which are ones that have a clearly measurable environmental benefit, because you are reducing the amount of fungicide sprays and so on. There is absolutely scope to look at that system and ask what additional measures could be put in place to ensure that the varieties, whether conventionally bred or using new breeding technologies, have some level of enhanced environmental service. That is a big opportunity for the UK, because we sit outside the common catalogue, so we can define our own value for cultivatable use and national listing system. Again, we could be progressive in the way that we look at this, and lead the way in making sure that the things that breeders are asked to do to put varieties on the market meet the wider policy objectives of sustainable farming and emissions reductions.
Jo Churchill
Q
The Chair
May I jump in here? We have about four and a half minutes left, and Daniel Zeichner wants to ask a question as well.
Professor Oldroyd: A lot of eyes are focused on this country at the moment, with regard to how we approach this. We have to recognise that we influence quite a bit. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are absolutely looking to Europe, to the UK, for leadership on this. Our position will influence internationally how these technologies are legislated for. Certainly, we have a lot. I am excited about the potential to drive up food production for smallholders, as well as the sustainability of farming practices here in the UK. The opportunities are immense. Definitely, having this, the ability to use gene editing, will facilitate that delivery both to smallholder farmers and to UK farmers.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is definitely paying attention to what is happening here in the UK. With regard to additional investment, this Bill opens up opportunities for the UK. We are already a leader—we really are a leader in agricultural research—and I think it will position us even more greatly to be spearheading the impact of all that agricultural research.
Dr Harrison: I, too, see a big opportunity for the UK not only to lead, but to garner additional investment. At NIAB, where we operate in both the private and public sectors, we have seen on both sides a big increase in the attention given to the services we offer to industry and academia for crop transformation and gene editing. I definitely think there is an opportunity here. In the kind of ecosystems that you see around major university cities such as Cambridge, there are a lot of start-ups that are very much trying to bridge the gap between the need to use crop science to transform food and farming to be sustainable, and the use of new technologies. A definite opportunity.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: Personally, I would say that, and not just for this Bill and gene editing. If one wants a public good test, one should apply it to everything in terms of crop varieties, and not single out gene edited varieties as a unique case. I return to my comments on looking at the listing system and making sure that, again, it is proportionate. Breeders have to spend a lot of money bringing varieties to market, so if there was public good funding coming from Government, it should be to support breeders in developing those varieties that have enhanced public good traits. You should look at it in the round.
Professor Oldroyd: I think it would be very hard to define what is not a public good. Production is for the public good. We have to have production. Production tends to be where the private sector focuses—it is total productivity—but it has raised productivity across the past century. That has certainly given it a competitive edge as individual industries, but it has meant that we have kept our production up with the growing population and the growing demand. That is public good. I would find it very hard to differentiate what is public good from what is not public good when trying to manage such legislation.
Daniel Zeichner
I think we might find some examples, but that is for another day.
The Chair
That draws us neatly to the end of the time allocated for this session. A big thank you to Dr Richard Harrison and Professor Giles Oldroyd.
Examination of Witness
Sam Brooke gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Sam Brooke, chief executive of the British Society of Plant Breeders, who will be giving evidence in person. We have until 4.50 pm for this session. Before we open the questions with the Minister, could you please introduce yourself?
Sam Brooke: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Sam Brooke, and I represent the British Society of Plant Breeders, which is a not-for-profit society. We currently represent 80 members of the plant breeding sector, which is virtually 100% of the plant breeding industry in the UK. As you can imagine, because we have 80 members, we range from one-man bands and SMEs to multinational breeders, so we have a very good coverage of the breeding industry in the UK. Our main aim is to continue to promote plant breeding, the importance of genetics, and the importance of seed and where it fits into the scheme of things.
Jo Churchill
Q
Sam Brooke: From our perspective and that of our members, the legislation offers huge opportunities. It will definitely open up investment in the UK for plant breeders. When the European Court of Justice ruled in 2018 to legislate precision breeding techniques as genetically modified organisms, around 70% of our members classed as SMEs ceased investment in those new technologies because of the expense and political uncertainty around being able to bring those products to market. From our point of view, it is critical that these new techniques are now available and can be utilised.
We believe that the legislation will naturally bring the cost of those new techniques down, giving a broader range of our members greater access. As I have mentioned, we have guys who are literally one-man bands, who are breeding locally in the Cambridgeshire area where we are based, and we also have the bigger multinational companies. You have mentioned being fair and equitable: breeders have already established a network of trait licensing platforms, which we see working very well across the UK and Europe. A very successful vegetable trait licensing platform is already established, and an agricultural trait licensing platform is being established as we speak. That is a fantastic way of ensuring that those traits are available across all breeders and all entities, of all shapes and sizes, which is great, because it means they have access to broader diversity, more technologies and more traits. That is really important.
Jo Churchill
Q
Sam Brooke: As a whole, the BSPB is incredibly supportive of the Bill and what it is trying to achieve. Our main concern would be around clause 3 and a risk assessment around food and feed. All the scientific evidence would show that there is no greater risk in using these technologies than in using what we currently are in conventional or traditional breeding—or whatever we want to call it—so I feel that there is no reason for that extra risk assessment step. We are very concerned that that could act as a blocker to early stage research and development.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
The key issue is getting the balance right between reassuring the public and following the science. However, to many of us, this Bill looks very thin on the “reassuring the public” side—so much so that, despite the FSA and its polling showing that the public would really like more information, as the Bill stands, that is not the way it will be. How convinced are you that the issue of public confidence will be resolved in favour of the science?
Sam Brooke: Having lived and breathed plant breeding for just over 20 years, I think we should have shouted more, and earlier, about how regulated the industry is, both at plant-breeding and seed level. We have a rigorous testing system in the national list process. Each variety undergoes at least two years of testing before it comes to the market. Every variety must be on that UK national list before it can go into sale. All that is underpinned, obviously, by laws on food safety, novel foods, and so on. We have this incredible history of safety of plant breeding in the UK, and of bringing those products into the market in a safe, sensible and secure way.
On top of the registration process, we also have seed marketing legislation, which really protects the user. Naturally, it protects the consumer in that it ensures that all seeds that go out into the market meet a common and prescribed standard. I think that is really important, and it is probably our fault as breeders that we have not shouted in the past about how legislated the process of producing new varieties and seeds actually is. That is what we need to go out and talk about, and tell the consumers. I am a consumer—we are all consumers—and I think, had consumers had more information and knowledge about how regulated varieties and seeds already are, we might already be a step closer to having that absolute trust.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Sam Brooke: We are absolutely not against full transparency of breeding methods. Most breeders have already taken their own initiative to highlight, on their websites and social media platforms, how varieties are produced. I think it was back in March 2021 that we wrote to the Secretary of State, George Eustice, and said, “No, BSPB is absolutely up for transparency on the breeding process.” It is just that the best way of doing that is through the chain.
We have worked with DEFRA and looked at how we can easily bring that step into the national list process by highlighting what breeding process was used, because we already do, to a certain extent. For example, if it was a hybridised crop, we would have to highlight if it was cytoplasmic male sterility or a chemical-hybridising agent system, so we are already doing that. That, for me, would be another step forward and would support the public register, which is in the Bill and which we absolutely support.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: Naturally, we have been following EU legislation and have been historically aligning, quite rightly, with EU legislation on this, where we have our nearest trading partners and the majority of plant breeders. Because it is such an expensive industry, the majority of plant breeders are breeding at least for Europe if not internationally, because varieties travel quite nicely, especially to our nearest countries in the EU. We align with that. The key difference is probably that we have a lot of expertise in the UK and we want to keep that, because plant breeders are based here and actively breeding here—they have labs and food trials here and we have this fantastic, world-leading research and development in the likes of NIAB, John Innes and Rothamsted.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: No, I think the Bill has the potential to open up the technology a lot more. It will naturally open up what traits are available both publicly and privately, but I would imagine especially publicly. The majority of new traits that have come through historically have come through publicly.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: For me, it is all about choice. That is the most important thing. We are not going to get great investment in these new technologies if these commercial business cannot make some money somewhere along the line. We have to be able to protect that IP, which we already do very well in the UK with our current royalty system. We currently protect new varieties and IP on varieties very successfully, which makes us a great area for investment in plant breeding. I would like to see that maintained.
As I mentioned, there are different trait licensing platforms already available. For example, Corteva is one of the big ones, as we may want to describe them, which has already initiated its own platform for accessing its traits. I do not think it should be seen as a concern. There are already breeder exemptions around using new varieties, and I do not see this being any different when we get to using precision technology.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, we will bring this session to a close.
Examination of Witness
Dr Alan Tinch gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Dr Alan Tinch, vice-president of genetics at the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies. He is appearing via Zoom, as we can all see, and we have about 20 minutes for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself? Thank you also for joining a little bit earlier.
Dr Tinch: No problem. I joined five minutes early just to be prepared. My name is Alan Tinch. I work for the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies, which is a company involved in developing technologies for use in fish breeding and aquaculture. I work on projects in genetics, genomics and gene editing. In terms of my background, I am a geneticist. I graduated from the University of Edinburgh and Roslin Institute in Scotland many years ago. I have worked on a number of different species, both terrestrial and aquatic. Throughout my career, I have worked on genetics, genetic development of breeding programmes and developing new systems for improvement of livestock.
Jo Churchill
Q
Dr Tinch: That is an interesting question. I think all livestock breeding is now very much international, so it is difficult for small companies based in one country to operate successfully. There are a number of large international operators in genetics. In aquaculture in particular, we are not as far down the development of the species as some of the terrestrial species. We have been farming and breeding fish for about 40 to 50 years, so we are domesticating many of the species already. We are working hard to improve things such as disease resistance. There is good evidence, and we have seen very good examples, of genes that can be used to improve health and welfare of fish—particularly with Atlantic salmon, where a Scottish group identified a gene that accounted for over 80% of the variation of disease resistance. That was bred into the salmon populations and is now in most farmed salmon populations, making them resistant to the infectious pancreatic necrosis virus.
I see the implementation of gene editing allowing us to do similar things. Without having to go into the field, if you like, and look for animals that are carrying favourable mutations, we are able to identify genes that affect things like disease resistance, make targeted changes in those genes and make fish resistant as a result. I think that is a very positive way of taking breeding forward. It is not the only tool in the toolbox, but it certainly allows us to do some very interesting and valuable things for the health and welfare of the animals we farm.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Tinch: That is a tough question. The association between improving the ability of animals to perform and changing disease resistance, and the idea that that means we are going to increase stocking density and make welfare worse, is very simplistic, and it is not as simple as that. That is not the way farmers tend to operate, and it is not the way that breeders operate practically. That argument is raised quite often as being a reason not to improve farm animals, but it is not like that.
We should use the technologies that we have to improve animals. We are putting them in a farming environment that is different from the environment they evolved in. We have to adapt them, using genetics, to the farming environment, and that is what we aim to do. We aim to improve health, welfare and the sustainability of the animals from an economic point of view and an ecological point of view, and we use a number of different methods to take that forward. The tool is genetics, and gene editing is the next step forward in our ability to change different things. We should look at how we aim to improve animals in a constructive and welfare-driven way.
On the trade issues, if the legislation put us in a position where we were restricted in the use of the technology, we would be faced with the problem of people farming gene edited animals in other countries, and we would not be as competitive. We are already seeing gene edited animals being farmed in Japan, for example, and there is very permissive legislation in places such as Canada and Australia. I think those countries will be the first to bring in this technology. I see that coming first in some of the economic traits, and we will face competition as a result—maybe not in the species that they are planning and gene editing at the moment, but as it comes through the system in these areas, we will see our industries being uncompetitive in their performance.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Tinch: If the legislation puts in place a system whereby gene edited animals would need to be labelled, you would need to have parallel systems. My argument would be that gene editing is a means of creating genetic variation that is identical to the variation that would occur naturally. As a consequence of that, we are not seeing products that are different.
If I identified a gene for disease resistance in a group of animals in the population that I was farming and bred it into the population for supply into the food chain, or I gene-edited the animal with the same genetic change—the same mutation—those animals would be identical in their genetics and performance, but if we labelled them and identified them differently, we would be creating two levels of animals within the production system that are essentially different. That would cause more problems than required in terms of the science behind the technology and the proportionality of how we are dealing with that lack of genetic difference.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: The key difference—let me know if I get too technical, as I do not want to drift away—is in the amount of time it takes to go from generation to generation. Some aquaculture species have a very short generation interval and can grow up and produce eggs quite quickly. For a lot of the warm water species that are farmed, and imported and exported around the world, we could move quite quickly because they have a short generation interval and they produce large numbers of eggs, so we could quickly be in a situation where we are producing animals with gene edits. That would be species like shrimp and tilapia. Shrimp are consumed at high levels in the UK. Tilapia are not, but they are still consumed at high rates around the world.
Atlantic salmon are much slower in terms of their growth and maturation. It takes at least three years—probably four years—to go through that cycle from egg to egg. From a practical point of view, we are not going to do it in one generation—it would be a couple of generations—so for Atlantic salmon we are talking at least four years, probably nearer eight years, until there were significant numbers of Atlantic salmon edited in the populations.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: Well, if I go back to the example of the gene that was discovered in Scottish populations for disease resistance, it was described in 2008 and was at high levels in commercial populations in 2015-16. Do not quote me exactly on those numbers, but it was that sort of timescale to go from identifying the animals to using them in breeding, going through the multiplication system and coming into production. If we were able to do that, and the technology would allow us to move as quickly as that in some populations by editing the gene, making the change and then breeding from those animals, we could move as quickly as that—a generation and a half to get it to high levels in the population.
The process that breeders go through normally to assess their animals is as you describe: if you discover a mutation, you look at it in the population, look at its effects on a number of different traits, and judge that it is an animal that is capable of performing well in the production environment. If everything is favourable, you then take it forward into production. That was the example relating to infectious pancreatic necrosis in Atlantic salmon. The gene had an effect on disease resistance and it did not have any perceivable effects on any other traits. For the sorts of traits we are talking about in Atlantic salmon, the case would be the same: we would evaluate it within the populations in the breeding programme—typically thousands of animals—and then as that data builds up and everything works out, we would expand that to the commercial populations.
We could go as fast as that. Obviously, with short-generation species with higher rates of reproduction, we could go faster than that. That process of identifying the animal, looking at its performance across a number of traits and judging that is a process that can move at the timescale I have described.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: To go back to that position—
The Chair
Just before you answer that question, may I ask you not to lean too far forward into the mic, because we will miss your face, and we do not want that? Could you stay neatly there for lip readers who need to follow you?
Dr Tinch: No problem. On labelling—going back to the position that says the genetics we are talking about is indistinguishable and identical variation that occurs in the wild and in farm populations—if we say that they are identical, then logically I see no reason to label that. The product is the same, the means by which it was generated is slightly different, but it is identical, to all intents and purposes, to a mutation that would have occurred naturally. I see no need for labelling.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: That is a different question.
Deidre Brock
Given agriculture is a subject of some contention in Scotland at times, what do you think?
Dr Tinch: It has been a hugely successful industry in Scotland. Your public opinion is interesting. To give a broad analogy, the other example of products being very close in terms of their composition and quality but labelled for production-system differences is organic farming. There is a drive there that says, “Okay, people are interested in the production system and they ask the product to be labelled to identify it as premium.” There is that precedent, but I go back to the position that says these are products that have identical composition. They are produced in different ways at the point where the mutation is either discovered or produced by gene editing, but they are identical at point of sale. I see no reason for labelling that, unless, like with organics, there is a premium for that sort of production system.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Similar discussions are going on. A position on describing technologies where the outcome is the same but the technology used to produce it is different has been adopted, as it has been in a number of other countries—Canada and Australia. The principle of recognising that the product that is being farmed is the same as one that would have occurred naturally is being adopted by several countries. The danger is that we might come out of line with that.
The influence that Norway has over the UK and Atlantic farming industry is interesting in that it is a major player in the Scottish industry. Norway’s industry is technology led; Atlantic salmon farming is technology led and it will take the technology forward. I would expect that Norway takes its responsibilities as farmers and guardians of the livestock seriously, and farms according to good practice. The technology can be used as a means of improving performance, health and welfare of our animals. We should bring those sorts of technologies forward and use them. Those are the arguments that have been made in Norway as well.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Dr Tinch: Absolutely. I am a graduate of the University of Edinburgh and studied at the Roslin Institute, and have collaborated on a number of projects with scientists at Roslin in aquaculture, developing genetic solutions to disease resistance and applying those in populations. We are a local leader in terms of our ability to understand these technologies, develop them to the point of application and then deliver them through production systems.
The danger if we do not lead in that area is that the technology will move elsewhere. I now work for an American company working in gene editing in agriculture. I am not saying the reason I am doing that is because there is a lack of investment in the UK, but there is certainly lots of investment outside the UK in the technology and a lot of the technology is going to be applied in breeding programmes outside of the UK in areas where the legislation looks as if it is more permissive.
The UK model, particularly through the BBSRC and identifying projects that will have meaning within industry, is a very good example of how science should be applied and carried out. I have benefited from that on a personal level and a company level, in terms of my career development and the development of companies I have worked for.
The danger is that if we do not allow the application of new technologies, we will become part of the second lane in the use of this technology. I would not like to see that. Our approach as a country towards animal welfare and the way that we set up farming systems is world class. In many cases, we lead the way in the development of technologies. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and we will continue to review that, I understand, in a constructive way. We have very high standards in farming. If we prevent this sort of technology from being employed because of a precautionary principle, which is one of the areas where technology gets held back—“There’s a slight chance that there may be a problem that results from this technology, so we shouldn’t do it”— that is regressive. I do not think that is the way that we should take science forward.
We should understand the risks, evaluate the risks and look at the technologies. Where they are able to be used for good purposes, we should take them forward. That is the case for gene editing. If you look at the way that the research is lining up, and the way that the breeding companies are talking about the traits that they are going to use, these are examples of taking the technology forward to benefit animal welfare and the sustainability of animal production, and we should be one of the early adopters of the technology.
David Duguid
Q
Dr Tinch: I think there are some challenges. If it turns out in the detail to become regressive—if it becomes restrictive—that would act against the development of the technology. We should look to taking this forward by applying the technology in a constructive way. The detail should allow us to work that out and look for examples where we are taking animal welfare forward.
The Chair
There are only eight or nine seconds left, so we will not get another question in. I was hoping to get Kerry McCarthy in there, but we will not. I thank Dr Alan Tinch for being our witness.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 30th June 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 June 2022 - (30 Jun 2022)
The Chair
I have a few reminders. Please switch off electronic devices or turn them to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Jackets can be removed if Members are feeling the heat. Thursday 30 June Until no later than 11.45 am Professor Gideon Henderson, Chief Scientific Adviser, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Thursday 30 June Until no later than 12.25 pm The Roslin Institute; Genus; The Pirbright Institute Thursday 30 June Until no later than 1.05 pm Nuffield Council on Bioethics; Dr Madeline Campbell, Senior Lecturer in Human-Animal Interactions and Ethics, Royal Veterinary College; Compassion in World Farming—(Jo Churchill.)
I understand that the Government wish to amend the programme order agreed by the Committee on Tuesday 28 June in order to hear again from Professor Gideon Henderson, chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who experienced some technical issues when contributing on Tuesday. Because the motion has not been agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, it can proceed only if everyone is content. Does anyone have an objection to the motion being considered?
Ordered,
That, the Order of the Committee of 28 June 2022 be varied so as to omit the eleventh and twelfth rows in the table and substitute the following—
Examination of Witness
Professor Gideon Henderson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Gideon Henderson, chief scientific adviser at DEFRA, who is with us today in person. Before calling the first Members to ask a question and before allowing the professor to introduce himself, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings of the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. That means that for this first session we have until 11.45 am. Professor, would you like to introduce yourself briefly? Then we will start with questions from the Minister.
Professor Henderson: Hello. My name is Professor Gideon Henderson and I am chief scientific adviser at DEFRA.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Q
Professor Henderson: I am content that this Bill is scientifically sound. I have given it a great deal of attention and have called on a great many expert witnesses through informal and formal processes. I have interacted with a large number of stakeholder groups over the past 18 months, and I am content that there has been due scientific scrutiny and that this Bill is based on sound science and agreed science.
It is important to move forward with this Bill for several reasons. There are very significant benefits to the environment, human health and resilience to climate change that can accrue from precision bred organisms. The technologies that we can harness to derive those benefits are now sufficiently mature that we are ready to capitalise on them. The UK is well positioned to do that. Many other countries have already made the use of such technologies easier, and it is time for the UK to catch up and it is safe to do so.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Henderson: There are two sides to my answer, one of which is the scientific side. The scientific body of knowledge is, of course, shared across the world and certainly across the four nations, and there is strong expertise in gene editing and the technologies we are talking about today in the devolved nations, as well as in England—certainly, those strengths are quite considerable in Scotland and Wales. The UK as a whole is very strong in this area, scientifically.
At a governmental level, there have also been significant discussions between Government scientists. I talk to my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I have been sharing information with other officials and sometimes with Ministers in the devolved nations as well. I think there is agreement about the science across the four nations, but not always about the policy direction.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
I will not be repeating the questions we went through last time, but go on to some other things. I was particularly struck by the written evidence from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, members of which we will be hearing from later, and I want to put to you a couple of the questions that were raised in their evidence. They talked about something that I do not think we were aware of, which is that the Department is looking at its advisory frameworks in general. In reference to the Bill, obviously the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment looks like it will play a significant part, so could you say a little bit about what discussions have been had as to whether that is really the appropriate body, or whether some new body should be formed to oversee these complicated trade-offs and issues?
Professor Henderson: There are a number of things that that might refer to. There is a periodic review of how we get advice—scientific and otherwise—into DEFRA, and such a review is ongoing at the moment. I think it is entirely safe to say that that will not impinge on ACRE’s activity. It serves a critical function already, and has an expanded role through this Bill to identify when things are precision bred organisms and when they are not. To me, that body seems to be the right place to attend to that type of decision about whether something is a PBO or not. There are also questions about animal welfare, and it may be that other bodies are required to adjudicate in that area, but that is for further down the line.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: Again, I will divide that into two. I believe there is clarity about the role of ACRE, and ACRE has published guidance about the definition of a PBO, which has been scrutinised and, I think, generally found to be appropriate. As for, “What is a PBO?”, the advisory system is in a good place. On the animal welfare aspects, there is perhaps some more thinking to be done.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
I would like to pick up on a point that the Nuffield group has made about the release of precision bred organisms. It said:
“On our reading of the Bill, this means that precision bred animals that are not transgenic organisms may be released without further authorisation, without even a ‘precision bred confirmation’. Such releases could have significant effects on existing ecosystems (for example, if they should have a reproductive advantage over wild organisms of the same species). This may be a matter of significant concern to other UK and wider jurisdictions as such animals may travel freely across jurisdictional boundaries.”
Is that something that you have considered? What would be your response to that concern?
Professor Henderson: There is a notification requirement and the necessity for permission from the Secretary of State before things can be released. There are some appropriate mechanisms to scrutinise things as they pass through the process, but in general, the scientific evidence is that if something is mimicking traditional breeding and therefore is a precision bred organism according to the definition, the risks of release are no greater than those of a traditionally bred organism, and may be lesser.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
“In determining whether a feature of an organism’s genome could have resulted from natural transformation, no account is to be taken of genetic material which does not result in a functional protein.”
The Nuffield group says:
“The intention of this provision is unclear to us.”
It is unclear to me as well. Could you explain it?
Professor Henderson: I can explain it. Actually, it is related to the questions you asked me last time. During traditional breeding, in nature and during precision breeding, it is commonplace for some transgenic—some exogenous material—to cross into the genome, but most of that has no functional role at all and does not impact on the phenotype. This clause is pointing to the fact that if there is some such material, it does not matter, as long as it does not create any function. This clause is seeking to say that if it creates a function and it is exogenous, then this thing will fall outside the definition of a PBO.
Daniel Zeichner
That is helpful. I am sure you are aware that there are other views on that. Thank you, Chair.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
Professor Henderson: I am afraid I am not. As a chief scientific adviser I am here to talk about the science. I spoke to my scientific counterparts and officials in the devolved Administrations who have a scientific interest, but I am not aware of the process you are talking about.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Henderson: This is a double-edged sword because it is genuinely scientifically impossible to tell precision bred organisms from traditionally bred organisms in some cases, and therefore this will become a problem, regardless of the legislative environment that we work under, and it will be harder and harder to trace these types of organisms through systems globally, not just in the EU.
In terms of this legislation, all varieties that are approved for growth will be on a seed varieties listing and will be designated. It will clear that they are PBOs, as per their listing. So if you are shipping tomatoes or something, it will be possible for that to be a discrete product that can be traced to the extent that is required through that process.
It becomes more problematic with products where things may be blended, and then it will be up to the producers or those selling to make sure that they have a supply chain that will satisfy the people they are selling to.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Henderson: Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you talking about a precision bred organism breeding with a non-precision bred organism?
Deidre Brock
Yes.
Professor Henderson: You might be better placed asking this question to animal breeders later today, but I imagine this is to do with the way in which you describe the varieties and the strains of livestock when you are sending it to market.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Henderson: From a scientific point of view, I will again come back to the point that a precision bred organism and precision bred livestock is scientifically equivalent to something that could have been produced with traditional breeding approaches, so scientifically that coupling would not create a concern.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: I will avoid getting into a discussion about the precautionary principle because that would be long, and there are even multiple definitions of the traditional interpretation of the Bill. I believe that the Bill we are putting forward now is precautionary—it follows the guidelines of the precautionary principle. We are not leaping in with both feet, but we are moving in stepwise motion.
The Chair
Order. We have come to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank Professor Henderson on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor John Hammond, Professor Bruce Whitelaw, Dr Craig Lewis and Dr Elena Rice gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Professor John Hammond, group leader of genetics, genomics and immunology at the Pirbright Institute. He will be appearing via Zoom. We will also hear from: Professor Bruce Whitelaw, director at the Roslin Institute, who is with us in person; Dr Craig Lewis, genetic services manager Europe and chair for the European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders at Genus, also with us in person; and Dr Elena Rice, chief scientific officer at Genus, who is appearing via Zoom. The session will run until 12.25 pm. Starting with Professor John Hammond, will you all briefly introduce yourselves, before we go to questions?
Professor Hammond: I am Professor John Hammond and I work at the Pirbright Institute. I look after the science responsible for improving post-livestock genetics to increase disease resistance and resilience.
Professor Whitelaw: Hello, I am Professor Bruce Whitelaw. I hold the chair of animal biotechnology at the University of Edinburgh. I am also the director of the Roslin Institute and have led projects there that have generated genome edited livestock.
Dr Lewis: I am Craig Lewis. In my current role I oversee the implementation, design and execution of practical animal breeding programmes for a subunit of Genus called PIC. Prior to that, I hold advanced degrees in animal genetics, from Roslin, and animal welfare.
Dr Rice: Good morning. I am Elena Rice and I am the chief scientific officer for Genus. I am overseeing the research programme across our business units, PIC and ABS. We are a world leading animal genetics company.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Hammond: Where we have got to with the precision breeding methodologies in the Bill now supports decades of primary research in the UK and other countries. We understand the complex genetics underlying health traits and, in particular, disease resistance, which is a complex biological process. Because of those advances, and the work that we and others are doing, we are identifying genetic variants that may exist naturally, which, in combination or isolation, can dramatically increase disease resistance and resilience in farm animals.
The ability to undertake precision breeding, which would be the equivalent to the natural variation that we find in those populations, is an almost transformative technology to improve animal welfare and production—for example, there would be a lack of wasted carbon caused by disease. I think it has a really important potential for planetary health in terms of climate change.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Whitelaw: Roslin has been involved in a number of species: pigs, cattle, small ruminants and poultry, primarily chickens. We are also now looking at research to do with aquatic species. The main driver of that research has been to reduce stress impact on the animals, and we have focused on disease, partly because it is one of the main stresses imposed on animals around the world, but also because we have a lot of knowledge. As my colleague John just indicated, we have a lot of genetic knowledge and a lot of knowledge around the actual pathogens themselves.
There are two projects that have the highest profile. One is to do with pigs and relates to a disease called porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, and we have done that in collaboration with Genus PIC. The other area we have been looking at extensively is around influenza—primarily in chickens and poultry, but also in pigs—and there are other diseases behind that. From a research perspective, disease is a very challenging topic, but we have a lot of knowledge. There are other stresses that we are looking at, such as heat tolerance. We are looking at the impact of reproductive issues on animals, and these can all be addressed by using genetic technologies, including genome editing.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Whitelaw: We are very fortunate that we punch above the size of our island and have been leading in the area of livestock for some considerable time. We all know the reason why Roslin has a high profile: it is because of a certain sheep called Dolly, which was 26 years ago. That whole project was around genetic engineering, and the same exists in the plant community. We have some really strong players in the academic arena. We do not have the numbers that exist globally, but we do sit very well within that. I will quite happily say we are leading, and I will quite happily say that Roslin is a leading player in that too.
Jo Churchill
Q
Dr Lewis: To put it into some context, I grew up on a pig farm in Herefordshire, so I have seen PRRS, or what was called blue ear disease here in the UK, at first hand with my father. The focus of my PhD work at Roslin was actually looking for natural variants in terms of PRRS resistance. Are there pigs out there—even today—that we could selectively breed so that we would not have to deal with this problem or could at least make the animals more robust? After three years at Roslin, the bottom line was that although we do a great job at creating genetic improvement to make more robust pigs generally—we can increase feed conversion, growth rate and so on—specific disease resistance is obviously a very complicated trait. This is an opportunity where we can almost create a natural variant, and therefore the mutation in the particular genome that confers the resistance; it would be wonderful if that just happened in the next generation completely naturally, but this is not a fairy tale—it is practical animal breeding. The ability to be able to create that variant so that we can actually implement this in a practical breeding programme, as John said at the beginning, is game-changing technology.
In terms of how that could impact globally, PRRS is endemic in multiple markets around the world. I have worked across the United States, which is very impacted by this particular disease. Right now, Spain is going through a very nasty strain of the PRRS virus. Here in the UK, whether it is indoor intensive units or the outdoor pig units in Norfolk, East Anglia, which we see when we drive around, we have PRRS outbreaks. That is a difficult scenario, for the pigs, obviously, in terms of morbidity and mortality, but there is also a human element. People like my father are deeply impacted when their animals are sick. Fundamentally, that is why I got into science. The scope of delivering truly disease-resistant animals impacts so much, as we look at this technology.
To get into the science, I will hand over to my colleague, Elena.
Dr Rice: The question was where are we today with the development of PRRS-resistant pigs. Today, we have quite a large population of animals that are not the first generation. We did the edits and already bred animals that carry the resistance to the virus. Those animals have been tested in disease challenges and we showed that they are completely 100% resistant to the virus. Because of this small edit in one gene, those animals do not see the virus and cannot get sick, which means that they do not require extensive application of antibiotics on the farm. In our process, we are building a commercial herd now. We are going through the accrual process with the US Food and Drug Administration. The process is very successful. We are moving forward and are actually accelerating our studies. We hope to see approvals in late 2023 or the beginning of 2024. So this is real and it is here.
We are also working with regulatory agencies in other countries, such as Japan, Canada and South Korea, and we are expanding our interaction with many other countries. What we see today is that there is a very clear path in all those countries to get approval for the animals and bring them to the market.
Jo Churchill
Lovely, thank you very much. A clear path is what we are aiming for.
The Chair
A number of Members have signalled that they want to speak. I remind Members that this session goes to 12.25 pm. I will start with Daniel Zeichner.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
My second question is for Genus. These opportunities are fantastic. If we can deal with influenza and PRRS, that is a fantastic opportunity, but can you explain to me how the intellectual property rights will work? Who owns this? How does it get transferred from country to country? That is quite a big question, but if you could do it fairly briefly, that would help everybody.
Professor Whitelaw: Good question. I will start off and then pass over to Genus colleagues. The first question was about how we can be world leaders and need the Bill. All the work that goes on at the Roslin Institute is contained use under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It is an experiment that is done in our labs or on our farms. We, the university, are the inventors and we are the owners of that. Our commercialisation organisation at Edinburgh University is Edinburgh Innovations, which negotiates with a third party to get access and a licence to that IP. In this case, we have negotiated a commercialisation licence with Genus to take it forward into the market. All the work at Roslin is done there under ASPA contained use. That is the research base. That is where we lead with the development of intellectual property and develop the projects.
Dr Rice: I had a small problem hearing the question, so maybe Craig can start.
Dr Lewis: I will leave all the IP pieces to Elena, because I am a breeder, not an IP lawyer—full disclosure. In terms of development, I think that one of the things we need to understand here, which Bruce hit on quite effectively, is that there is a big difference between the research stage and what I would call the scaling phase before implementation. It is not a matter of simply saying, “Okay, we have done great work at Roslin and have created a precision bred animal, which is going to impact on commercial animals here in the UK.” There is a different step, because we need to be able to scale it. That comes back down to basic animal breeding and the structure of a breeding pyramid. We need to scale those animals to have enough of a population to be able to serve the commercial producers. That would happen.
I think there are opportunities for the UK. If we try to do the scaling step without a market, basically you will have major farms where 100% of the offspring cannot enter the food chain. That becomes a huge barrier to further innovation. We can do the very early stuff, but we would miss out that scaling step in the UK. A Bill that would allow us to access a marketplace would have the benefit of significantly reducing the cost of the scaling piece.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
The Chair
Did you hear that question, Dr Rice?
Dr Rice: Yes, I think the question is about IP and how it is placed in the market. As Bruce just said, the university owns IP. It is possible for any company to license that IP and bring the research to commercial production. We did exactly that. We interacted and worked together for many years with the Roslin Institute. We have the ability to bring that research to the hands of producers and farmers. As Craig said, it actually takes a lot of work over many years. To give you an example, as a company, we have devoted around five to seven years now to actually taking it from the research stage from the Roslin Institute to learning and understanding how we can implement that particular edit in our elite breeding germplasm. Why is that important? Farmers and producers around the world want the best genetics that we can offer, but the best genetics need to be combined with the edit.
I want to quickly give you an overview of how it works. We make an edit in an embryo. Then we take the embryo and put it into an animal who carries the edited heritage. We create exactly the same edit in our founder lines. In this example, we have four founder lines that we created and edited. We select them and do thorough analysis for any potential off-target effects. We select only animals that carry no off-target edits. Then we breed those animals in many generations to provide the elite herd that will be distributed to our customers. I want to make sure that the animals that the farmers get are not touched by any instrument—that they are not edited themselves. They are bred from the initial set of animals that we have created. That is why it takes a long time and a lot of effort to bring it to the market.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Whitelaw: I am not sure I can comment on export trade. It is not an area that I am knowledgeable about, but maybe I can comment more generally. One of the benefits of the Bill is to give momentum to investment in this area. I do not mean just money, but talent coming into the field, into the universities, and students knocking on my door and saying, “I want to do a PhD on genome-edited animals.” I see that increasing and I see that as a huge benefit for the UK and for Scotland. To me as a researcher, that is one of the major drivers—to see that investment opening up. Yes, it will happen in the commercial world. We have seen how other countries that brought in legislation on genome editing have seen a proliferation of small and medium-sized enterprises and innovative ideas coming through. That is what I want to see come out of the Bill. That is the bit that drives me. I am really not knowledgeable about the impact on exports.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Lewis: It depends on the timeline and when the Bill would come into effect. Rather than talking about a specific gene edit, one way to also ask the question, even in the current state, is: when I produce an elite animal today, how long is it until it really impacts the whole flow of pigs? I can answer that perfectly today. Based on the structure of the pig industry, you have to have pure line animals, then you have to create crossbred animals that are the mothers of the commercial offspring, and then you use a terminal sire. Basically, if you look at getting the whole pyramid to be 100% influenced by new genetics—you are putting in three different levels, three breeds coming together—that would roughly be about five years.
Deidre Brock
Q
Finally, Roslin has got a tremendous reputation for really high quality research. Do you think the Bill guarantees the absolute traceability of gene edited products and also the strictest possible monitoring of what science is doing in this area, or is there more that could be included in the Bill to ensure that?
Professor Whitelaw: I will answer the science question, then touch on the traceability. Our science is very well scrutinised through current legislation, because it is under the contained use. We have to go through a variety of permissions before we do an experiment with animals, and that is visible. Therefore, I do not think the Bill will necessarily affect the regulation of what we are doing; but as I said, I hope it increases the volume of what we do.
When it comes to traceability, which was mentioned earlier, genome-editing technology generates the equivalent of what is naturally found. Every animal born carries 40 de novo mutations, and genome editing adds another one to that list. Without having an audit trail of individual animals, you will not be able to identify one genetic change from another. It is impossible to categorically say, “That is caused by genome-editing technology rather than a natural mutation.” Therefore, the audit trail of an animal or product will not be based on the molecular analysis of that animal; it must be based on something else.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Whitelaw: Craig might be able to answer this more clearly, but depending on the species, that might be breed books or production systems, which would be embedded within the companies or with different nations.
Dr Lewis: We should be very aware here that there is a species component to that. When we start thinking of cattle, for historical reasons, there is a very strong traceability element through the cattle chain. However, if we look at the pig industry in the UK, it is more done on a—shall we say—lot basis. For example, normal practice in the UK pig industry is to use pulled semen at a commercial level for a terminal sire, so even within a litter, you might have three or sires represented. That is today, so an individual animal traceability in the UK pig industry today does not really exist. When we answer the question on traceability and what exists today, that is very species-specific, rather than “This is the livestock sector.”
Professor Whitelaw: This is the basis of all of my thinking. We are using these tools to create precision changes to the genome—changes that can happen naturally. There is no difference between those two. There is a difference in how they arise; one is because we choose to target a specific DNA sequence and change it, and the other is just a random lottery that evolution throws up. However, from the animal’s perspective, and I would argue from our perspective, in how we look at these animals, it is just a genetic variation that exists. There is no difference. Going to the traceability question, why and what are you tracing?
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Q
We have been dealing with crops so far, and we have now moved on to animals. I must admit that I am now beginning to struggle with this slightly. We are not talking about plants but about sentient animals, and about genetic modifications to them.
The thing I have been reading about PRDC—porcine respiratory disease complex—is that part of it comes down to environmental and conditioning factors. There are obviously some pig farmers, for example, who keep their animals in better conditions than others, but many do not. Even when you keep your animals in optimal condition, there are certain conditions that they are kept in that will encourage that disease.
My question is on behalf of the millions of people who are increasingly becoming vegan or vegetarian. We are now introducing genetic editing to enable us to keep those animals in sometimes quite horrific conditions. It is for this disease at the moment, but what is to say that exploitation of these animals is not going to only deepen? Now we can keep these animals knee deep in their own crap—sorry, Ms McVey—and we can edit their genes so they can survive in those conditions. That is how some people will see this and that is how much of the public will see it. Can you give me some reassurance that that is not going to happen? When profit is the bottom line, I see these animals becoming more robust and able to live in ever-more extreme and difficult conditions.
Dr Rice: Perhaps I can jump in. If you have read about PRRS virus, you will probably know that it is actually not dependent on conditions. Animals in the wild, as well as animals in production, all get sick. What actually happens on farms today is that farmers have to install multimillion filtration systems—because viruses are airborne—to filtrate outside air through very complicated filtration systems so that viruses cannot get into the farm. So it actually has nothing to do with the conditions.
The Chair
Allow the witness to finish.
Dr Rice: It is a reality today and you are welcome to visit those farm centres. I visited one two weeks ago, and I just want to tell you that when we are talking about conditions, I was at the farm and the animals looked beautiful. At the same farm, the owner was telling me that two months ago, he was walking into a room full of dead piglets. Why did that happen? It was because the mother got PRRS virus and it killed all her not-yet-born piglets and they were born dead. So when you walk into this room and see all the crates covered with dead bodies, it is actually very impactful on people’s minds and everything. People suffer mentally seeing those pictures. We have an ability to prevent that. It seems a little strange that we would say no, that they would have to continue to suffer like that, even though we have a tool to give them to completely avoid those types of situations for those poor animals. No, they are not maintained in very bad conditions; they are properly farmed. There are rights on those farms, I would say, but again, all the pigs are getting that and the main biosecurity precaution today is to prevent air from outside from bringing the virus to the farm.
Dr Lewis: I appreciate your questions and concerns, Mr Lewis. Let us just step back. First and foremost, I have the privilege of travelling the world and working with pig farmers all over the world. First and foremost, the UK should be very proud of its tradition of animal welfare and the UK farming sector’s animal welfare standards. If I look at the most extensive and intensive systems here in the UK, both equally get PRRS virus. I struggle with that in many conversations with vets all over the UK. Really, the system does not dictate whether—
Clive Lewis
Q
Dr Lewis: I was just coming to that point. This is a conversation that I have actively had. I have had the privilege of being in a couple of public dialogues with Peter Nuffield. There is a great debate about where animal welfare, farming systems and the food system are in the UK today, but I do not think it is directly relevant to this Bill. If we say that animal welfare needs to change, we already have robust legislation and codes of practice for the UK on what animal welfare should look like and what the standards are. The debate about whether they should move or not is about the animal welfare legislation, and I believe it should be part of a public consultation.
Considering that that legislation is already in place, whether we have genome edited animals or not does not change how many animals we put in the pen; that is dictated by a separate piece of legislation. Just saying that we are going to have gene editing so that we can put more animals in the pen—
The Chair
Mr Lewis, we are straying from the topic. I have to stop you because I have three other Members who want to remain on topic—Kerry, Andrew Bowie and Katherine Fletcher. We will move on because we have strayed off the topic. I have been very patient and I did let it go on for a little while.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
I note that the syndrome was first identified in the States in the late 1980s, and now it has spread worldwide in most swine-producing countries. I would be interested to know your take as to why it has spread to that extent. Is it because there is more intensive farming, in the same way that we saw with things such as bovine TB? I get what you are saying about the farm animal welfare codes, although they are not very well adhered to—there is a separate debate about that. If this would permit more animals to be kept in intensive situations because the virus would not spread, does that not leave the door open to people to argue that that is the path we should be going down?
Dr Lewis: I appreciate the question. We can look at this in a couple of ways. Just as pure history—as I say, it was my pet project with my PhD—the PRRS virus was originally identified in two separate locations at the same time. One was in North America—Minnesota—and one in Lelystad in the Netherlands. It was pretty much simultaneously defined in Europe and the United States. Did the movement of animals globally—breeding stock and so on—facilitate the global spread? I think that is probably fair, but that needs to continue to happen as we move the geneplasm around the world and connect populations.
The number of stock is an interesting question. PRRS is very infectious, so once you have got it into a farm, it does not matter if there are 10 pigs or 100 pigs in the farm; the whole farm is probably going to get it. The way that you look at it is that the barrier to entry into the farm is more important than how many pigs are in the farm. That is why we continue to refine biosecurity practices.
Jo Churchill
Professor Hammond might be interesting on this, because he deals with avian flu, and obviously that might broaden it to the wild community.
The Chair
If you want to do that, you have less than a moment. It is for all Members to direct the questions to who they would like to hear answer them.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Lewis: My final point would be that if we look at gene editing, or genome precision breeding on the other extreme, one of the reasons why we keep animals inside is to protect them from disease, whether it is flu or PRRS. One different way of looking at it is that the use of precision breeding technology could facilitate the extensification of agriculture.
Professor Whitelaw: You have to remember that a virus does not choose which animal it is going to infect. It will infect an animal in whichever farming system it is in. This technology, equally, can benefit all farming systems.
The Chair
This session has been busy with lots of speakers and questions. I apologise that we did not get on to other Members. I want to thank Professor John Hammond, Professor Bruce Whitelaw, Dr Craig Lewis and Dr Elena Rice. Thank you very much for your time.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Peter Mills, Dr Madeleine Campbell and Peter Stevenson OBE gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dr Peter Mills, assistant director at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, who is with us in person; Dr Madeleine Campbell, British Veterinary Association member, RCVS recognised specialist in veterinary reproduction and European diplomate in animal welfare science, ethics and law, who is appearing via Zoom; and Peter Stevenson OBE, chief policy adviser at Compassion in World Farming. This session lasts until five minutes past 1. Again, if everybody could be mindful of that and direct their question to the witness they would like to answer it. Could each of the witnesses introduce themselves for the record, starting with Dr Peter Mills?
Dr Mills: Good afternoon. I am Dr Pete Mills. I am assistant director at Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Dr Campbell: Good afternoon. I am Dr Madeleine Campbell. I am the current chair of the British Veterinary Association’s ethics and welfare advisory panel. If I may briefly correct something you just said, I am actually an RCVS recognised specialist in animal welfare science, ethics and law and a European diplomate in animal reproduction.
Peter Stevenson: I am Peter Stevenson. I am chief policy adviser at Compassion in World Farming. I am a solicitor by background, although I do not do all that much legal work nowadays.
Jo Churchill
Q
Dr Campbell: To clarify, I did indeed argue that at a recent Animal Welfare Foundation event in the course of a debate. I was slightly making an argument, but yes, we do feel that genetic editing of animals could play an important role in enhancing animal welfare and in the broader context of enabling agriculture to develop in a sustainable way, which would minimise the impacts of animal agriculture on the climate and the environment. Yes, it has great potential to do good, but it also has great potential to do harm from an animal welfare point of view. As I say, it needs to be thought about very carefully.
Jo Churchill
Q
Dr Mills: The Bill is a very welcome initiative. The Nuffield Council does not believe that the retained EU regulatory regime is fit for purpose. One of the shortcomings of that regime was the way in which it was relatively indifferent between plants and animals. We believe that the potential power of genome editing as a technology merits some control, so we are pleased that the Government have brought forward this Bill to do that.
The Bill addresses a number of potential mischiefs that could occur as a result of the use of those new technologies. It is perhaps a little bit unambitious in the sense that it leaves a vacuum at the heart of the governance system that applies to breeding technologies. You heard evidence in the previous session about the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is primarily focused on experiments on animals. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was also mentioned, which is to do with the treatment of animals in different settings. There is nothing at present that controls the production of animals of particular kinds.
The precision breeding Bill—despite the title—does not, in a sense, control precision breeding or genetic technologies, except indirectly by causing breeders to anticipate the conditions under which they will be able to market the products of their breeding. What is missing is some more positive statement or principle about the purposes for which precision breeding—and breeding more generally—might be used. As we argued in the Nuffield Council report, breeding of all kinds should be directed towards securing a just, healthy and sustainable food and farming system. Having something like that in the Bill as a framework, within which standards can be elaborated through regulations and by the relevant authorities, would be extremely helpful.
Jo Churchill
Q
Peter Stevenson: I am afraid that I have serious misgivings about gene editing. I think it is going to do a great deal of harm, both during the creation of gene edited animals and then when it is used on farms. Having said that, I recognise that there will be certain cases where it can be beneficial. For example, Compassion in World Farming is working quite closely with a company that is trying to gene edit hens to not produce male chicks. That would prevent millions of male chicks being killed at a day old every year. We are not totally against it.
For me, at the root of the problem is that the Bill argues that gene editing is just a more precise form of traditional breeding, such as selective breeding. If you look at the last 50 years, selective breeding has caused immense health and welfare problems for farmed animals. Meat chickens have been bred to grow so quickly that millions suffer from painful leg disorders each year, while others succumb to heart disease. We have bred dairy cows to produce such high milk yields that many are suffering from lameness, mastitis and reproductive disorders, and the cows live with these welfare problems for a large part of their lives. We have bred hens to produce 300 eggs a year. As a result, many suffer from osteoporosis, making them highly susceptible to bone fractures.
The idea that we will push all this further through gene editing is really worrying, but if we are going ahead with this, which is the clear intention, I think—I am now speaking as a solicitor—that the animal welfare protections in the Bill are drawn in very broad language. They are imprecise and unclear, and they need to be given more focus and strength, so I would love the Government to revisit those provisions.
Jo Churchill
Q
Peter Stevenson: In 30 years of working in this field, I have never tried to assert anything that is not supported by the science. I have tried to say that gene editing could be helpful in certain and very limited circumstances, but that it will be harmful overall. The science about the detrimental impact of selective breeding on just about every main farm species is utterly clear. There is a huge amount of science on the subject, some of which comes from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is now called the Animal Welfare Committee. I totally reject any suggestion that what I have said about the damage done by selective breeding is not based on the science. As I say, the idea that we will push this further and drive animals to even higher yields, faster growth and larger litters through gene editing is really disturbing.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Campbell: That is a key question. When we talk about whether gene editing will be beneficial or detrimental from an animal welfare point of view, as we have just been discussing, we need the evidence to look at that. I do not feel that the Bill as drafted will provide a mechanism for doing that.
At the moment, the Bill has a mechanism specifically for applications for marketing authorisations to be referred to the animal welfare advisory body. It is somewhat open in Bill as to exactly what that body is, as I understand it; it could be an existing body, or a new one. What will be crucial is that we have a proper mechanism in place to have oversight not only of the marketing and the release of any genetically edited animal organisms, but of the actual processes that are going on with the so-called precision breeding, so the animal welfare advisory body needs to have oversight of those processes as well, and that needs to be an obligatory oversight. It needs to have an obligatory reporting role too.
This needs to be an independent body, with suitable expertise to understand and interrogate both the basic science and the animal welfare science, and to understand and explain the ethics around that. It must be independent of Government and of scientists, and it must be independent of any lobbying—around trade, for example. Then it needs to be able to look both proactively and retrospectively at data about the health and welfare of animals that are produced using so-called precision breeding techniques. It would be an independent oversight body—in my mind’s eye, very analogous to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—that can take an independent look at the data and then make recommendations for policy changes in light of that data, as the science develops.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Campbell: I am sure you heard in the previous evidence—I was not in the meeting to hear that—that there is still some uncertainty about the effects of genetic editing, in particular the so-called off-target effects. Exactly because of the nature of the techniques, those can be effects not only on one generation of animals, but on many future generations of animals. One could approve something now, but a generation or more down the line, the evidence could become available that would cause you to reconsider that opinion. That is exactly what this independent body would be doing. It would be gathering data about the health and welfare of the animals produced using precision breeding techniques and independently analysing that data, and then making recommendations about whether policy and/or legislation needed to be updated in the light of the developing scientific evidence about health and welfare effects.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Campbell: No. As I understand the Bill, at the moment there is within the regulations some kind of optional reporting function for that animal welfare advisory body—which, as I say, is not very well specified—but there is no obligatory function. I think it absolutely has to be an obligatory reporting and oversight, data collection and analysis function, and that animal welfare body—whatever it is—needs to be better defined and specified within the Bill, and it needs to be constituted specifically for this purpose, with the relevant expertise within it.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Mills: I am very grateful for the recommendation for our report.
I have said already that I think that what is perhaps lacking is a framework that sets out positive purposes for precision breeding—a framework in which a body of the sort that Dr Campbell referred to could elaborate standards that could then be applied independently to precision breeding.
The thing about breeding is that we are talking not about one animal, but about a lot of animals. We are talking not about simply the next animal, but about the potential trajectory that is followed by a practice that results in future conditions in the food and farming system. Some attention should be given to those things.
The other thing that struck me coming off the page of the draft legislation was the fact that there was a focus on the individual traits being modified, but of course welfare is not about one trait. The welfare of the animal is about the interaction of a range of traits at the molecular level and the phenotypic level, and it is about the interaction of that set of characteristics of that animal with the environment. What breeding is doing is trying to develop animals and fit them to particular environments, and consideration needs to be given to that as a more general theme.
I am extremely pleased that the Government have taken note of the fact that welfare is an important ethical issue affecting animal breeding, but it is not the only one. A range of other considerations need to be taken into account when one is directing a breeding programme, and those are a range of considerations that are of public interest, and therefore properly, I think, the subject of public policy.
Daniel Zeichner
I am conscious of time, Ms McVey, so I will come back to Peter if I have time.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Mills: I concur with Dr Campbell. In the first place, there is quite a lot that is opaque or simply missing, because it is subject to further regulations. It is unfortunate in some respects that you will have to debate the Bill with those uncertainties in front of you. It would be nice to see the constitution and membership of the animal welfare advisory body, for example, specified. The powers, resources, reporting lines and enforcement functions will be really important in thinking about how well whatever government system we end up with for precision breeding functions.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Mills: This may be a minor and easily remedied technical point, but certainly from my reading of the Bill, it struck me that in order to release a precision bred organism one had to comply with part 2 obligations and notify the Secretary of State. If that organism was not being made available, however, or marketed, I do not think there is any further obligation to secure prior permission. If that is the case, at the very least the power to make regulations to provide a period during which that release can be examined, representations made, decisions reached and possibly enforcement powers brought to bear should be given effect. That power should be exercised mandatorily rather than at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Deidre Brock
Did you want to say something, Mr Stevenson?
Peter Stevenson: Yes, if I may. As I said earlier, I think the animal protection provisions in the Bill need to be clarified and strengthened. For example, clause 11, requires an applicant for a marketing authorisation to assess and identify the welfare risks, and clause 12 says the welfare advisory body must then make a report on whether the applicant has properly identified and assessed the welfare risks. To some degree, the way it is written puts the applicant in the driving seat—playing the lead role in determining which welfare risks will receive primary consideration. The Bill needs to be amended to make it clear that it is the welfare advisory body that is in the lead. Of course it will look at the information supplied by the applicant, but the Bill must require the advisory body to carry out its own independent, far-reaching investigation into the possible welfare risks. It should not be fettered by just what the applicant has said.
Clive Lewis
Q
Dr Mills, on gene edited exports, one presumes that once this biotechnology is achieved, it does not make a difference what welfare rights we have in this country for animals. A big part of the Bill is giving British biotechnology the ability to get out in front on this, and we could then sell that technology to other countries that have much lower animal welfare standards. Is that a concern?
Peter Stevenson: I do not know enough about plants to give a proper opinion. When it comes to the animal side, as I said earlier, there are a few cases in which I think gene editing could be beneficial, but ideally I would like to see animals removed from the Bill and much more thought given to how gene editing is going to be used and what protections should be there before legislation is introduced.
For example, the arguments that gene editing can be beneficial in terms of disease resistance have been overstated. Yes of course, if you are looking at diseases that have nothing to do with the way animals are being kept, gene editing for disease resistance can be helpful, but the science is absolutely clear that many diseases stem from keeping animals in intensive conditions. Very specifically, the crowded, stressful conditions in intensive livestock production can lead to the emergence, the spread and the amplification of pathogens. Gene editing should not be used to tackle such diseases. These diseases should be addressed by keeping animals in better conditions. There is a very real danger that if you gene edit for resistance to diseases that primarily result from keeping animals in poor conditions, that could lead to animals being kept in even more crowded, stressful conditions, because they may be resistant to the diseases that are inherent in such conditions.
Having said all that, I suspect Government isn’t about to drop animals from the Bill. I have talked about how the Bill should be strengthened in terms of giving a stronger central role to the welfare advisory body, but it also needs to be strengthened in setting out what that body should be looking at. The Bill is very unusual. Usually primary legislation provides more definition.
For example, the welfare advisory body should be looking for things like a piece of gene editing aimed at animals growing faster or providing higher yields, and asking, “Has this caused a problem for animals that have been selectively bred for such purposes?” If it has, it should be very careful and look at whether that is likely to happen with gene edited animals. It should also be asked to look at whether the desired objective of the gene editing could have been achieved in less intrusive ways. An awful lot more thought needs to be given to the use of gene editing in animals.
I will add one point. It is more than 50 years since Ruth Harrison’s book “Animal Machines” first alerted us to the dangers of intensive livestock farming, yet gene editing is doing exactly that: treating animals as machines that can be fine-tuned to make them a bit more convenient for us. The Bill sits at considerable odds with the recent Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 that regards animals as sentient beings. The two do not mesh.
Dr Mills: To pick up on what Mr Stevenson said and to clarify, the Nuffield Council certainly sees many benefits in genome editing as applied to animals. Unlike perhaps a number of other commentators on the issue, we does not see genome editing as necessarily being the last resort. We recognise that, in some cases, there are social conditions that are every bit as intractable as the biology of animals; indeed, given the technologies that are becoming available to us, the biology of animals is perhaps more tractable. Our way of approaching this is to treat those things symmetrically and to consider in what way different interventions might promote a just, healthy and sustainable food and farming system, taking into account the interests of the people and animals that are dependent on that system.
You asked about the technology being sold to countries that have lower animal welfare standards than the UK. I am very happy to live in the UK, a country that does respect animal welfare. Of course, the science and the technology are very easily translated across national and jurisdictional boundaries, but that really is an argument for the governance of breeding according to purposes. It should be consistent with the purpose of securing safe, just and sustainable food and farming systems. A technology can be applied in any number of contexts, and one cannot necessarily control them all. However, if you set out in the right direction, you have a much better chance of arriving at a desirable destination.
Dr Campbell: Chair, may I comment on that?
The Chair
Yes, you can. The question was not directed to you—again, I am mindful of time—but of course, please do come in.
Dr Campbell: I will be very brief. I just wanted to pick up on one thing said by Mr Stevenson and one by Dr Mills. Mr Stevenson mentioned the scope of the animal welfare advisory body as it is written into the Bill, and I think he is absolutely right. It needs to be increased so that it has a more proactive function and looks at the actual process of precision breeding, not just looking at marketing authorisation applications. I know you talked before I joined the meeting about the interaction between the ASPA and this piece of legislation. I think it is going to be very important to understand that and whether the Bill is proposing to bring some genetic precision breeding out of the ASPA and into a non-ASPA realm. The advisory body will be important there.
That brings me on to the point about the international aspects of this legislation. I am very aware that one can go online now, already, and buy a genetic editing kit for frogs, including live frogs. You have to purchase it in the States—I checked this morning before I joined. We must be careful of having a system in place that carefully regulates professional scientists, but somehow allows others to undertake genetic editing of animals outside of it. That will be very important to protect animal welfare, as well.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Q
Dr Campbell: I think I see what you are getting at. Obviously, in normal, non-experimental areas, one would be looking either at the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or at the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. I think what is different here is the potential for off-target effects, which at the moment are not very well understood and not predictable. We need to have a mechanism for keeping a very close eye on those.
I have one more point. There is—carried over from the consultation on this Bill, I think—an idea that a mutation, effectively, that could occur in the wild is really no different from what we are trying to achieve by genetic editing. And while it is true that a mutation might occur in the wild, that does not necessarily mean that it is not a bad thing. And anyway, when we are doing the genetic editing, we are very deliberately trying to cause something at a very high incidence, and that probably would not be the incidence of the mutation in the wild. So I do think there is a difference between employing these technologies and just more general selective breeding, and so-called traditional breeding is currently ill defined in this Bill.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Katherine Fletcher
Okay, I will ask this in one sentence. Current animal welfare standards are not in this Bill, but we have animal welfare standards—is that right?
Dr Campbell: We have animal welfare standards under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, certainly. A noticeable thing about this Bill—I think someone else mentioned the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022—is that, as I understand it, the Bill is relying on the definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act and that of course is less comprehensive than the definition in this year’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act. It does not include cephalopods or decapods, and I am unclear on why that is.
Katherine Fletcher
In the interests of time, perhaps we can pick this back up and explore it later. I am conscious that others want to come in, Ms McVey.
The Chair
Okay, with two minutes left, is it possible to get Kerry McCarthy and Andrew Bowie in?
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Peter Stevenson: No, the codes do not address breeding issues in any very clear way, other than sometimes through a broad principle to say, “Yes, be careful how you breed in order not to harm animal welfare.” We have a huge amount of legislation in this country, but just one or perhaps two provisions that deal with breeding, and they are so broadly worded that they have never had any impact on the harms done by selective breeding. To go back to Katherine Fletcher’s point, I think it is vital that there is something in this Bill to protect animal welfare, because the current legislation, as I said, has really very little on breeding, which is why we have all these problems. If this Bill is going ahead—I know it is—let us at least have some good, well-crafted animal welfare protections.
Katherine Fletcher
Is not the implication of that that you would be telling the scientists what to do?
The Chair
Sorry, but we have only 30 seconds left. Can you do a quick question, Andrew Bowie?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Yes; this is just to Peter Stevenson. We all agree that intensive farming and seeing animals held in situations that we would not have in this country engender disease and all the rest of it. We see that around the world. Is not it better that we use the technology and science being developed in the UK, at places such as Roslin, to try to edit out those diseases, because practically, these animals are being held in conditions that would not be acceptable in this country? We can export that technology overseas.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for this sitting, but I want to say thank you very much indeed to Dr Peter Mills, Dr Madeleine Campbell and Peter Stevenson for being with us here today.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 30th June 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 June 2022 - (30 Jun 2022)
The Chair
The Committee is now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will now hear oral evidence from Penny Hawkins, head of the animals in science department at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who is now before us on Zoom—welcome. Would you like to introduce yourself? We will then move straight to questions.
Penny Hawkins: Good afternoon. I am Dr Penny Hawkins. I am a biologist by training. I am head of the RSPCA animals in science department, which seeks to implement replacement, reduction and refinement with respect to animal experiments, and to ensure the robust ethical review of animal use.
The Chair
Thank you. We will be finishing at 2.20 pm, so Members should keep their questions brief, and answers should be as precise and brief as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Q
Penny Hawkins: Right, there were quite a few components to that question, so if I start to go off topic, do please bring me back. I will start by saying that my area of expertise is the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, so while I am aware that there are various pieces of legislation and codes of practice that regulate how farmed animals are kept and what it is permissible to do to them—of course, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 comes into play if farm animals are cruelly treated—what I really know about is the 1986 Act.
That was a major concern for the RSPCA, because when you look at the draft Bill, there is actually no mention at all of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which I will call ASPA for short from now on. The drafting team kindly gave us some of their time, so I now understand that every new line—every new precision-bred line that is created and that will then go on to fall under this Bill—will still require licensing under the ASPA for the foreseeable future.
That is absolutely essential, because within the ASPA, you have a framework for minimising the harms to animals, for reducing or avoiding wastage, and for ensuring that gene edited animals are properly characterised or phenotyped, so you understand the physical impact on the animal. There are also proper requirements for welfare assessment and, very importantly, a harm-benefit analysis and ethical review of every line, as you mentioned. In cases of special ethical animal welfare or societal concern, there is the provision to ask the Animals in Science Committee to review the project licence application, which is also critical.
The key reason why the harm-benefit analysis is essential is that at the moment, as drafted—and as previous people who have appeared before the Committee have explained—there is nothing in there about permissible purposes, less permissible purposes or purposes that should be really carefully scrutinised. So I think the ASPA is and will remain an essential safeguard to ensure that there is proper risk minimisation for animals, ethical review, and an element of social licence to use these techniques. People have to remember that the public need to consent to this, and at the moment, there are deep-seated public concerns that have not been properly explored.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
Penny Hawkins: Indeed. I think some very useful lessons can be learnt from the way in which genetically altered laboratory animals are regulated, but I emphasise that, within a laboratory setting, genetically altered laboratory animals include those in which genes have been inserted from other species. We are very clear that within this Bill we are talking just about gene editing and not about deliberate transgenesis, although there have been some discussions about potential accidental additions of exogenous material.
When genetically altered animals are created under the ASPA, a licence is required for their creation, because, obviously, regulated scientific procedures are required in order to generate these animals—procedures that relate to, for example, administering substances to animals so that they produce large numbers of eggs, or super-ovulation, removing those eggs from animals, preparing other animals to receive the gene edited pregnancies, and so on. All those require licensing, and then, when the line of genetically altered animals has been created, they have to be, as I mentioned, phenotyped. That is a battery of behavioural and biochemical tests to look at what the eventual genetic alteration was and to look at the whole animal that this creates—the phenotype.
There is a system of licensing under which the impact on the animal is categorised as mild, moderate or severe. If a researcher or research team can demonstrate that the gene edit they have done is stable for at least two generations, and if they have phenotyping data and animal welfare assessment data to demonstrate that the animal is not going to suffer as a result of being gene edited—the impact would have to be what is referred to as below threshold; not even mild suffering—then, in those circumstances, they can apply for the breeding of that particular line to be released from the controls of ASPA. That would mean that those animals would still be bred in a laboratory under all the codes of practice that normally apply to laboratory animals, but a licence would not be required in order to breed the animals, because there is no risk to their welfare because of the gene edit.
Those are the safeguards in place for laboratory animals. The issue with farmed animals is that, obviously, if they are released from ASPA and their breeding is then controlled or regulated by this PB legislation, they will not be held in a laboratory setting, with all the controls that that entails; they will join the national herd or flock. That is a very different environment, and it can be far from clear how the genes will express themselves once they are in that environment.
Also, this Bill presumably applies to other animals: companion animals, wild animals and sporting animals. At the moment, for example, projects are under way to look at gene editing grey squirrels to result in fewer females being born or male infertility. Presumably, their breeding will also be covered by the Bill. And when they are released, they really will be released into the wild. Again, that is an extremely different environment. So the safeguards that laboratory animals have will be severely reduced or absent for other types of animal.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Penny Hawkins: Well, I was listening to the representations this morning and I can only echo what everybody was saying about the welfare advisory body. At present it is there to report to the Secretary of State on whether the notifier has had regard to the risks to the health and welfare of the animal and their progeny. There does appear to be some provision in clause 15 on the suspension and revocation of marketing authorisation. That provides for the Secretary of State to receive information on the health and welfare of the progeny of those animals, but that is dependent on clause 14 on reporting obligations, which states only that:
“Regulations may make provision for requiring the notifier…to provide the Secretary of State with…information”
about their progeny
“during periods…prescribed by the regulations”.
All those elements that relate to long-term surveillance really need to be tightened up, and they need to be “musts” instead of “mays”. Many of those are subject to the affirmative procedure, which I know is normal for statutory instruments, but that again does not reassure people who are concerned about the long-term welfare effects that an adequate mechanism is in place for picking these up.
Similarly, it is not at all clear what qualifications the inspectors who are going to be active under the Bill need to have, so it would be good to see some reassurance as to how they are going to be qualified and to see it explicitly said that they will have the right to access and inspect animals.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
“There is no history of safe and reliable use”.
What else could that cover? What are your concerns? Can you expand on that, please?
Penny Hawkins: Just to clarify, when we talk about safety we are talking about the safety of animals. There are two kinds of concerns about gene editing: one from the consumer point of view and one from an animal welfare point of view, and we are talking about the animal welfare point of view. I listened particularly to Professor Henderson when he spoke to you, and I noted that he said there will have to be a two to three-year process of gathering and analysing scientific evidence around both on-farm and off-farm welfare
“before the secondary legislation can be enacted.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 17-18, Q24.]
He said that the process for that was laid out in the Bill, but I have looked at the Bill really carefully and I cannot see any such process either in the Bill or the explanatory notes.
This morning Professor Henderson said that more thinking needed to be done regarding animal welfare advisory bodies and advice on the Bill. Coming from the DEFRA chief scientific adviser, I do not think that that is very reassuring. All of the concerns that I expressed previously about the longitudinal reporting and monitoring of health and welfare also apply here. I am particularly thinking about clause 9, which explains what happens from the bureaucratic aspect if an animal is no longer deemed to be precision bred. Presumably if an animal is no longer deemed to be precision bred, it will either be because they have not been characterised or phenotyped properly or because the genome is no longer stable.
As you heard from the Royal Society of Biology, genes can have effects in multiple tissues, so in these cases there must be a much clearer mechanism for identifying and tracing these animals, and that is also lacking in the Bill. From an animal safety and welfare perspective, there really are some issues that need to be addressed.
Deidre Brock
Q
Penny Hawkins: That is an extremely important question. Reading the sentience Act, I do not think it will necessarily preclude gene editing per se. What it requires is an examination of whether or to what extent the Government are having or have had all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. At the moment it is simply not possible to say that on the basis of the information in the draft statute.
Clause 12 talks about the welfare advisory body reporting to the Secretary of State on whether the notifier has had regard to the risks to the health or welfare of the animal or their progeny and has taken “reasonable steps” to identify or address them. But we do not know how the welfare advisory body will be constituted or resourced, how independent it will be, what kind of expertise it will have access to, whether it will just confine its assessment to looking at those particular traits that have been identified by the notifier or whether it will think about wider issues relating to the process of gene editing, as Professor Campbell said, looking at purposes or at the global impact of gene editing those animals. So it is not possible to say from the way the statute is drafted at the moment whether all due regard has been paid. We just have to hope that the secondary legislation will address this, but at the moment we just don’t know.
Deidre Brock
Q
Penny Hawkins: Yes, because even the animal welfare applications are ultimately for human benefit. If you think about the gene edited polled cattle, which are the poster child for the animal welfare applications, clearly polling cattle is extremely painful and distressing for them. A world in which that did not have to happen would certainly be a better world for the cattle, but it is actually possible to keep horned cattle together. It can be done, but it is very expensive. Many farmers would not be able to afford it and many consumers would be unwilling, or probably unable, to pay the prices that would be involved. So, yes, there is a welfare benefit, but it is ultimately an economic benefit.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Penny Hawkins: No, I do not think it is messy. The Animal Welfare Centre of Excellence, which will bring all these committees together, will ensure co-ordination. The purpose of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 is to look at policy across all policy areas and see whether due regard has been paid to the effects on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The welfare advisory body is something that the Animal Sentience Committee would look at when it was making that assessment. I still think it is really important to have this overarching body that will look at policy right across the board. To me, they are all separate entities that complement one another.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Penny Hawkins: No, I do not believe they would. I think there is a suitable framework in place to ensure co-ordination that I think will work.
The Chair
Can I thank Dr Hawkins for her time and for the evidence she has given to the Committee, which I am sure we will find very valuable? Thank you very much.
Penny Hawkins: Thank you for the opportunity.
Examination of Witnesses
Lawrence Woodward OBE and Pat Thomas gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 2.50 pm for this session, so please could you introduce yourselves very briefly and then we will move straight into questions?
Pat Thomas: Good afternoon, and thank you for having us here today. My name is Pat Thomas. I am the co-founder and co-director of Beyond GM. I come from a journalistic background. I am a former trustee of the Soil Association and the Organic Research Centre, and I currently sit on the board of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ dialogues on genetically engineered animals.
Lawrence Woodward: I am Lawrence Woodward. I am co-director of Beyond GM; I am also a director of Whole Health Agriculture. I am an adviser to the Seed Sovereignty UK and Ireland programme. My previous life was as director of the Organic Research Centre, during which time I was involved in setting up an organic seed breeding company, developing a programme of evolutionary plant breeding. I was also a founder and director of the European Consortium for Organic Plant Breeding.
Jo Churchill
Q
Lawrence Woodward: The first issue is clarity of definition and terminology, which indicates concerns and differences of view regarding areas of risk. We start with this terminology, “precision breeding”, which is found nowhere else in any regulation of any other authority—it does not exist. It is a new term, and the definition of what that is, the description of what that is, only exists in this Bill and nowhere else, so there is a question about where safety issues and issues of regulation and risk assessment come in.
The Bill itself starts off with the premise that all these technologies arise from genetically modified organisms. The definitions in the Bill start off with GMOs as defined in the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002. Those definitions have given rise over the years to contested science in relation to risk assessment and safety. The Bill goes on to say that any of those techniques under those GMO regulations can be considered to be precision breeding if they could have been achieved by traditional processes, but there is no international clarity about what traditional breeding or traditional processes actually are. The narrative in the UK is, “This is traditional breeding”, but different people mean different things by that. In fact, I noted that several speakers on Tuesday talked about conventional breeding, which is probably more accurate. When we talk about that definition of traditional breeding or conventional breeding in modern times, the methods are very different, and the contention is that the damage within the breeding process—the potential risks within the genome—varies according to the different methods.
The evidence presented by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and numerous scientific bodies in this country is that risk can be assessed adequately on the basis of the final product, on the phenotype: what it looks like, and how equivalent it is to something that comes from conventional or traditional breeding. That, it has to be said, is the opinion of most research establishments and plant breeders in the UK and in some other countries, but it is not true to say that it is an overwhelming consensus. There is a body of evidence that says, “Actually, there are other risks”, and that looking at and assessing risk in relation to the end product misses disruption within the genome, and the potential health and safety aspects of that.
Disruption in the genome is at the heart of genome editing technologies, because you are going right into the cell—into the organism. I have to say, I think it is unfortunate that this Committee has not taken oral evidence from the number of scientists who work in medical practice and agriculture who have looked at the evidence of the risks of this damage within the genome and what that means, and can talk about it much better than me.
In our view, the extent of the damage and disruption within the genome is a contested area. The question then is: what does that mean for the composition of the final product, and what level of risk assessment is appropriate? That is another critical issue in this scientific debate. A number of witnesses on Tuesday referred to proportionate regulation and proportionate risk assessment. We absolutely agree with that, but it is a question of how you discuss proportionate risk assessment. Other regulatory authorities work on a system of tiered risk assessment and risk safety analysis, with different tiers for different levels of the application of this technology. We think that really should be looked at. To come back to your question, the evidence of safety and the evidence of risk is in our view entirely dependent on that tiered risk assessment.
Jo Churchill
Q
Lawrence Woodward: We are not opposed to the overall application of biotechnologies. Some aspects of genetic engineering technologies are very interesting, and there is certainly some amazing science happening. We are not opposed per se; it is about the context, the framework, the risk assessment and the wider social utility and environmental impact assessments.
Jo Churchill
I should just say that it was probably out of scope to call people who are much more based in the world of the human genome, but of course we know what advances have been made there using this technology.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Lawrence Woodward: No, the Bill is vague on definitions. Other regulatory authorities have been presented as basing their approach on end-product analysis and ignoring process, but that is not true. It is only Canada that only looks at the end process; all the other regulatory authorities look at the end product and the process. The scope of this Bill captures not just narrow gene editing, as presented by the famous word processing approach—“We alter a letter here and there and everything is okay”. The scope of the Bill is very wide, and it appears to encompass the possibilities of all new developments in biotechnology, such as RNA information sprays. This encompasses a range of things that are on the cards in the future, yet the clarity of that definition and scope are lacking, as are the assessment and consultation processes to deal with those new technologies coming forward. We have the possibility here of enlarging the scope into the future, ill-defined and without the regulatory framework to deal with that expansion.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Pat Thomas: In essence, the Bill does not provide any reassurance about environmental impacts, because the Bill has decided that there are no environmental impacts. You have heard statements from scientists, and I will underscore my colleague’s point that it was a shame that dissenting scientists were not invited to present evidence to the Committee. The Bill itself has made a prejudgment that these technologies present no environmental risk, but it has not, as the Regulatory Policy Committee concluded, presented any evidence to prove that.
Particularly where we are talking about plants, which are the dominant lifeform on this planet, and a very wide scope of which are exempted in this Bill, we need to be very clear about what the environmental impact will be, not just in agricultural nature, but in wider nature. That requires much more comprehensive assessment than is currently being looked at. At the moment, the assessment is really whether it is good for business. That is fine—we all want to see business progress—but these kinds of disruptive technologies that cut across multiple areas of concern need to be assessed on a much broader basis.
One thing that would immeasurably improve the Bill would be to ensure that the assessment board is looking not just at something that is scientifically feasible, but at the impacts across environment and the social scale, from a practical, an ethical and even a vocational level. There are examples of that in the world: the Norwegians have an agricultural biotechnology board, for instance, which assesses genome edited products on all those bases. Science does not outweigh, for instance, ecological or social concerns.
A very interesting example of that was in 2017 when that board rejected a double-stacked maize that was engineered to produce its own insecticide and be resistant to herbicides. While it accepted that the maize was probably safe to eat or to grow, the deciding factor was that there was no social utility. There was no benefit for consumers or for the environment, and those concerns, given equal weight to science, were the concerns on which it was rejected. That is what we need here. We need a much broader consideration of the impacts of these technologies.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Pat Thomas: They certainly do raise wider issues. Within the scope of this Bill, as my colleague pointed out, there does not appear to be any type of genetic engineering that is truly exempted. If a plant or animal breeder can make a case—that case is not checked, it is simply made; it is a notification, not an assessment—that their plant is herbicide tolerant and that there somewhere exists a plant that is also herbicide tolerant, that plant becomes exempted under these provisions.
Lawrence Woodward: If I may just add to that, I had rather lazily gone along to some extent with the claim that gene editing technology will reduce the amount of herbicides and pesticides being used. I was therefore somewhat upset and surprised to see that Cibus, one of the major gene editing developers, put out its annual report the other day with a press release praising efforts around the world and in the UK to deregulate genome editing, because it saw the possibility of increasing herbicide-tolerant traits for sale, thereby increasing the use of herbicides in agriculture. It saw a way in which genome editing technology could increase the effectiveness of putting in herbicide-tolerant traits. That is an example of the complex nature of this area. The question of utility, sustainability, reduction of herbicides and so on, which people talk about, is really not a given.
Pat Thomas: I just want to add a brief point: within the scope of the Bill, the concept of risk is being used interchangeably with sustainability. Risk assessment and sustainability assessment are two entirely different things. A sustainability assessment will look more across the board at the sorts of effects that we are talking about here. We should not take for granted that risk or safety can be used as a proxy for sustainability.
Deidre Brock
Q
Pat Thomas: I think we can learn the value of citizen views. I have been a little disturbed, in the first session and this one, by the vague disdain for citizens—“Citizens must not understand the science, therefore they must not have a view.” Citizens are major stakeholders in the food system.
What that board does is to have a high percentage of civil society groups in particular, who are used as a proxy for citizens, but it also seeks out citizen views. What we have learned from citizen engagement in our work and in sharing the work of others is that citizens tend to ask a much wider range of questions of the food system. When they are not asking those questions, it is because some aspect of the food system has been hidden from them. For example, until we understood about battery hens, people did not ask questions about that, but they ask them now. When people began to worry about pesticides in their food, they began to ask questions about organic food.
A concern for me about the Bill and citizen engagement is that the term “precision bred” is not well known. It is in fact a way of sneaking genetically engineered foods into the food system. I can envisage a case in which—even if there was a turnaround on labelling—to label something “precision bred”, for example, is not useful information to people who do not understand what that term means.
To circle back to your question, the importance of including citizens in these kinds of assessments is that we get a much more well-rounded assessment, and something that takes into account questions such as, “Why are we doing this?”, “Is there an alternative?” and, “If there is an alternative, why are we doing this?” Those questions are very important.
Lawrence Woodward: May I add to that? The Norwegian law is one thing. People always think, “Okay, it’s in Scandinavia, they don’t do much GM anyway,” but I remind you that in 2015 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee—of which I believe you were a member, Chair—recommended in its inquiry into agricultural technology the establishment of a permanent citizens panel to work alongside ACRE in assessing all these other aspects of gene technology, such as its application, its commercial roll-out and so on. That is embedded in the House of Commons proceedings. It did not get very far, obviously. The other point about that is that although that provision did not go into detail as to what would constitute a permanent citizens’ panel, the Norwegian one does, in terms of balance of citizen representation and stakeholder representation.
Deidre Brock
Q
GeneWatch UK said that if exempt GMOs are not traceable—because they are considered to be, as we have heard from several witnesses, the same as conventionally bred organisms—manufacturers should be required to publish a validated test for each GMO released. It suggests that all countries that require such organisms to be regulated could potentially refuse all imports of food and other products that contain that exempt GMO. Could you just expand a little on that for us? I would be interested to hear your points of view.
Lawrence Woodward: If I have understood GeneWatch UK’s position, it is pointing out one of the aspects of this situation, namely that if England proceeds by itself —isolated, without regulatory alignment—that would raise all kinds of trade transparency marketing issues, which are not really addressed and which the Regulatory Policy Committee identified as not being really addressed in the impact statement. You then have dysfunction in regulation and alignment, which leads to confusion in the marketplace, and I think that GeneWatch UK was pointing out the fact that England might allow non-labelling and non-traceability of some of these products would not carry a weight in other markets.
There are many different ways of dealing with that situation. What is absolutely clear is that there needs to be in this Bill greater consideration of traceability throughout the supply chains so that the market can function, and both farmers and consumers have choice. There are different ways of doing that.
GeneWatch UK pointed to the need to develop specific analytical tests. Those analytical tests are being developed. Robin May at the Food Standards Agency pointed out—I think he made some comment that labelling is useless if it cannot be verified. In theory that is true but, first, analytical tests do exist, they are being developed and they can be developed faster. Secondly, we already have in a lot of areas geographical identification and source of origin identification—in egg marketing, whether they are free range eggs or barn eggs. We already have marketing verification based on provenance and audit trails. There is no reason why traceability cannot be built up on that, if the right kind of mandatory information is put in the Bill.
There is a separate discussion about labelling. Obviously, we are in favour of labelling. How that would be, where it is and so on—we recognise the difficulties.
Pat Thomas: To add to that, we have heard a lot over these sessions about how it is not possible to trace these organisms and that simply is not true, particularly for a patented organism. There must be something in place to trace that, in order to protect the patent. So, alongside the development of these organisms, there is also the development of the tests to trace them. The question is whether we will put those into effect or not. I would assume that if the developers want to protect their patents they would want to ensure that those tests are there and available.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Q
Lawrence Woodward: People often forget in this conversation that European research establishments overall have made an awful lot of research investment into GMO technology and gene editing technology. Some great work is being done in UK research establishments. It is not that we have a block on this. On how much faster would deregulation, in terms of what is envisaged in the Bill, increase that research activity, others can speak more on that. It is not entirely clear to me that that is the case. It might be a benefit in terms of increasing inward investment from multinational companies.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Lawrence Woodward: The impact statement pointed to the development of research in Argentina by pointing to the increase in the number of patents that have been registered in Argentina since it altered its regulation. You might say that is a proxy for research and development activity. It is not necessarily. There is not really that much published information that says how much research is going on, who is funding it and where it is being funded. On the development of traits and the interesting science, it is not clear that it is any greater in Argentina or Japan than it is in Europe and the UK.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Pat Thomas: In all those countries, the answer is that it depends. There is a patchwork of regulation throughout the world, with not much in the way of harmonisation. What is very clear is that the media narrative around these countries deregulating gene editing is exaggerated. In some countries such as Argentina there is a much more nuanced type of regulation that looks at things on a case-by-case basis. It is not a wholesale deregulation, which is what we are looking at here. That puts us out of step with those countries. China is the latest one to come on, again, with a much more nuanced approach to regulations. I think you have looked at the Canadian regulations, Lawrence.
Lawrence Woodward: The Canadian regulation is product-based but with a greater analysis of where the end product differs from conventional, so there is a trigger mechanism. I am probably still not understanding what you are asking. In the last five years we have had a lot of discussions with conventional researchers, GMO developers and so on. One of the telling things in our roundtable on the use of genome editing in animals was that the research and development very much depended on the commercial partnerships and roll-out. That very much depended on the markets that those companies could see. That depended on the type of agriculture that they were seeking.
It is not a surprise that most of the development is going into pig disease and those conditions that effect elite breeding lines, because that is where, for the breeding companies, the genetic ownership sees most return. That is not to say there will be no spill-over or benefit to small agroecological farmers and so on, but that is not the thrust. The thrust is about the commercial roll-out.
Pat Thomas: I think what you are asking is whether consumer concerns are being taken into account.
The Chair
Order. It is 2.50 pm. We have to finish there. I thank both our witnesses for their time and their full answers in this session. I am sure the Committee finds them very helpful.
Pat Thomas: Thank you.
Lawrence Woodward: Thank you for giving us the time.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Michael Edenborough QC and Professor Sarah Hartley gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to our next witnesses. Before we do, Professor David Rose of Cranfield University was due to give evidence on this panel, but unfortunately he has had to withdraw because he has covid. I welcome Dr Michael Edenborough QC, IP law specialist from Serle Court, and Professor Sarah Hartley from the University of Exeter. We will finish at 3.30 pm. Can you both very briefly introduce yourselves?
Professor Hartley: I have been studying genetic modification of biotech more generally for the past 20 years. I studied GM crops regulation back in the 2000s, and more recently have been looking at gene drive applications in the UK and more widely in Africa and North America.
Dr Edenborough: I originally was a scientist but I then became a lawyer. I am now a barrister specialising in intellectual property law, including such matters as patents, trade secrets, plant varieties and geographical indications.
Jo Churchill
Q
Dr Edenborough: The Bill itself does not purport to alter the intellectual property regime at all, so therefore this Bill will not have any effect on the underlying mechanisms whereby you can obtain protection—be that, for example, plant breeders’ rights or a patent. Therefore, it will still be open to small and medium-sized enterprises to secure rights as they would have done. To that extent, this has no effect.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Hartley: The Bill enables science to develop in this area, but it does not enable us to direct the science and technology towards doing any good. That would require a different form of governance. We know that gene editing and genetic modification are used in similar ways because we have not seen them separated out in any great detail yet globally. There have been some successes, but there have also been some failures—I would point to the GM cotton in Africa, particularly in Burkina Faso, where it failed to deliver the benefits and, in fact, had quite a negative impact. The question is whether the Bill can provide any public good; the answer is that it would make no difference to the public good. It may allow gene editing to develop, but whether or not it serves the public good would require a different level of governance.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Hartley: We could leave it to philanthropists, but the process of governance within the philanthropy organisations is quite closed and run by very few people, often within the United States of America. Social scientists working in this space have shown that we need more people from the area where the problem is based to be engaged and involved in the development of the technology. You would need stakeholders, farmers, conservationists and so on to be involved in the development of the technology early on.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Hartley: Indeed. That can happen as early as the funding agencies that fund the research all the way through the development and design process.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Hartley: One of the challenges the Bill faces is that it does not address the results from the consultation that DEFRA held. Some important issues came up through that consultation—around transparency, traceability, labelling and engagement—that do not appear to be addressed at the moment. I also think the focus of the Bill on the consultation has been around agriculture, and yet applications in conservation and environmental management are also possible in the Bill. There are a range of stakeholders in those areas who have not been sufficiently engaged, I believe, in the development of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Hartley: We have known for 20 years some of the issues that the public care about in the space of emerging biotechnology, and that includes labelling, which we know is key. We also know that the public have much more support for technologies that deliver public benefit and are not for profit. Over time, these issues are quite consistent across a lot of emerging technologies, but particularly in biotech.
We could argue that part of the failure of the GM crops was that they did not deliver the public benefit that they promised to start with. They promised to feed the world and contribute to global food security, but in fact the products that were developed ended up serving the farming industry and delivering higher economic profits. We also note it is not reflected in the Bill that animals are much more of a concern to the public than crops. Again, the sensitivities to those issues of concern do not appear to have been addressed in the Bill at this point.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Edenborough: Well, I am confident that it would not be straightforward.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Edenborough: The simple point is that clause 1, as drafted, is quite imprecise. For example, if I may refer to the detail, there is the way in which subsection (2)(c) says,
“every feature of its genome could have resulted from…traditional processes…or…natural transformation.”
First, “could have resulted from” is staggeringly imprecise. Is that “likely”? Is that “very possible”? What level of probability is it? Then “traditional processes” is actually defined further in subsection (7), but it is still incredibly wide. However, “natural transformation” is not defined, so that clearly gives scope for further debate.
Even more fundamentally, “modern biotechnology” is, in subsection (3), defined by reference to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002. That is wide. However, subsection (8) says that if those GMO regulations are modified, the knock-on effect, with respect to this Bill, is that the regulations may be modified
“to make corresponding changes (with or without variation)”.
Again, that is incredibly wide.
I hesitate to raise it, but there is also, in essence, a Henry VIII clause tucked away in clause 42, which is incredibly widely drafted. Those clauses always give rise to concern because, basically, you can do what you like, when you like, with very little scrutiny. Does that sufficiently address my concerns?
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Edenborough: No, it would not be easy, for the simple reason that, because of the breadth of the way in which things have been defined—in a cascading way—you have uncertainty built on uncertainty. If a particular set of facts were presented to me and I was asked the simple question, “Is this within or without this particular Bill?” the answer would be simply, “Maybe.” It will depend on a raft of expert evidence that addresses each and every one of those points of cascade.
As soon as you get to a crunch point, whereby you need expert evidence to say whether it is within or without one of the particular points, you introduce uncertainty. If you have several of those, you introduce more uncertainty. Therefore, it would be dependent on a mass of expert evidence to determine each and every one of those points.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Edenborough: At the moment, there are no bars within the intellectual property regime to doing this sort of work. So the hesitation comes not from the IP regime but from commercial factors: in essence, whether or not you are going to make money at the end of it. The Bill, though, could introduce greater uncertainty into the commercial field, which would arise because of the unclear way in which “precision bred” is defined. That could lead to people, in some senses, exploiting that uncertainty. Now, there are a number of ways in which that could happen, but one is that you could have a big entity with a lot of muscle, and therefore a lot of money, which might want to push all the boundaries and cause confusion in the marketplace. That could have a dampening effect on other, smaller people who do not have the financial muscle to challenge the legal parameters.
Daniel Zeichner
That is a very sobering prospect. Thank you; that was helpful.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Edenborough: My views will be limited to the legal aspects. The simple consequence is that something may, for example, occur in England that may not be permissible in Scotland. But there is uncertainty with respect to whether, if you grow something in England, you could sell the product in Scotland. That is unclear. I think that is probably as far as I can go legally.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Edenborough: I am just trying to make sure that I understand your question.
Deidre Brock
Okay. Obviously, the problem for Scotland is that we would like to stay aligned with EU regulations as far as is possible and practicable. What are the implications for us and for exporting if the 2020 Act forces us away from alignment with EU regulations? I am thinking in particular about the impact on trade.
Dr Edenborough: There might be ramifications with respect to the rights that have been obtained. Actually, this slightly conflicts with an answer I gave earlier, because if one were to obtain a UK patent, that would extend not only through England and Wales but through to Scotland, so there are certain things that the Scottish people may be able to do, but there are other things that they may not because the Patents Act 1977 covers the whole of the four kingdoms.
With respect to the EU, there may be divergence in the way in which products from such precision bred organisms can be addressed. That may be controlled by plant varieties or by patents, but there might be other food regulations that kick in. The point is that certain paths will have to be unified—or are unified and cannot be changed. This Bill does not purport to change plant varieties or to change the patent law, so that is going to stay the same. But the ramifications of things that result from precision breeding may not be uniformly felt throughout the Union, because of other legislation.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Edenborough: The Bill does not fundamentally affect patent law or plant breeders’ rights, but the deregulation aspect will allow people potentially to secure patent rights or plant breeders’ rights more readily in things that they would not otherwise have been able to secure rights in.
Let us say, for example, that you secure the rights to use—I hope this is a neutral example—a different type of mushroom. Once you have those rights, you can control various things: whether the mushrooms are grown and whether the products from the mushroom are sold. You might then say, “Well, I’m going to give those rights away free,” but you may have engineered the mushroom in such a way that there are other things for which you can then charge—for example, particular types of pesticide.
This is a mechanism whereby you might be able to get rights more readily. I might say up front that the rights I have obtained more readily because of this Bill I am not going to charge for, but that gives me a foot into the market whereby I can charge a higher price for other things that are related to the protected items. If they were unprotected, you could not form that link, but because of the protection that you have secured through this deregulation, you can form that link and therefore get an economic advantage eventually—down the line.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Dr Edenborough: The long and the short of it is that a single entity can say different things to different people in different contexts and therefore, in essence, confuse and confound people. You can secure rights in a place by saying one thing and then perhaps avoid liability in another place by saying the opposite.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Dr Edenborough: No, there might be risk. This is a circular definition, in some senses. You do not need to regulate these matters, because these things can result from a traditional process, or natural transformation. It is because of that that there is a low risk. But that is actually answering the question: you do not actually know whether the thing really could have been—
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Dr Edenborough: Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes. The things that can occur in nature are not always risk free. So that agrees with what you have just said. But one of the underlying justifications, as far as I can ascertain, for this Bill and for removing onerous regulation, is that, because these things are supposed to be potentially capable of resulting from—“could have resulted from”—a natural process, it is likely that they would not be harmful, and that is a fallacy.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Dr Edenborough: It is not just a speeding up, in the sense that the way in which it would occur naturally is probably one step at a time. Here you are allowed to take many steps, so what might have been stopped at step 1, you suddenly get to step 5. Therefore, that could be a fundamentally different thing that you are releasing into nature.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Dr Edenborough: I think it comes back to the point you just mentioned, which is that if you are doing one step at a time, the way in which the Bill will work is that you will probably be allowed to do that, but if many steps are taken, you may not be allowed to do that. The question is on the “may”: who is going to act, in essence, as the gatekeeper on how many steps you are allowed to do at any one go?
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Dr Edenborough: It falls back to the discretionary nature of the way in which the notification process and the control are exercised. If it is discretionary, it could be more or less active. That is the long and the short of it. You are going from a regime that is quite tightly controlled, and therefore every step is controlled, to one where you are allowed to jump through many hoops in one go, because the regulation allows for that in a discretionary sort of way. By having the discretion, you introduce greater uncertainty and therefore greater risk.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Dr Edenborough: No, you are just closing off the pace at which you could do those things.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Edenborough: Very minimal safeguards. I think you are talking about the potential release of an edited genome. What happens if it breaks out into the wild and then, for example, goes into the field next door?
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Edenborough: That could be a real mess. To prove it, you would have to have some sort of genetic marker, because you would have to prove causation, but then you would also have to prove damage and it might be difficult to do that.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Edenborough: Yes.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Edenborough: It ought to be relatively easy to prove causation, because there ought to be a genetic marker, but damage is nearly always the hurdle in negligence cases. If somebody says, “I’ve lost everything,” the question is how much they have actually lost.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Edenborough: Well, there would have to be evidence that there has been contamination, and that evidence would have to be predicated on a sample.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Edenborough: It is all worked on probabilities. You would not test every grain of rice; you would test a few thousand and extrapolate. That is the way that all damages cases work.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Q
Dr Edenborough: Yes, on both points.
Kate Green
Q
Dr Edenborough: That is a fundamentally different point, in some senses, because if a person is alleging that they have been damaged, it is for the person making the allegation to prove their case.
Kate Green
Q
Dr Edenborough: Yes.
Kate Green
What might the alternatives be for offering protection, rather than going through the tort route?
Dr Edenborough: You could introduce some form of strict liability, whereby there is a presumption, in essence, against the person who is doing the contamination, but that is very rare. There are examples in patent law, but the exception is very narrow. The long and the short of it is that people do not like reversing the burden of proof. It does happen, but it is very rare.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Hartley: One example of this arose in Canada in the early 2000s with GM wheat. I do not know whether this might illustrate the market concern about contamination. Europe had just banned GM foods, and the Canadian wheat market exported largely to Europe. Monsanto had an application with the Canadian regulatory system to develop and test GM wheat, and there was no way in that regulatory process to stop that application, and yet the wheat market in Canada was threatened. In the end, there was a careful behind-doors negotiation and Monsanto withdrew its application. There was the potential for Canadian farmers to take a significant economic hit if the GM wheat was developed there, and there was nothing within that regulatory system to stop it. I think that is maybe part of the concern you are raising here. The market, in that case, did decide, in the sense that Monsanto negotiated with the wheat board in Canada to try to solve the problem.
Kate Green
Thank you. Do you have anything to add, Dr Edenborough?
Dr Edenborough: You mentioned inequality of arms. The long and short of it is that, yes, the larger manufacturers will have much greater power than the small farmers.
Kate Green
Q
Dr Edenborough: The only way in which the small people can be protected is if there is greater regulation by the state, because the smaller people do not have the resources and they need to rely upon a third party, which in this case has to be the state.
Professor Hartley: Can I add a further point? We are talking a lot about farming here, but the Bill is not just about farming. It is also about conservation and environmental management. There is more structure to the farming community than there is to the conservation community, and so there is the potential for this kind of conflict within the conservation sector as well, particularly between the devolved nations.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Edenborough: Yes.
The Chair
That was certainly under 90 seconds. I think that is a good place to finish. I thank both our witnesses for the time spent with us and their detailed answers.
Examination of Witness
Ed Barker gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome to the Committee. For the next session, we have until 3.50 pm. Would you please briefly introduce yourself by telling us your name and position?
Ed Barker: I am Ed Barker, head of policy at the Agricultural Industries Confederation. We represent agri-supply businesses in the UK, including animal feed companies, manufacturers, seed suppliers and distributors, fertiliser suppliers, arable marketing companies, grain traders and crop protection distributors. We also run a number of assurance schemes covering those individual commodities and products.
Jo Churchill
Q
We have focused a great deal on food in our two days of conversations with witnesses. Can you expand a little more on what benefits there might be within the feed sector?
Ed Barker: We can certainly see potential benefits in the feed sector. There are a number of challenges across UK livestock sectors at the moment, and feed is a considerable way in which we can address issues such as reducing our reliance on imports, particularly of high-protein products such as soya from South America, and divert that to UK—in this case, England—sources. We also see huge benefits by way of having a greater number of crops available to UK growers. By doing that, we also provide a better feed market, particularly in crops such as oilseed rape, peas and beans, which often either provide direct feed or are made into feed by processing.
We can also see other potential benefits in feed additives and feed products as a way of reducing emissions. It was interesting that the food strategy announced a couple of weeks ago referred to this issue, and innovation technology is certainly a way in which we can look to address that. Looking far ahead, there is some really pioneering work looking at the digestibility of certain grasses that can be fed to monogastric sectors, such as pigs and poultry. There are some very interesting areas where we could really look to change a lot of the challenges that we know the supply chain has with regard to animal feed.
Jo Churchill
Q
Ed Barker: To take those one by one, certainly the opportunities are there, and the uptake opportunities would certainly come in. A question we often get asked is: “How soon can the benefits be realised?” That is very difficult, particularly in combinable crops, which obviously have a much longer cycle of research and turnaround to be able to realise the benefits. From our point of view, however, the Bill’s benefit is that it provides long-term flexibility—five, 15 or 20 years—for growers, farmers and agri-supply businesses around the UK. We know the world is moving on quite quickly. We have heard about Canada and Japan, and even the EU is not static on this issue. There is a huge amount of interest. If nothing else, we are preparing ourselves for the inevitable demands on innovation in the future.
For take-up from a farming point of view, one area that we really want to focus on, particularly in the trade, is what we call the fungibility of goods. If you take cereals, for example, a real benefit to growers at the moment is that there are multiple markets available to them. For feed wheat, there are markets in the animal feed sector. It can also be exported or go to biofuel sectors. Having that flexibility is a real benefit to a lot of growers, and it provides a lot of resilience in businesses.
A short-term challenge that we could see is that if a product were considered to be gene edited, of course, at the moment in the EU that would be considered GM. As a result, we would have to go through quite an extensive approvals process to export that product to the European Union. That is a big part of the fungibility and flexibility of the product, so in the short term, we are only really likely to see benefits if it goes into the UK or England as a market.
However, a potential opportunity would be to have within the Bill a parallel process in place whereby authorisations were made for approval in the European Union when a product is approved for release by the Secretary of State. That would make a big difference, because inevitably, no farmer or grower is going to grow a crop that has a very limited market available to it. The next witness will probably be able to talk about that in a lot more detail. That is a real difficulty, and in the trade, if you are trying to buy and sell these products and you have a very limited outlet market in place, you might actually find that the product has less of a market the more of it you have, and there may be a deficit. To take the example of assurance in the supply chain at the moment, if you have unassured wheat, it usually trades at a discount because the market available to it is less. I do not want that to stop the Bill from progressing, but it is a short-term to medium-term challenge that we have to recognise, given the EU’s importance. In the past year, for example, we have exported about 1 million tonnes of cereal grains to the European Union, including the Republic of Ireland, so that flexibility is important.
Labelling has been mentioned. I think overall, labelling would be extremely difficult for the trade, because you need to label something right the way from start to finish. Let us take milling wheat as an example. You have to be able to define whatever the label is—gene edited or non-gene edited, GM or organic—and demonstrate that across the whole supply chain, and the compliance is quite strong. To do that, you have to segregate, and segregating throughout the supply chain is extremely challenging, very expensive and very difficult to do. The reason why it happens, for example, in the organic sector is that there is a market for it; the organic control bodies ensure that, but there is a market for it to ensure the additional costs of segregation are put in place.
With precision breeding—which, according to the Bill documents, can be bred by conventional means; it is just that it is quicker—the market would not see any great benefit from that. There has to be a pull factor for labelling, which would usually come as a result of added value, a health claim or a fortification, and the FSA and other bodies would already be asking for that evidence. If you are providing a claim on allergens or fortification with vitamins, the burden of compliance and providing that information will probably be much higher than anything that you do on precision breeding or gene editing labelling. The traders in the agri-supply business and throughout the supply chain would see no benefits whatsoever from labelling. In the trade, it would probably kill off a lot of the provisions in the Bill completely, because it just would not be economically viable to do.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Ed Barker: It would depend on the approval processes set out by the FSA, in this case. Breeders, companies, developers and the market would look at the process to go through for receiving authorisation as laid out in the Bill, whatever it might be for—an environmental benefit, lower inputs at the crop end, or a fortification or a food benefit at the other end—and if they feel that it is too laborious and too challenging, and too much evidence or time is required to do it, it is very unlikely that those technologies will move ahead, so the implementation of this is really important.
We see it, for example, in the UK for certain minor use crops such as linseed, where a number of businesses have had to seek authorisation for individual farm protection products because they are essential for that particular crop. The problem is that it is often unviable to make that authorisation because the crop in the UK is such a small size. That does not necessarily mean it will always be unviable—far from it. It depends entirely on the role of the FSA and the approval processes that are set in place.
It could well be that UK markets are available for precision bred goods, whatever they might be. We have mentioned animal feed, but other food items and even non-food and feed products could have a genuine market uptake. For example, a retailer may well want to seek to remove or lessen the amount of soy in monogastric diets, and may look to work with a plant breeder to develop a crop that has a high protein source. That could be carried right the way through to the retailer’s end products. In those situations, I can see it as viable in the short term, but it depends on the type of products we are looking at and the type of markets we have in the UK.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Ed Barker: In looking at the Bill, the experience of Canadian authorities has been very intuitive to the process in place, because they take an outcomes-based approach. Another area that we are very interested in is the time taken to reach approval. It would be really positive if we were to have a set time-specific limit on authorisations within that. A big problem that we have at the moment with a number of approvals for plant protection products or GM feed imports from South America is that we have a very indeterminate approval process in terms of time. That has caused a lot of problems in the past eight or nine months, when the market has not known whether or not we should be making purchases of GM goods from South America. That uncertainty over time and time lags is a real challenge for the industry, and I think that would be the case. Some certainty over time or statutory requirements on approvals, even a requirement or expectation of turnaround, would be very helpful. At the moment, that is making a lot of difficulty for the trade on existing GM approvals.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Ed Barker: It is a concern of ours that we have a difference in approach across the constituent parts of the UK, or certainly within England, Wales and Scotland. That does not necessarily mean that we should stop within the context of this Bill. What we need to know as a trade is exactly what can and cannot happen within, say, Scotland or Wales. There is uncertainty on what a grower can do. I am sure growers or even livestock owners in Wales or Scotland would be interested to know where they stand on purchasing seed, if we presume there is precision bred seed in England.
My understanding of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, having read through the House of Commons Library interpretation and the accompanying notes in the Bill, suggests that, if a precision bred product is placed on the market in England, it can then be sold in Scotland or Wales—obviously not in Northern Ireland, of course—but if I was a grower, or even a maltster or a miller in the supply chain, in Scotland or Wales, my first question would be, “Where does that stand with regard to regulatory compliance?” There are clearly areas within this Bill and within scope of the 2020 Act that, to my reading, potentially come into conflict.
What seed can you use if you are in Scotland? Can you use precision bred seed bought from England, for example? Can you feed your animals on precision bred animal feed purchased in England? Similarly, we have very integrated pig and poultry sectors for genetics, breeding nucleus herds that move around the UK quite significantly.
For clarity, either way, understanding what obligations or requirements are on businesses and farmers in each of those territories is absolutely key, because any ambiguity would create the risk that the industry and supplied businesses would take a risk-averse approach and not undertake to put in place any of the precision bred products that we may have opportunities to use.
Deidre Brock
Q
Ed Barker: Yes. At this moment in time, if you are an exporter to the EU you make an application for approval of a GM product; these products are mostly feed and predominantly from north and south America. These go to the EU and the UK as applications for approval as GM. This is something that has happened for quite some time. Only very recently have the FSA in England and the FSS in Scotland approved seven or eight GM feed varieties that originated from north and south America, mostly maize and soy, I think. So that is the current situation we have.
Our understanding and reading is that, because the European Union currently considers gene editing to be equivalent to GM, if you were developing a really interesting new high-protein crop, such as rye or oilseed rape, and you wanted to try to export that to Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or the rest of the EU, then it would be considered as GM, for which, as we know, there is a much higher bar for approval in the EU. It is difficult to determine the speed and the turnaround of approval of the application for that product for those markets. That is why it would be welcome, if and when the Bill progresses, for us to have a clearer position about what happens when a precision bred product is approved by the Secretary of State in England, so that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for International Trade very quickly try to establish approval for it in the European Union as a GM product, because that is how the EU defines such products. We would not be able to export there without that approval, so having that followed up as quickly as possible would be very significant for the market.
Deidre Brock
Q
Ed Barker: Is the question how does an EU importer know that what they are importing is complaint with EU legislation with regards to GM approvals?
Deidre Brock
Yes.
Ed Barker: The challenge that we often have, particularly with some GM products but also with gene editing, is that testing is very limited, which is a concern. For example, at the moment the prevention of imports of unauthorised GM varieties from south America to the EU is largely done on a chain of custody basis, because the liabilities involved for importing something that does not fall within the remit of the regulatory compliance within the EU is extremely high. The major importers are large, multinational companies that have an extremely high compliance burden placed on them, with the chain of custody and contracts supporting that.
Inspections take place and each company will have very clear audit trails regarding those supply chains, to keep reinforcing that, and that is what we would expect to happen in this case as well. I suppose you are potentially moving into what would happen if an individual company wanted to export a product knowingly. That would fall under existing regulations regarding fraud and claims based on export notifications.
The Chair
I’m afraid that brings us to the end of the session. Thank you for your time and evidence.
Examination of Witness
Paul Temple gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon, and welcome. We have until 4.10 pm for this session. I would be grateful if you could introduce yourself for the record with your name and position.
Paul Temple: My name is Paul Temple. I am a mixed farmer up in east Yorkshire. I have arable crops and beef suckler cattle, and I manage environmental stewardship ground. We also carry out conservation agricultural practice. I am a seed grower and have worked most of my life dealing with co-existence and integrity issues. I took part many years ago in the Government’s field-scale evaluation trials.
I have been involved with EU farming organisations for many years, and I am currently a director of the Global Farmer Network. I have been fortunate to travel the world and understand what farmers are doing on all levels in virtually every continent. I am probably here because I am a participant in Science for Sustainable Agriculture. Genuinely, in the 40 years of my farming, I have never had a farming circumstance to contend with like we have at the moment.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We will move on to questions, starting with the Minister.
Jo Churchill
Q
Paul Temple: That is quite a lot.
Jo Churchill
It is, but you can answer as much or as little as you like.
Paul Temple: I took part in the field-scale evaluation trials because I was sceptical, but I have always had an interest in science. I participated because it would expose me to field-scale working with these crops. I then realised my naivety about the amount of science and genetics behind breeding. I certainly learned, to my horror, how the quality of the scientists tended to be lumped against those protesting with a subjective view rather than an objective view. I learned then about appreciating the science behind genetics, but I would not have done unless I had participated.
A lot of farmers in the UK will not have been exposed to what I have, so they will not appreciate it. With farmers, you tend to find that if something works and is of benefit, they are pretty quick adopters. They tend to adopt it most when they have seen other farmers adopt it. I adopted conservation agricultural practice because I had seen that it did work. I am hoping that trials will happen as part of this to allow farmers to see it first hand in their own geographic region. Then they will make their own decisions. Usually if something works, they are pretty quick at picking something up.
Across the world, I think my frustration, especially being involved in Europe, is with Spanish farmers. I have seen GM maize grown in Spain, and they grow it because they had a problem. GM solved the problem, and they use a lot less water to produce more crop. It just made pure commercial sense, and that primarily is what drives it. It is usually a matter of making commercial sense. GM delivers benefits in terms of reduced inputs. It usually comes with significant environmental benefit, because you are reducing your pesticides load, and that tends to get mixed up. Again, from a UK perspective, because I have seen what happens in south and north America, I understand the scale of adoption and what it has delivered into the marketplace in meeting China’s demand for maize and soya, which is unusual for most farmers.
On the co-existence element, we obviously had to closely monitor it when we were growing these crops. We did not change any practices, found no problems looking after the crops and found no problems subsequently with volunteers that might be left over. We continued with trials on those, and that was not an issue. Co-existence really is not much of a problem. In any country I have been to, that is not the issue. It is usually the access to it that is a limitation. It has always fascinated me that a lot of the small farmers in Africa and Asia are given access to technology in a way that you cannot appreciate, which delivers benefit to them. Have I missed anything out?
Jo Churchill
No, that was perfect. It was an interesting contrast between the field—literally—and to how this can help on a global basis, rather than from a more academic standpoint. It is an interesting juxtaposition to what we heard earlier. Thank you very much.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Paul Temple: Obviously, I am not an expert in these particular areas, but I do not think we have anything to hide, so public registers—registers of seed varieties and what we are growing—are really important. What you put in the public domain, to my mind, has to be measured by what benefit or what risk there actually is. I suppose my frustration with the field scale evaluation trials was that, by making everything public, it just highlighted those who wanted to protest, rather than actually look at the science. So I think is it really important that whatever element goes into this Bill is done from a science perspective and a risk-based perspective. I do not have any problem with being open as to what is happening on my farm. I think it is really important, but there just has to be some kind of sensible balance, so that it does not drag things down to where you cannot do anything.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Paul Temple: Labelling is really important, but what I would pass back to you for a start is that 30 million tonnes of GM material comes into Europe, and there has never been a requirement for labelling through to the feed process, and that is on modification. This is not modified, and I think that is really important; it is not modified. This could be achieved through conventional breeding, and as such I do not think it needs specific labels. Again, to my mind, you do it from a risk-based perspective. If there is not a risk, there is no need to actually label it as such.
Going back to the global aspect, we are in a global marketplace and what we do not want to do is put ourselves out of kilter with the rest of the world and create double standards or unnecessary work. It needs to be measured and there needs to be awareness, but I do not think it should be stoked by those who seek to feed on the fear factor.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Paul Temple: I very much share the view that if you are out of kilter, as a net importer, you risk causing yourself problems. Again, it is about following the science. I have been to America a number of times and I have sat with the USDA in Washington. Those guys have huge quantities of experience of managing a rapidly moving area of science. To my mind, they are the people with the most experience in this field. You should speak to them and ask them how they manage something that is actually being put out into fields now. You should go to the people with experience of managing it.
Deidre Brock
Q
Paul Temple: I have always been concerned about the approach that Europe has taken. However, there seems to be a more conciliatory approach on the necessity of enabling the technology. We will see, but there does seem to be some element of progress. What I find really interesting is the gene edited wheat that has been put out in Argentina. It is in fields in New Zealand and Australia, and the US pretty much accepts it. That facilitates trade. When countries like Argentina, which are massive net exporters, are willing to adopt this technology and look at its safety, there is a huge amount we can learn from that.
Deidre Brock
Q
Paul Temple: I am worried about us immersing ourselves in introspection and not moving at pace, based on science. I say that because I have been watching crops grow using all sorts of breeding techniques for years, and I have stood watching from the sidelines. I am slightly terrified that, if we do not get on with this, I will remain watching it from the sidelines. I say that because I am probably more aware than most of how vulnerable our production actually is and how necessary it is to have access to the breeding techniques and research in this field. I hoped that one of the things that Brexit might allow is a swifter ability to look at the science behind this and give those involved in research and breeding the ability to get on with it, on a science-based approach. There is always a concern when you get out of kilter with other countries.
Deidre Brock
Q
Paul Temple: Put Brexit to one side. This science is just too important to be immersed in those kinds of things. I am faced with a huge rise in my cost of production. I am looking constantly to reduce pesticides and fertiliser and to give my crops the ability to cope with the extremes of weather. I have a six-course rotation, and at the end of that six-course rotation, yet again I will need something that responds to the requirement to produce more against the rising cost of production. I see this, from a science point of view, as really important. From a UK point of view, we should be able to respond a little quicker because we do not have the decision-marking chains that you have in Brussels. I have seen the process and I know how it slows things down. I simply hope that we are now capable of responding to the science more quickly.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, I thank you for your time and evidence and we will move on to our next witness.
Examination of Witness.
Ross Houston gave evidence.
The Chair
Our next witness is Ross Houston. We have until 4.30 for this session. Can you hear us?
Ross Houston: Yes, loud and clear.
The Chair
Excellent. Would you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Ross Houston: I am Ross Houston, I am currently the director of innovation at Benchmark Genetics, which is an agriculture breeding company supplying genetically improved Atlantic salmon, whiteleg shrimp and Nile tilapia for various global markets. I am fairly recent to the role; in my previous role I spent 18 years as a researcher at the Roslin Institute as part of the University of Edinburgh.
Jo Churchill
Q
Ross Houston: What we are currently doing is running family-based breeding programmes for genetic improvement of several traits in Atlantic salmon, whiteleg shrimp and Nile tilapia. Those traits, of course, include growth, but we are also focused on improving the resistance of the animals to infectious diseases. Some examples in salmon are sea lice and some viral diseases. That is not precision breeding as I understand it but family-based selection using genomic tools. We are undertaking research and development in the use of CRISPR.
I am talking to you from Norway because I was attending a project meeting where there are two large consortia—one Norwegian funded, by the Norwegian seafood agency, and one funded by the BBSRC, primarily geared towards using CRISPR as a tool to achieve substantial and possibly complete genetic resistance to sea lice in Atlantic salmon. The reason we are excited by those projects is that sea lice are currently one of the most pressing environmental, cost and animal welfare concerns for the industry. In particular, I would say that some of the treatment measures that we are using and, indeed, are obliged to use, have several downsides that I think we could potentially avoid if we were to develop resistant salmon that did not require those treatments. In so doing, we are not only improving the animal welfare but reducing the impact on the environment and improving the economics of the industry.
Jo Churchill
Q
Ross Houston: The Bill is a welcome initiative. It has been really useful to have this debate and discussion, because we see that CRISPR or similar technologies can help us achieve traits that are of benefit to animal welfare and the environment faster than we could do with conventional breeding alone—substantially faster in some cases. That is why we are investing in it. That is why the research councils, Government and industry in general are investing in this technology.
This technology is developing fast, I agree. It is exciting to scientists involved in it. We are narrowly focused on using CRISPR to introduce changes that could potentially have occurred naturally, so I think that is a welcome part of the Bill, that we are mentioning that those changes could occur naturally, via natural mutation. We are adding to the genetic variation that we have in our toolbox to select for. The way I see it is that CRISPR would ideally be a tool in the toolbox alongside the technologies that we use currently to develop improved strains of salmon and other species for production.
I think that a register of precision breeding would be a reasonable measure. I would be worried about going too far in trying to identify whether any particular product contained any particular edit, for example. That might be disproportionately difficult and complex, and to my mind without any real scientific basis. I do see that, if you were changing the genetic makeup of a plant or animal to have some potentially different human health benefit, such as removing allergens or something like that, there might be a rationale for labelling that particular edit. In this case, however, I think that the register is reasonable, but that the practicalities of tracing through particular edits would make that very unattractive to implement in practice, because of the logistical impracticality of doing so.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Ross Houston: Obviously, there are measures to try to stop escapees, but they happen from salmon farms. I think that CRISPR precision breeding technologies are a very promising route, and indeed the subject of much R&D, to ensure that the production animals are sterilised so there would not be any genetic introgression with wild strains. The way we are thinking about it, at least, is that we would be looking to farm sterile Atlantic salmon in the future. That is a desirable thing to do anyway, but in particular if we were to introduce gene editing in the future.
The other part to it would be, I suppose, the impact of issues such as sea lice, which I mentioned before, which could also impact on wild salmon. But, there again, that is within our toolbox, and the R&D is heading in this direction. That is what we would want to use the technology for: to try to tackle these problems in a sustainable, environmentally friendly and animal welfare-friendly way. So I see that these technologies have significant promise for reducing any potential impacts on wild Atlantic salmon.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Ross Houston: Could you repeat the question, please?
Daniel Zeichner
Basically, I can absolutely see the benefits, but I can also see risks, and it is the risk side that I am worried about. What I am asking you is whether you can see anything in the Bill—I cannot—that provides a structure for monitoring and mitigating those risks.
Ross Houston: I see the risks as very small, but I do not think that I am in aposition to comment on the detail.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Ross Houston: Yes, but my practical point would be—this is the way we think about it—that we are aiming to ensure that there would be sterility of the farmed strains, and at least awareness of that potential risk of genetic introgression with wild strains, and essentially to eliminate that.
Deidre Brock
Q
Ross Houston: As I said, it is welcome that we are having this discussion, but of course most of the aquaculture in the UK is salmon farming, and most salmon farming occurs in Scotland. So from our point of view it is disappointing that we are not having similar science-based and open debates about the risks and benefits of these approaches in Scotland. The Scottish Government are also, via the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre, funding research that is looking to use CRISPR precision breeding technologies to tackle some of the sustainability concerns of the industry, such as resistance to sea lice and viral disease. Therefore, I think it would be welcome if we could have a similar discussion in Scotland.
Deidre Brock
Q
Ross Houston: There is maybe a double-edged sword there. The trade is not only with the EU, it is also with other countries. We are an international company; we have operations in Iceland and Chile, and we are selling our genetically improved salmon eggs to a very large number of countries. My concern would be that if we do not start having that discussion with some urgency, including in Scotland, then, bearing in mind that Scotland and the UK are at the forefront of R&D in this field, we might fall behind in the innovation landscape. The benefits of that R&D and innovation might impact on elsewhere in the world, while we are taking that cautious approach.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Ross Houston: Good question. I was using CRISPR and gene editing as synonymous—it is a gene edited product in Japan with the red sea bream. Those early examples are interesting, because they are markers that show that the regulatory environment is changing in countries such as Japan and some of the Americas. From our point of view, what we are doing here is running very advanced scientifically based breeding programmes. We are keeping 300 families of Atlantic salmon. With them we are pedigree recording, recording the genotype in each year, and recording lots of measurements relating to growth, disease resistance and fillet quality. We are doing that routinely, all the time. We are monitoring the important traits of our fish.
The R&D we are involved in is targeting gene editing to tackle issues such as resistance to sea lice in the salmon, resistance to a viral disease called infectious salmon anemia, resistance to a viral disease called infectious pancreatic necrosis—those are the targets of our research and development. In the foreseeable future—I could also go further than that—I do not see that we would be doing something similar to what you suggest in our breeding programme. We are able to improve growth and fillet characteristics through the process of routine measurement, family selection and scientifically based breeding programmes. It is quite straightforward to do it that way, and therefore it just would not be a sensible target for the technology in our case. We also see the public acceptance and customer preferences. The use of precision breeding technology to develop traits that have concurrent animal welfare, environment and economic benefits has to be what we are moving towards.
This sort of edit, where you are knocking out a myostatin gene and allowing for faster fillet growth, just is not on our radar. On the specific point about changing fillet characteristics, if you were perhaps trying to use gene editing to modify, for example, the fatty acid profile of the fish, with potential health effects for humans—hopefully it would target positive health effects—there might be an argument for it there. But I do not see the need with the sort of traits we are focused on and targeting; I do not see that the product would be any different, other than having the favourable trait of disease resistance, for example.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Ross Houston: I see what you mean. Of course CRISPR, the technique we are focusing on, is making a double-stranded cut to the genome and allowing the cells’ natural repair mechanisms to repair the cut and either introduce a small deletion or a small change, or possibly insert a synthetic template of DNA, which would essentially be changing the sequence in a slightly more precise way. There are a couple of parts to that.
In terms of the potential for the CRISPR molecule to make cuts elsewhere in the genome—called off-target effects—we would have to be doing some fairly rigorous DNA sequencing of our animals to ensure that we are not detecting any of those off-target effects. My opinion is that we are now getting very good data from research experiments showing that off-target effects are very rare, and as we learn more about the genomes of our species we are able to design the guide RNAs to take to a specific part of the region that is unique and precise. I see that as a very small risk, but also one that it is important to address.
Jo Churchill
Q
Ross Houston: Yes. I moved job recently; I was working for a number of years at the Roslin Institute doing academic research together with industry. The Scottish Government centre, the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre, is funding projects using precision breeding technologies as a research tool with the goal of—
Jo Churchill
Q
The Chair
A very quick response.
Ross Houston: Yes, of course. As I mentioned earlier, the Scottish and UK science base is really at the forefront of some of these technologies, moving through from genetics, traditional breeding, family-based selection, genomics and now gene editing. That is a real plus point for attracting researchers. If we were to stop unnecessarily, both in research and potential applications, then it is a fair assumption that we would lose talent to elsewhere, and I think we would also lose business to elsewhere.
The Chair
Thank you. We will have to finish there, as we are out of time. May I thank you very much for your time and answers? We will now move on to the last panel, if they can join us at the table.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Wendy Harwood, Professor Cathie Martin MBE FRS, Nigel Moore and Professor Mario Caccamo gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Professor Harwood: Hello. I am Wendy Harwood. I am responsible for the group that focuses on crop transformation and genome editing at the John Innes Centre on the Norwich Research Park. I am also a member of the Food Standards Agency’s advisory committee on novel foods and processes.
Professor Martin: I am Professor Cathie Martin and I am also at the John Innes Centre in Norwich. I am also a professor at the University of East Anglia. I am a group leader responsible for focusing on the nutritional improvement of foods that we eat, and I have experience in trying to do that with GMOs and getting them through regulatory approval in the US. More recently, I have been involved in doing genome editing to improve vitamin content in tomatoes—my favourite fruit.
I should also say that the John Innes Centre is a member of the European Technology Platform “Plants for the Future”. Paradoxically, I am chair of the working group on new breeding technologies, which is a collective of academics, industry, breeders and farmers in Europe looking to lobby for changing the regulations in Europe.
Nigel Moore: My name is Nigel Moore and I am the head of business development and strategy for KWS Cereals. KWS is a German-headquartered mid-sized company and we have a significant breeding activity here in the UK.
I have worked in plant breeding and seeds for more than 30 years now. I am a past chairman of the British Society of Plant Breeders and a past president of Euroseeds, the European seed association, where I am also discussing this topic regularly with Commission representatives.
Professor Caccamo: Good afternoon. I am Mario Caccamo and I am the chief executive officer of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, or NIAB, which is a research and technology organisation based in Cambridge. We have more than 13 sites across the UK. We are an independent organisation, and we deliver field trials on those sites. We also have expertise within NIAB in genome editing and GMOs. Also, we work with breeders and we do breeding ourselves.
The Chair
Thank you. We will finish this session at 5.10 pm. I will move straight to questions, but I ask our witnesses not to say if they agree with somebody; that just takes time. If there is a different point of view, we are interested in that.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Caccamo: I think there are two components to the question. First, the benefit is clearly in incentivising investment in human capital. There is a lot of expertise in the UK—we are global leaders. Investment has come from the public sector. Taxpayer money has been put in place to develop skills, and seeing those skills put into practice would be fantastic. I see that as the biggest benefit. I will leave that there because my colleagues here will probably bring in other points.
On concerns and improving the Bill, I think the Bill is very balanced in terms of the definitions. There is a space left open for how much downstream regulation might be required, which I think is probably unnecessary and not proportional to what we might want to achieve with the Bill. The principle behind the Bill is that we would like to consider genome edited crops in the same way as any other crop that has been bred using traditional technologies. With that in mind, we should look into anything that comes downstream in terms of how we use outputs from these technologies in a proportional way. There is probably space there to be less specific and include so much detail, which could potentially be a deterrent for industry if it seen as adding unnecessary steps downstream. That is my main concern.
Jo Churchill
Q
Nigel Moore: Transparency is really important. As plant breeders, we do not have anything to hide. One thing that is often overlooked is that within the current regulatory regime around plant rights and seeds, there is already inherently a lot of transparency and traceability in terms of registering new varieties on national catalogues in the public domain, which will have had an identity check and at least two years of performance checking through DUS and VCU, which test for distinctiveness, uniformity and stability, and value for cultivation. The seeds of those varieties are then sold as certified seed with clear labels, with the variety name, batches, qualities, plant health status and operator identity all held within the seed certification regulation. We believe that allows a lot of traceability, so the transparency that is envisaged in the Bill of adding breeding method and genome edited varieties to the national register enables the market to segregate as it wishes.
Varieties will be suitable for markets or not. They can very easily select which varieties to enable within a standard, such as an organic standard. The one with the organic standard can say, “No, I don’t want to use variety A, B or C because it is genome edited”, and that is on the public register as envisaged in part 2 of the Bill.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Martin: Really, getting something that might translate into a product. I am a fundamental research scientist. I want to do things that have social utility, and I believe very strongly in improving the number of plants in our diet because that benefits health. I started off trying to do this by genetic modification and we made purple tomatoes with their GMOs. Fourteen years later, I am about to get them approved for commercialisation in the USA. It has taken me 14 years to get to that point. For the pro-vitamin D tomatoes, because they qualify as having no foreign DNA in them, that means I can even start within 20 days of notifying DEFRA under the new legislation. I can have a field trial of them. I could not possibly have a field trial of the purple tomatoes, so for me, it is the realisation that this could actually be something we could give to people that would be better for them. It might actually happen.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Harwood: I will just say that I am here in a personal capacity, not as a representative of the committee. Obviously, food safety is extremely important, and a lot of the things that the technology can do—we have heard many examples—are almost identical to things that could have been done using other methods, for example, through mutation breeding.
However, there are some things that the technology could do, and Cathie’s tomato is one example, and there are others, of where a change would be made. It would still be just a tiny change in the DNA—something that could have happened naturally, but has not happened naturally so far—but it is making a change that might cause concern for certain people in the population.
Another example might be something like a low-gluten wheat. You can imagine that this would be something that would need a bit of extra scrutiny. There might be a food safety issue there, so it would need to be looked at. It is very much looking at things on a case-by-case basis. You would need to pick out those things that would need that extra level of scrutiny and risk assessment from those that probably need very light-touch regulation.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
First, you will all recall the public confidence issues from 20 or 30 years ago, and that is one of the challenges now. I would like to hear whether you think the Bill has enough in it to reassure the public around some of those issues. Secondly, and in some ways related to that, most of you are plant focused, but this Bill obviously introduces animals, which is a very different set of issues and is, in some ways, perhaps more challenging. Do you think they should have been separated out? Thirdly, what do you think the public register will be used for and what benefit does it bring?
Finally, specifically for Cathie and Wendy, I had a constituent contact me, who has an issue around vitamin D being added to tomatoes. How will that constituent know whether these tomatoes have been modified in that way in future? It touches on Professor Harwood’s final point, and goes back to my initial point, on the question of labelling and reassurance. Where should that balance be struck?
Professor Harwood: Shall I take the last question first? We have talked a lot about labelling. If there was something like a high vitamin D tomato, there would be a nutritional difference, which I imagine would be picked up on labelling. That would make sense.
Professor Martin: You would probably want to advertise it.
Professor Harwood: You probably would, yes. Where there is something that might be appropriate for certain members of public and not others, clearly you would want some sort of labelling.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Harwood: It is not, but I think that would probably fall under part 3, which looks at food safety. I imagine that it would be—not being an expert—covered there.
Professor Martin: I want to expand a little bit on what Wendy said. What the Bill does is allow you to move forward with presenting examples. I have a real problem with trying to do a risk assessment on a technology and I know that lots of other people have said it should be on the trait, not the technology. It is a bit like 3D printing. Do we stop doing 3D printing or allowing people to do it because somebody could make a gun out of it? Or do we say, “We can make joints”? Okay, you can make joints by traditional methods, but you can do it much faster and better by 3D printing. Why do we not allow the technology and regulate the trait?
I absolutely agree about the pro-vitamin D enriched tomato that has never been considered before. There we have the regulatory system already in place from the FSA to consider it as a novel food. For environmental concerns, you take the specific edit that has happened and ACRE will assess. That is also why we want to do field trials. No person that is trying to produce improved varieties wants to produce something that is defective—it is just not in our DNA.
Daniel Zeichner
Not in yours, but possibly in others who are less public spirited.
Nigel Moore: I think the critical answer to the question is that public confidence and reassurance is at the heart of the Bill, in the definition of a precision bred organism as something that could occur in nature or by traditional breeding. There are many genome editing methods that can create additional changes. Absolutely the key step to generating public confidence and reassurance is the recognition that the techniques that can create those sorts of changes do not create additional risk. The ACRE guidance on qualifying higher plants that accompanies the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002 gave an extremely good evidence-based approach to which types of techniques create changes that could occur in nature.
The question is about an imprecise definition. We need the additional information to say, “These are the techniques that we confirm as PBOs—they are fine.” Public reassurance is at the heart of this and we must make sure that we only put into this regulatory regime things that have the same risk profile as traditional breeding. What is clear from listening to the discussion today is how little information is known about what sorts of genetic changes happen in conventional breeding, or about the scale of those genetic changes.
I brought with me the AHDB recommended list. I will not go into it, but if we were to look at it, we would see that there are 38 varieties of wheat on the recommended list for the UK. They have many different characteristics, including resistances, yields, qualities for processing and vastly different protein contents—there is a range of about 30% of different protein contents. You can see null-lox barleys that have a different framing characteristic in beer making. You can see non-GN barleys that do not create carcinogens in whisky distilling. There are many food-safety single issues all in this vast range of genetic resources that have been created by traditional breeding. There is a wide range.
People should have confidence that all the food and all the breeding has delivered not risk, but improvement, safety and better environmental outcomes compared with old varieties. There is a big misunderstanding about the position of precision breeding. The public confidence question is about information, education and transparency. For me, that is at the heart of what we are doing here.
Public confidence should also be triggered by a recent study on the socioeconomic impact of plant breeding, run by HFFA Research, and which studied all of Europe. It showed that over the last 20 years in the UK alone, breeding development has saved 1.8 million hectares from agriculture and delivered about 16 million tonnes fewer CO2 emissions than the same production at the same level 20 years ago. That is with no more fertiliser, no more crop protection and no more land use, so there is a huge benefit to the public. Can we keep pace with climate change, and with pathogen development on stripe rusts in wheat and so on, without going faster? We must go faster. Without new technology and innovation, I do not feel very safe. The world gets warmer, we get hungrier and we need innovation—and we need to do it fast.
Professor Caccamo: I will be very brief. Labelling the technology would be a mistake. It would undermine the principle of the Bill, because these technologies should be indistinguishable from traditional breeding or something that would happen in nature. But it is also important to stress that these technologies are actually more precise, as the Bill says. Therefore, we are in a position whereby we can advance genetic benefits much faster. Trying to identify the technology through a labelling system would probably achieve the opposite with the public, because it would probably raise concerns about why we need to do that. I will leave it there.
Deidre Brock
Q
Nigel Moore: I think we have developed it here, but the concept of things that could occur in nature or traditional breeding is exactly the same concept that is being discussed with the Commission. Health Canada has also come up with a similar concept. Does it have the same three-letter acronym? No, but that concept is the common concept.
Professor Caccamo: I believe we are dealing with an anomaly, because what we are doing here is removing genome edited crops from the definition of genetically modified organisms. Countries that have adopted the technology have done a proactive measurement from scratch, whereby they considered genome editing to be a new technology that could bring new crops. The European ruling brought us into a position whereby we need to make an exception. That is the result we see in the Bill, which I consider, as I said, an anomaly.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Harwood: I can have a go with that one. To be honest, this is obviously an area that is still being discussed. I fully support the notification system and the transparency, which is absolutely the right thing to do. Exactly what will be required in the notification is still being discussed, and it is very important that it captures the crucial information that would be needed to highlight whether there was anything that might just mean that that particular example needed an extra risk assessment rather than a light touch. It is something that I think is being discussed, and perhaps it just needs a little bit of extra detail.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Harwood: To be honest, I am not an expert on that. I would not like to comment on whether that sort of detail belongs in the Bill.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Martin: I have a little bit of experience of the notification for being able to do a field trial. The notification was very easy. I talked to my Italian collaborators and asked, “Can you get regulatory approval for growing plants outside in Italy?” and they said, “It will take two years.” It took me two days to notify DEFRA and I had to wait 20 days for that to be approved. However, it was thorough. They asked me about the type of information I had presented in a scientific paper and had peer-reviewed. It was based on strong scientific evidence. I felt that it was absolutely fair and just. It was fantastic that it was so quick, but it was absolutely right that they asked, “Have you shown that there is no foreign DNA?”, for example. That is the definition of the qualified—
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Martin: You have to wait 20 days before you can start growing the plants outside after you have had your notification approved.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Martin: It gives them a bit of time to look at your form.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Martin: Let me just get this right. If you want to do a field trial, you have to say what day that would be. You have to notify them at least 20 days before you do that.
The Chair
If there are no other questions, I thank our witnesses for appearing and giving us such full answers. The Committee will meet again on Tuesday 5 July in Committee Room 11 to begin line-by-line scrutiny.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 5th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 July 2022 - (5 Jul 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 6, page 5, line 31, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 7 stand part.
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 31, in clause 9, page 6 line 33, at end insert—
“(iii) safeguarding the health and welfare of those animals that are no longer deemed to be precision bred;”.
This amendment would require regulations conferring power on the Secretary of State to revoke a precision bred confirmation relating to an organism to include provision to safeguard the health and welfare of any animals which would as a consequence of such a revocation no longer be deemed precision bred.
Amendment 12, in clause 9, page 7, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Clause 9 stand part.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair again, Ms McVey, as we continue this interesting discussion. You were part of the evidence sessions.
We come to a series of clauses about precision bred confirmation, and we have a number of amendments that largely relate to how Parliament scrutinises the secondary legislation. As we argued this morning, we think that far too much is being pushed off into secondary legislation. Even within that, too much of the secondary legislation is subject to the negative procedure, so it will go through without any scrutiny. I will not repeat the broad points about why we think that is not the way to do it, as they are familiar to most people.
Clause 6 concerns the applications for precision bred confirmation. The Government will be given powers to make secondary legislation that prescribes the form and content of a marketing notice and the information that is to accompany one. It is really important that the advisory committee, the welfare body and the Secretary of State have all the information they need to come to an informed decision on both the release and the marketing of precision bred organisms. Frankly, I am not comfortable —and I do not think many others will be—giving the Government a blank cheque to determine what information must be provided. I understand that it needs further consideration and thought, but it seems to us to be too significant an issue not to merit proper scrutiny in this House. Amendment 11 simply tweaks it to make the clause subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure.
Clause 9 allows for the revocation of a precision bred confirmation. Again, that is a very important matter, and I have a series of questions, which I touched on in the discussion before lunch, about how these decisions are arrived at. What triggers them? What is the information? What is the process? As one begins to think it through, one can see that there is really not a lot of detail in the Bill as it stands. It is not clear to me, and I hope the Minister can go through in detail some examples of how all this might work.
If the Government are no longer satisfied that a precision bred organism is indeed precision bred—perhaps it has become apparent through some complaint or some new science that it does utilise genetic modification technologies, which require a higher level of regulation, or perhaps some adverse impacts have come to light—we appreciate that they would need to be able to revoke an authorisation, and we support that, but I cannot quite see in the real world how that situation arises. It would be really helpful for me and, I am sure, others if the Minister could walk us through an actual example. In what circumstances would that happen? Does the Minister anticipate that there will be challenges, and that the Government might lose and therefore have to step back? In that case, it is right to have a procedure for dealing with this. It would be useful to know quite what the thinking was behind it. We need proper scrutiny of some of these powers, and amendment 12 would make the clause subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure proper scrutiny takes place.
When a precision bred confirmation is revoked, even though we cannot entirely envisage how it will work, it is important that the Secretary of State has a process to safeguard the health and welfare of those animals—we are talking about animals in this case—that are no longer deemed to be precision bred. We took advice from Compassion in World Farming on this, which gave evidence in the evidence sessions. It says that where that is the case, it will be because the organism has either been mischaracterised or the genome is no longer stable, which, in their view, may create health and welfare risks. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether that is that situation is envisaged. That raises the question of what to do with the creatures that have been created through this process and how to bring the breeding of the line back under the appropriate regulations.
What I am saying about this amendment goes right back to the beginning, when we were nervous about embarking on the animal route without knowing more detail. As one begins to look at the detail in the Bill for dealing with some of these issues, without knowing the wider thinking, wider background and wider regulatory framework, it is quite hard to comment on the potential unintended consequences and how they might be dealt with. The reason that this matters to all of us is that animal welfare matters. I hardly need remind the Minister of her Government’s 2019 manifesto commitment, which I helpfully have before me:
“High standards of animal welfare are one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. We have a long tradition of protecting animals in this country, often many years before others follow. Under a Conservative Government, that will continue”
—well, quite. We fully endorse that. In the spirit of that commitment, I hope that the Government will welcome amendment 31, which would require the regulations that make provision for the procedure to be followed if the Secretary of State proposes to revoke a precision bred confirmation to include provisions to safeguard the health and welfare of any animals that are no longer deemed to be precision bred.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Amendment 11 would provide for further parliamentary scrutiny on the marketing notice. The amendment is not necessary, as this power cannot be used to deliver a substantive change in policy; it is merely to prescribe details that are technical and administrative in nature, such as the form of the marketing notice or the information that must accompany that notice. I worry that what the hon. Member for Cambridge is seeking is because these regulations are as yet not in place. We have gone over the fact that we will look to work with experts and stakeholders and so on in order to ensure that we have the right guidelines so that we can move forward.
The criteria for defining a precision bred organism is set out in the Bill. We will continue to seek expert, independent advice on the technical details before any regulations are brought before Parliament. It is appropriate for the technical detail which demonstrates how the given organism meets these criteria to be specified in regulations and for such regulations to follow the negative procedure, as there may be an appropriate time for them to be added to.
In amendment 31, the hon. Gentleman proposes placing a duty on the Secretary of State when revoking a precision bred animal confirmation to safeguard the health and welfare of animals. All vertebrate animals are already protected by extensive animal health and welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence either to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 include specific requirements to protect animals when bred or kept, prohibiting breeding procedures that
“cause, or are likely to cause, suffering or injury”.
The regulations further state that:
“Animals may only be kept for farming purposes if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health or welfare.”
The protections provided by these regulations would apply to an animal where a precision bred confirmation relating to that animal had been revoked. Those welfare requirements cover all animals. With those protections already in place, we see no need for anything further and I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
On amendment 12, I stand by what I have said before on the use of parliamentary time. The key proposition that a precision bred confirmation should be capable of being revoked is set out in the Bill.
Clause 9 sets out a pathway by which a precision bred confirmation may be revoked. It is a criminal offence to market genetically modified organisms without prior consent, and we believe that companies will continue to be incredibly careful to avoid mistakes. However, to provide a belt-and-braces measure, in the unlikely event that a GMO goes through the procedures under this Bill and is marketed as a precision bred organism, the clause establishes a transparent process for dealing with such an eventuality. That is important for consumer confidence and transparency.
Clause 9(4) addresses conferring additional functions on the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. The ability to seek scientific advice on any relevant new information that comes to light will be an important component part of this process. The clause states that we will need the help of outside experts to ensure that we move forward appropriately.
Daniel Zeichner
I am afraid that I am still not entirely convinced, for a number of reasons, going back to some of the points I made just before we broke for lunch. There seems to be a closed, narrow group of people making these decisions. What ACRE—this group of eminent people—is being asked to do is to make a judgment on whether something that has been submitted to them is a PBO.
Following our discussions on the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022 a few months ago, ACRE released guidance on how the process would be approached. The guidance is quite technical, to put it mildly, and it is thoughtful and nuanced, and has quite a lot of caveats. Obviously, the guidance is not before us today, but it is relevant, because it is what ACRE will consider—there are no additional terms of reference being introduced in these clauses. There will not be a simple, clear-cut process and that probably explains why the Government have introduced this method for revoking confirmations, because more science and more evidence can come to light.
My worry is that it feels like a discussion between a very small group of people. If we are trying to address the question of public confidence, which is key, it does not seem to give the degree of reassurance that people seek. If one were being kind and generous to the Government, as obviously I would be, one way to provide that reassurance might be to bring forward secondary legislation so that it is discussed, rather than just being passed without discussion, as we know many statutory instruments are all the time. We think it is worth looking more closely at the procedure and making the secondary legislation subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure.
Although the Minister did respond to my invitation to give us an example, I am still not really very clear quite how it would happen. What happens to the animals—we are talking about animals here rather than plants—in those circumstances? I appreciate that there are existing protections, but the question is whether any additional protections are needed given the new set of procedures available, and how that should be handled. That seems to be worthy of further interrogation.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 10, page 7, line 12, leave out—
“means an animal which is a vertebrate”
and insert—
“has the meaning given by section 5 of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022”.
This amendment would make the definition of animal from the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 the relevant definition, rather than that from the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 34, in clause 10, page 7, line 13, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4).
This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 33, would remove the provision to extend the definition of “animal” to include (further) invertebrates, which would instead be provided by section 5 of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.
Daniel Zeichner
The amendments in this group are relatively straightforward, the Committee will be glad to hear. We are interested in looking at the relationship between the Bill and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which some of us were involved in, discussing it in this very room only a few months ago. To our joint delight, it received Royal Assent in April.
The Act defines “animal” as
“any vertebrate other than homo sapiens…any cephalopod mollusc, and…any decapod crustacean”.
Members may remember the debate about the definition, which was based on a Government amendment, if I recall, after a report commissioned by them to review the scientific evidence for the sentience of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. The London School of Economics published that review in November last year, after which the Government made their amendment to the animal sentience Bill to reflect the most up-to-date understanding. Despite that, however, clause 10 of this Bill defines animals only as vertebrates.
There are all kinds of exciting jokes that one can make about vertebrates and all the rest of it, but I shall resist that today. We also note that the clause does not exclude homo sapiens explicitly. Basically, our issue is about trying to align the definitions with the most recent piece of legislation to have gone through the House.
The clause also makes provision for the Bill’s definition to be extended to include invertebrates if the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is extended to include them. It therefore seems to pose rather a strange system involving two different definitions of “animal” in law: one from the 2006 legislation and the other from the very recent legislation. We still seem to be waiting to get our definitions in line.
As an aside, given that the Government’s aim of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act was to recognise the sentience of animals in law, we are slightly surprised that the Animal Welfare Act has not been extended to reflect the Government’s latest stance. Regardless of that, it seems that the Bill should use the most up to date definition, that is why we have tabled amendment 33, and we think that amendment 34 is consequential on that, to replace the definition of animal in the Bill to the one from the 2022 Act. It is possible that it was mistake—that happens—or an accidental oversight, which we think could be rectified if the Government were to accept the amendment. If not, it would be useful to hear the Government’s explanation, and I invite the Minister to give it.
Jo Churchill
The hon. Gentleman proposes that we change the substance of the definition of relevant animal from that in 2006 Act to the more recent definition in the 2022 Act. Although we do not feel that the amendment is necessary, I am really grateful for the opportunity to put down on record our reasons for that.
Clause 10 defines relevant animal as a vertebrate for the purpose of welfare protection measures in clauses 11 to 15. That is line with the definition of animal in the 2006 Act—the core legislation that establishes the practical rules for individuals and businesses that handle, keep and care for animals in this country. For that reason, it is the right definition to apply.
It is worth noting that the definition of animal in the 2022 Act sets out what type of animals the animal sentience committee can consider when carrying out its work, but it does automatically not extend the definition of animal in the 2006 Act. We totally accept that it will be more than likely appropriate to broaden that definition so it is important to note that in clause 10 we allow a provision for regulations to be made to extend the definition of relevant animal, if the definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is extended to include invertebrates of any description. Any amending regulations that extend that definition would be subject to the affirmative procedure in the House, and therefore subject to debate and approval by both Houses before being made.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, like the Opposition, were very pleased that the sentience Bill received Royal Assent, but the next step is to carefully consider the implications of extending the 2006 Act to include cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans because that will include implications for how they are caught and handled, treated and transported. The Government are working constructively with industry and stakeholders on this issue; I assure the hon. Gentleman of that.
I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman but the appropriate definition of animal is that which sits in the 2006 Act, although I agree that the extension of that definition is in process. It is not correct, however, to say that the definition in the 2022 Act would sit appropriately in this legislation for the reasons I have cited.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the explanation, although I am not entirely sure that I am convinced by it. It seems to me to be a slightly curious way of proceeding. At the end of it, I am not entirely sure whether it means that cephalopods and decapods are protected under the Bill or not—possibly not, as it stands. I understand why the new regulations have practical implications, particularly for the fishing sector, and why they need to be thought through carefully. I can see why there might be complications, although that is more to do with the animal sentience Act than it is to do with the Bill.
We will come back in a moment to the question of the relationship between the animal sentience Act and the Bill. It is an interesting one, because it goes to the heart of the concern that we on the Labour Benches have: that the various structures that are in place to make decisions, give expert advice, and so on may no longer be quite right. During the evidence session, we heard the suggestion that there may well be people within Departments who are already thinking along those lines and looking at ways in which those structures may be updated. That, of course, creates some difficulties for us, because we are looking at the legislation as it stands today. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but that is the problem with trying to second-guess the thinking of the Government when they are so vague on some of these animal welfare issues.
There is considerable interest in the whole question about cephalopods and decapods, and we think it would be more consistent to have a unified approach. On that basis, I am afraid we will test the opinion of the Committee by pressing amendment 33 to a vote, although we will not feel the need to move amendment 34.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jo Churchill
As discussed, clause 10 defines a relevant animal as a vertebrate for the purposes of the welfare protection measures in clauses 11 to 15. That is in line with the definition of an animal in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which is the core legislation that establishes the practical rules for individuals and businesses that keep, handle, or care for animals in this country. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner
I will be brief, given that we have just discussed the amendments. I stand by the comments we have already made, but I am grateful that regulations made under subsection (2) of the clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will doubtless be back here on another day, discussing this issue again.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Application for precision bred animal marketing authorisation
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 11, page 8, line 25, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) The welfare advisory body must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of any precision bred trait referred to in the application on the health and welfare of the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny.
(1B) In carrying out an assessment under subsection (2) the welfare advisory body must consider—
(a) scientific expertise on the health and welfare of animals with similar traits (whether or not resulting from the application of modern biotechnology) to those of the animal in respect of which an application for a precision bred animal marketing authorisation has been made;
(b) the animal welfare declaration provided by the notifier under subsection (3) of section 11 and the assessment, explanation and information provided under subsection (4) of section 11; and
(c) any other matter it considers appropriate.”
Amendment 5, in clause 12, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the purpose of a precision bred trait referred to in the application includes achieving fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity, the welfare advisory body must in preparing a report under subsection (2)—
(a) consider whether animals or their progeny with similar traits resulting from selective breeding or traditional processes have experienced pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity, and
(b) assess whether the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny are also likely to experience pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity.”
Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) In preparing a report under subsection (2) the welfare advisory body must consider whether the precision bred traits may facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that may have an adverse effect on animal welfare.”
Amendment 7, in clause 12, page 8, line 30, at end insert—
“(za) the likely impact of the precision bred traits on the health and welfare of the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny,
(zb) whether the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny are likely to experience pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity,
(zc) whether the precision bred traits may facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that are likely to have an adverse effect on animal welfare,”.
Amendment 35, in clause 12, page 8, line 40, at end insert—
“(d) whether the health or welfare of the parents, grandparents or great grandparents of the qualifying progeny of the relevant animal may reasonably be expected to be adversely affected by the precision bred trait.”
This amendment would require the welfare advisory body to report on the likely effects of a precision bred trait on breeding stock.
Amendment 36, in clause 12, page 8, line 40, at end insert—
“(2A) In its report under subsection (2) the welfare advisory body must take into account direct and indirect effects and intended and unintended effects of the precision bred trait on the health and welfare of—
(a) the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny, and
(b) the parents, grandparents or great grandparents of the qualifying progeny.”
This amendment would require the welfare advisory body to take into account direct and indirect, and both intended and unintended, effects of the precision bred trait on the animal and its qualifying progeny and on breeding stock.
Clause 12 stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
“(za) that the precision bred traits will not have an adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny,
(zb) that the precision bred traits will not facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that are likely to have an adverse effect on animal welfare,
(zc) that any precision bred trait could not reasonably have been achieved by means that do not involve modification of the genome of the animal,”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State issuing a precision bred animal marketing authorisation unless satisfied on the health or welfare effects listed and that the precision bred trait could not reasonably have been achieved by means that do not involve modification of the genome of the animal.
Clause 13 stand part.
Daniel Zeichner
We have quite a complicated set of amendments and clauses before us, so I will try to take them in turn—[Interruption.]
Daniel Zeichner
The measures all refer to the animal legislation, which, as we said at the beginning, we are not convinced was sufficiently developed. Nevertheless, we have some detail here so it is worth looking closely at what is proposed. Unfortunately, a lot is, again, left to secondary legislation under the negative procedure; given the likely interest in this topic, which I have mentioned often today, that gives us cause for concern.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman, because animal welfare is close to all our hearts. It is something that this Government—indeed, any Government—need to be cognisant of, and I am proud that we have a strong record of supporting and improving it. With the animal health and welfare pathway, we have laid out where we intend to go further.
I will take the eight amendments in turn. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not feel that amendment 13 is necessary. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to create the regulatory framework for the approval of marketing authorisations for precision bred animals. I assure all Members that we propose to work closely with the industry, expert groups, scientific advisers, non-governmental organisations and all other stakeholders on the development of that technical detail. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is important that all those voices are heard, and that we work on that technical detail with everyone.
For the animal welfare declaration, that will include setting out metrics and the evidence that is necessary to accompany it. As part of that work, we will commission—indeed, we are commissioning—further evidence through independent research, and we will draw on our animal welfare advisory board. Once the technical details are designed, they will be set out in secondary legislation and guidance will be provided. They will benefit from co-design with those expertise and stakeholders. That is important to ensure we get this right.
We want to enable, rather than hamper, innovation while ensuring that animal welfare requirements are fully regarded and adhered to. We believe the amendment to clause 11 is not needed because it would cover only administrative and technical details. I hope the hon. Gentleman feels reassured that, in order to get to the right conclusion, we are trying to do this openly and transparently with all those who need to have their voices heard.
In essence, the clause signals to science and innovators, who are at the forefront, that the Government support the adoption of beneficial modern technologies and that they should have confidence moving forward. However, we recognise that as well as enabling innovation to keep pace with new and beneficial technologies, we must continue to uphold the high standards of animal welfare.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister has gone into a lot of detail already as to why she does not support Labour’s amendments. I am not sure that I will be able to change her mind or whether she has another speech put to one side in case I make such a compelling argument—I suspect not—but I will get it on the record anyway.
My starting point is that I was rather concerned about how often she mentioned regulation, further consideration, talking to stakeholders and all those things that are yet to be configured. Actually, we have time to get the Bill right, to get things on the face of it and not to rush into it, rather than having such reliance on secondary legislation. We have made that point already and will, no doubt, continue to do so as we go through the Bill. However, it is a major concern.
I want to say once again for the record that I see that there are positives that could result from gene editing of animals. I am not totally against that. We have talked about improving resistance to disease, resistance to heat and the ability to breed selectively by gender. For example, 29 million male chicks are killed each year in the UK—in the UK it is by gassing, but in other countries it is maceration, which is a pretty horrible process by which they go along a conveyor belt and end up in a grinder that shreds them to bits—so we could avoid that. Interestingly, although people are keen to talk about how we are ahead of the field in animal welfare, parts of Germany have banned culling of male chicks, France has put a bit of money into it, and Germany introduced a ban at the start of the year. It is now all in-ovo testing, so editing the gene might be a quicker and cheaper way of doing it. However, let us not pin all our hopes on this Bill. That is something we could be doing without gene editing. I am surprised that we are not following France and Germany’s lead.
Another advantage we heard about is avoiding the need for dehorning, by preventing the growth of horns. That is all very good stuff, but we also heard about concerns, including the increased yields in particular. That is something that I would be very concerned about. Peter Stevenson from Compassion in World Farming said:
“The science about the detrimental impact of selective breeding on just about every main farm species is utterly clear.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 101, Q163.]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, some of the things that I have mentioned in the course of debate I will mention again in a moment.
The National Farmers Union said that the Bill is not the place to consider animal welfare and positive or negative outcomes in that respect, because we have legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act and the farm animal welfare codes. I have already made clear my doubts about the effectiveness of that. Some of the witnesses that we heard from argued very convincingly that the existing animal welfare regime does not offer enough protections. Peter Stevenson also said that
“it is vital that there is something in this Bill to protect animal welfare, because the current legislation…has really very little on breeding, which is why we have all these problems.”—[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 108, Q173.]
I have already mentioned the secondary legislation. Amendment 13 is very important, because if applications are being made for the marketing of gene edited animal products, we need oversight of the related regulations. Otherwise there is a risk of a lax regulatory regime that lets applicants mark their own homework.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am listening hard to the hon. Lady’s speech and I wholeheartedly agree with her about some of the welfare issues she has described. Does she agree, however, that the Bill offers the opportunity to solve some of the problems that she has identified? The problem with natural breeding is that we effectively chuck everything up in the air, and then it comes back together with one part from the mum and one from the dad. That means that when we select for improved production, we cannot also make sure that we are selecting for health and fitness. We are stuck with the selection—for example, we may select for a dog whose face gets smaller and smaller. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying about making sure that we do not use gene editing just to target individual production methods, but does she share my excitement that the Bill offers the opportunity to fix some of the inherent deficits that traditional breeding has imposed on animals—animals that I know many farmers work with every day, and love?
Kerry McCarthy
My concern is that that is not spelled out in the Bill, and it goes back to our argument about the public benefit. I would be far more comfortable if the Bill spelled out what the hon. Lady has described and made it clear that that is what it is designed to achieve. The ongoing welfare of the animal should be one of the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to approve applications. The Bill is not clear about that. Market forces being what they are, some people will want to use the Bill as an opportunity to increase yields.
Katherine Fletcher
I understand that the hon. Lady is leery about market consequences, and we should always have a good look at them. Some of the welfare issues that we think of as distressing also have a financial cost attached to them—increased vets’ charges; increased housing requirements; and increased vets’ visits. Would the hon. Lady risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater by being specific about the Bill, because a happy, healthy animal that is productive and fecund is an economic positive for the individuals who seek to farm them?
Kerry McCarthy
One might think so, but consider the lifespan of cows and that fact that they become infertile pretty quickly. One would think that logic would suggest that a farmer would want a cow that they did not literally milk for everything, and that lived a longer, healthier and fertile life. That is not what happens on some farms. Some farmers view the economic advantage to them as getting as much out of a cow as possible in its shorter lifespan. We want to encourage best practice, and I am not casting aspersions on farmers who want to do the right thing, but we know that big market forces are at work, particularly in chicken production. In fact, wherever products are sold in bulk and consumed in vast quantities, some players in that market will not have animal welfare in mind.
I am conscious of time, so to conclude, amendment 7 calls for welfare reports to be submitted to the Secretary of State to consider whether yields would be increased and whether that would lead to suffering. That goes to the nub of the issue. I will not repeat what I said earlier, but if the development of gene editing led to the phase out of some of the diseases that affect animal welfare, I would like more reassurances about what that would mean for increased density and animals kept in cramped conditions, and so on. If we have a stronger animal, that might mean that it is thought they can withstand such treatment.
I think the welfare provisions are too weak, and far too much is being left to regulations and consideration at some point in the future. The Bill should have been put on hold while we made more inquiries and gathered more information. That would have meant that we were discussing a fully rounded Bill, and that we knew what we were likely to get from it.
Daniel Zeichner
We have had an excellent discussion of the issues and, as always, I find myself in agreement with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has said, not least because she has agreed with me.
There was a lot in the Minister’s opening remarks, and I will go away and study them closely. Part of the problem is that a lot of the what the Minister said is not in the Bill, and this has been a problem throughout. She said that clauses 11 and 12 were crucial because they set up the new regulatory framework, but that that was not expected to be done quickly, because time would be spent on it. That is good and welcome, but, frankly, in the awful situation where another Minister potentially was in place, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that original assurance would hold good. As far as I can see, that framework could be established rather quickly if we pass the Bill as it is written.
When we discuss matters when considering secondary legislation, it may be that many of the things that we have raised will be covered, but there are no guarantees, which is why we have tabled the amendments. That is the problem, and why it is our responsibility to lay down some thoughts as to what the framework should be. Perhaps we will help to set some of thinking going forward, and if that is the case, even though I do not anticipate that the amendments will be agreed to, they may help to contribute to setting out the type of framework that we would like.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East that the proposed framework still looks rather weak. The Minister spoke of the advisory body being able to request further information, and that is good and proper, but I think it may need to be able to do more than that. If we have the opportunity to discuss the matter further, I suspect this type of question will come up: what are the actual powers available to the body? I do not think I have yet heard anybody talk about the composition of the animal welfare body, but that it is quite important, because it could be quite a narrow group of experts. There is nothing wrong with that but, as I have said before, people drawn from the same set of people almost inevitably tend to end up thinking the same kind of things. I think the public would quite like some other voices involved in the decisions.
I agree that, ultimately, matters must go to the Secretary of State for decision, so that there is a chain of accountability, but we all know that in reality the earlier processes are quite significant. We will come to our suggestions about how matters should be considered when we discuss the new clauses. People have suggested that the other models should be followed, such as that of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. My understanding is that at times the latter has had a wider membership and remit than originally set. Such a possibility would give people confidence about the work of the animal welfare body as we go into a brave new world, because it is just that: we have fantastic opportunities.
The Minister said that some of our comments suggested that we see the Bill as a negative; we do not. We see it as offering huge opportunities, if done in the right way and with the right safeguards, so that people have confidence that any application is made for the right purpose. We are not that far apart, but it is quite hard to work out from the Bill how everything will look a few years down the line. The worry is that if the Bill is approved unamended, there will nothing to stop matters proceeding rather quickly without the appropriate safeguards. The Opposition would be irresponsible were we not to make that point and to challenge, and that is what we will continue to do.
We have quite a complicated set of clauses and amendments ahead of us, and perhaps we will take them one by one, if that is all right with you, Ms McVey.
The Chair
Absolutely. To confirm, would you like to withdraw this amendment or to press it to a vote?
Daniel Zeichner
I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Report by welfare advisory body
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, in clause 15, page 10, line 42, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Clause 15 stand part.
Jo Churchill
Clause 14 sets out the reporting obligations that will apply once a precision bred animal marketing authorisation has been issued. Although the provisions in the Bill are intended to prevent adverse welfare outcomes in precision bred animals, we consider it prudent to have a monitoring function in place during the early stages of the marketing of precision bred animals in England. The Bill will provide for the ability to place a time-limited and proportionate duty on breeders and developers to monitor animals and their offspring for any significant adverse health and welfare outcomes that can be linked to the new trait, and to report any such outcome to DEFRA.
The clause sets out that regulations may make provision to require the notifier, or any other specified person, to provide information to the Secretary of State about the welfare of the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny. If the relevant animal is supplied to another person, the notifier may be required to take steps to collect health and welfare information, or enable it to be collected from the other person. Regulations may set requirements on the information that must be collected, including, for example, specific time periods for reporting, and technical requirements for the types of information to be provided.
Daniel Zeichner
We are now getting to the Bill’s more administrative details, about which we have fewer concerns.
Clause 14 concerns the reporting obligations for precision bred animal marketing authorisations. Clause 15 concerns the suspension and revocation of precision bred animal marketing authorisations. In many ways, what I am about to say is similar to what I have said before about those things. I am glad that reporting obligations are included in the Bill, especially those that relate to animal welfare and to potential unintended consequences. It is right that those processes be monitored and reported on.
The suspension and revocation of authorisations concerning animals appears to be an area where greater scrutiny of secondary legislation would be beneficial. The clause confers powers on the Government to introduce secondary legislation, with provisions to suspend or revoke precision bred animal marketing authorisations where the Secretary of State receives information regarding the health and welfare of the animal concerned, and where they believe the health or welfare of an animal is likely to be adversely affected. It also contains provisions for those decisions to be publicly announced and shared. That raises the question of who is doing the monitoring and how, and it would be helpful if the Minister said a little more about that.
At the risk of being endlessly repetitive, it would be better for the secondary legislation to be subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative. That is the force of amendment 14. As we have said frequently, the House should be able to scrutinise the Government’s proposals, especially as they have been decidedly vague so far. These things do matter, because they concern the potential pain and suffering of sentient beings.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendment. Clause 15 allows for provision to be made in regulation for the circumstances in which a precision bred animal marketing authorisation may be revoked or suspended, and to set out the procedure to follow in such cases. The affirmative procedure would not be a meaningful use of parliamentary time. The power to make regulations for the circumstances in which an authorisation may be revoked or suspended is, in effect, a power to specify more details of those circumstances, but the circumstances are already set out in the Bill and cannot be changed. Given the content of the regulations made under clause 15, the negative procedure is a better fit.
We, like the Opposition, are committed to animal welfare and want the Bill’s provisions to be backed by proportionate and workable measures to safeguard animal welfare. Clause 15 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations, using the negative procedure, to suspend or revoke a precision bred animal marketing authorisation in certain circumstances. The requirement to provide a welfare declaration before an animal welfare marketing authorisation is granted will ensure the proper evaluation of known risks. The clause provides further reassurance that Government will have the power to act should there be adverse effects.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear the Minister and in some ways I am comforted, but clause 15(3) states:
“Regulations under this section may confer a function on the welfare advisory body.”
What on earth does “may confer a function” mean? That seems extraordinarily wide, and it is not unreasonable that something so wide should come back to this place for a discussion.
Jo Churchill
It is important that the Animal Welfare Committee has the space to look at such things. The clause covers scenarios in which new information shows that animal welfare may be affected contrary to the assessment conducted when the authorisation was issued. In such cases, the welfare declaration no longer holds, so it may be appropriate that the Secretary of State revokes an authorisation in the interests of animal welfare. If the Secretary of State receives new information on animal health or welfare, he may consider it appropriate to suspend the marketing authorisation while information is properly considered. If the Secretary of State has not received the health and welfare information that he needs because the developer has failed to report it under clause 14, it may be appropriate that he suspend the authorisation pending investigation, or revoke it if there are concerns. In both scenarios, we set out to protect animal welfare as strongly as we can.
Clause 15 also sets out that the regulations may allow bespoke reporting requirements in particular cases. That flexibility is essential to ensure that any obligations placed on businesses are minimised proportionately to risk. Good practice indicates that breeders and developers will already carry out health and welfare monitoring as part of their breeding programmes. We want to work with stakeholders to ensure that that element of the new measures works in practice and is proportionate before it is introduced.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Reviews and appeals relating to Part 2
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Daniel Zeichner
The clause is about reviews and appeals relating to part 2. We heard about the relative power in the industry from some of the witnesses. There are some very big organisations, and hopefully some smaller enterprises coming forward that are able to operate in the sector. We want a system that is fair to all. We want to make sure that the appeals system does not disproportionately benefit, possibly unintentionally, those who have the most resource to make the system work for them.
The clause begins to lay out what an appeals system under the Bill might look like, but once again the fine detail is left to secondary legislation. We want to be able to see and scrutinise any delegated powers in the area, and that is what amendment 15, which is similar to a number of the other amendments, would do. It is an important clause, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Jo Churchill
As the hon. Member laid out, the amendment seeks further parliamentary scrutiny of the reviews and appeals conferred by part 2. He will not be surprised to hear that I do not feel the amendment is necessary. What it proposes would not, in our view, be a meaningful use of time. I want to assure hon. Members that the power does not signal a change in policy, as all key substantive requirements of the review and appeal processes are set out in the Bill. Therefore, it is appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the negative procedure.
We are committed to bringing in appropriate safeguards to ensure that decisions affecting a person’s ability to market a precision bred organism are correct, and to provide for an appropriate and efficient mechanism to challenge decisions. To achieve that, the clause requires regulations to provide for a mechanism for reviews and appeals. That mechanism can be used if the appellant considers that certain decisions made by the Secretary of State were based on an error of fact, wrong in law or unreasonable.
The clause covers decisions not to issue a precision bred confirmation or a precision bred animal marketing authorisation, to revoke a precision bred confirmation, or to revoke or suspend a precision bred animal marketing authorisation. It aims to deal with such issues in a sensible fashion. Having a review mechanism allows the Secretary of State to review the decision and to uphold or reverse it in a quick and cost-effective manner, without the need for legal proceedings. A subsequent right to appeal to the first-tier tribunal ensures that, where the appellant is not satisfied with the outcome of the review, said person can ask an independent tribunal to adjudicate.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear what the Minister says. I am still nervous about this. It is striking that a lot in the Bill is on the appeal and challenge processes, but without the earlier detail—which would make it easier to envisage how things work—to explain how we might get to that point in the process. I worry that that will benefit those with the resources to use the system effectively to make their case in a way that others might not. That is sufficient to say that we would want to see this again, rather than just let it go through under the negative procedure. We will therefore proceed to a vote on this one.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 17, page 11, line 34, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, in clause 17, page 12, line 22, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Clause stand part.
Daniel Zeichner
This part of the Bill deals with risk assessments and the restriction of importation and acquisition of precision bred organisms in England. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Given our debate on the very concept of the category and the fact that there are other, similar categories, some interesting questions are raised about who will determine it and how it will work with the other categories established in other jurisdictions. In itself, that is an interesting question.
For the purpose of the amendments, we note that the clause states that regulations “may” make provision to require a person to carry out environmental risk assessments. This is for veterans of the Environment Bill discussions, who will know that we had many “may” or “must” amendments, and long discussion as to whether that was reasonable. The clause, quite reasonably, gives the Government discretion on whether regulations happen at all, sooner or later. I understand why Government might want that discretion, but it poses the question why the provision is here and, if it is important, why it is not being implemented quickly. I will seek the Minister’s guidance on thinking behind it.
We can see why that matters, so one of our amendments is to turn “may” into “must”, and the other—guess what—is on the issue of the negative or the affirmative procedure. We think that is important too. It raises all the questions of what we think is reasonable for people here to do and for people elsewhere to do, and the relationship between them, while not putting our own people at a disadvantage. It is familiar ground in some ways for the wider arguments. We want to see it settled more precisely in the Bill and to have the opportunity to consider it again when the Government feel the time is right to bring a provision forward. I will listen closely to the Minister’s observations.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I seek clarification from the Minister on a point arising from the clause. It is about whether the passing of the Bill will open the UK to gene edited organisms from other countries that have adopted such practices to a greater extent than has been the case up to now or, indeed, to the extent that there has been a case up to now. I am interested to hear the Minister.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for introducing amendment 19, although he will not be surprised to hear that I do not think it is necessary. The clause contains the power to maintain the current risk assessment requirements that apply in relation to precision bred plants and animals that are imported or acquired for use in contained-use conditions, such as laboratories, glasshouses and animal-rearing facilities. The amendment is not needed because we want to maintain the proportionate science-based approach to the regulation that has enabled the UK’s research community to carry out world-class science under contained-use conditions, such as in laboratories.
The Government have been clear that we do not intend to make changes to the existing substantive policy position in relation to the contained-use regime, because it is agreed to be fine. The power in the clause allows the existing position to be maintained. The Secretary of State intends to make use of the power for this purpose; there is no need to require him to do so. Risk assessments are essential, and we want to make sure that we cover all the bases and maintain the status quo, rather than introduce a new arrangement.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asked about imports. If our regulatory environment is more proportionate, I expect that to encourage other scientists to base their research here and work with our scientists. The clause is about maintaining the status quo and not making changes to the policy on the contained-use regime.
Deidre Brock
Is the Minister saying that the clause relates only to organisms produced through scientific research, not to commercial production?
Jo Churchill
Through scientific research.
In amendment 16, the hon. Member for Cambridge proposes to provide for further parliamentary scrutiny of the provisions on environmental risk assessments that may be required before importing a precision bred organisation into England, or acquiring a precision bred organism that is in England. The amendment is not needed because, in the case of clause 17, the affirmative procedure would not be meaningful. I want to reassure all hon. Members that this power does not signal a change in policy, but we think it appropriate to set out the relevant obligations in regulations. The corresponding provision in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows for the details of risk assessment to be set out in regulations, together with the exemption provisions. The regulations will be concerned primarily with the details of the nature of the risk assessment to be carried out, which makes them appropriate to be subject to the negative procedure. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendments.
On whether clause 17 should stand part of the Bill, I remind the Committee of the evidence we heard last week that precision bred plants and animals do not present a greater risk to human health or the environment than their conventional counterparts. As such, the Government do not intend to introduce additional risk assessment requirements for organisms of this type that are imported or acquired when they are released into the environment. Our approach is to maintain the proportionate science-based approach to regulation that has enable the UK’s research community to carry out world-leading science under contained-use conditions, such as in laboratories. I think we all agree that we are exceptionally lucky to have such individuals across the UK. The powers in the clause will enable the Government to make regulations to maintain the risk assessment requirements that currently apply to precision bred organisms imported or acquired for contained use under the genetically modified organism legislation, from which they will be removed.
Daniel Zeichner
How interesting. Once again, it seems to me that the Minister’s explanation says a lot more than is in the Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith raised a good point. As I read the clause, it does not seem to me to say what the Minister has just explained.
Deidre Brock
Having looked at the clause again, I am struggling to see where it specifies that it applies only to the importation of organisms that will be used in scientific research, or are the products of scientific research, and purely that and not for commercial use.
Daniel Zeichner
Absolutely. I suspect that the answer will probably come later in secondary legislation, which will clarify the matter. That is the ongoing problem that we have, because it is very hard to discern the answers from the Bill. There seems to be a logical problem in saying that the current situation will continue when we are introducing the notion of a precision bred organism. We can hardly be carrying forward the current framework when we are introducing something new. I understand the intention, as explained by the Minister, but it seems a long way from how the Bill is drafted. I still think that creates a logical problem in terms of who defines a precision bred organism from another jurisdiction, given that those other jurisdictions do not recognise the term and use a different one.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 17, in Clause 18, page 13, line 16, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”
Daniel Zeichner
As I made clear on Second Reading, it is absolutely clear that consumers want information about what they are eating and where it has come from. Excellent research by the Food Standards Agency has found that most consumers think it is appropriate to regulate gene edited foods differently from genetically modified foods, but that they want transparent labelling, reassurance about the thoroughness of regulation and safety assessments, and consideration of animal welfare impacts. I suspect that we will talk more about that as we proceed with our consideration of the Bill. We have already discussed the animal welfare impacts, but clause 18 includes some important points on this front.
The clause will establish a publicly available register of precision bred organisms, which we welcome, and lays out the sort of information that the register might include, ranging from release notices to information provided by the welfare advisory body. However, the clause also states that the Secretary of State can disapply those requirements in the interests of commercial confidentiality, requiring only disclosure of the name of the notifier and a general description of the organism. Something tells me that quite of lot of applications will cite commercial confidentiality. Given the importance of transparent information to consumers, and the lack of any explicit labelling requirements in the Bill as it stands, the very least we need is a strong and publicly accessible register.
The importance of nutritional and allergen information was raised several times in our evidence sessions. Despite the Government giving a reassurance on nutritional labelling, these promises are not made in the Bill, so far as we can see, so the register is the only public source of information that is absolutely guaranteed within it. If a plant or animal has been gene edited so that its nutritional content differs from its natural content—we have talked repeatedly about tomatoes with high levels of vitamin D, for example—consumers might need to know about that. My constituent with a vitamin D allergy will need to know if she can no longer buy certain tomatoes. I pursued that with one or two witnesses in evidence, and we will come back to it.
Given that the register might be the only mechanism by which people can find that out, it is important that we consider more closely what it will contain and, in particular, how the commercial confidentiality provisions will work. If every application is subject to commercial confidentiality, the register really will not achieve the purpose that the Government have set out. However, as I tried to pursue with one or two witnesses, when we look at the impact assessment, we see that the purpose of the register is not so much to inform the public as to check whether more registrations are coming forward—in other words, to see whether the deregulatory intent behind the Bill has had an effect. We have not discussed that until now, but it seems rather different from what most of us understand the purpose of the register to be. There are issues with the register that we think will need to be revisited when it is introduced in secondary legislation. I suspect that the Minister will not agree and that the Committee will have to vote on this, but I will listen to her comments with interest.
Jo Churchill
I will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I do not agree. The amendment is not needed, because in the context of clause 18 it would not be meaningful. This power does not warrant a change in policy, as all key substantive requirements in respect of the register are set out in the Bill, so it is appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the negative procedure.
However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find a little more light when I speak on clause stand part. In line with our commitment to transparency, clause 18 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to maintain a new public register, which the hon. Gentleman welcomed in his comments. The register will include information on precision bred organisms that have been notified for release into the environment for research and development, as well as for marketing purposes. As we have discussed during the course of the day, those will have passed other frameworks in order to get to that point.
The register will contain information provided in notifications as well as further information, such as reports from the advisory committee and the welfare advisory body, enforcement notices and other information relating to precision bred organisms set out in this clause and prescribed in regulations. The register will provide transparency and assure the public that the Government have oversight of plants and animals developed using such techniques. The register will be kept electronically in a free and accessible form on gov.uk.
The hon. Gentleman made a specific point about food, which we have touched on—Professor May’s evidence was good. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the FSA has sent further information overnight. The product in the example that he gave would be subject to the FSA’s procedure before the it arrived on the market, so it could be labelled to outline the health benefits for 2.5 billion people across the globe, while alerting constituents such as his, who might wish to steer away from it. On the basis that we are offering transparency, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner
Once again, I hear the Minister’s point, and again, the additional information from the Food Standards Agency, which I suspect we will look at more closely as we proceed, is helpful. It occasionally feels as if I am in a very large room with the lights off, holding a very small torch, and every now and then, I turn it on and can gradually discern part of the structure emerging. I have a feeling that the Minister has had the lights on the whole time. That is the problem: we are beginning, bit by bit, to get a sense of how the measures might work, but if we are trying to persuade the wider world about how the system will work, it would be better to turn the lights on at the beginning.
I still think there is some difficulty. Yes, we welcome the register, but I notice that the Minister did not address commercial confidentiality. I appreciate that that is not simple, but there is a danger that the register ends up being very limited indeed, and that would be disappointing. I would much rather have the opportunity to look at the matter again later as the secondary legislation comes through, because it is too important to go through without further consideration. On that basis, I will divide the Committee on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clause 20 stand part.
Clause 21 stand part.
Jo Churchill
We come now to the clauses pertaining to monitoring and inspection. As no amendments have been tabled, I anticipate the Committee will assist me by passing this part of the Bill.
Clause 19 gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint inspectors to carry out enforcement of the obligations in part 2 of the Bill that relate to the release and marketing of precision bred organisms. The clause also contains the standard provision that protects inspectors from personal liability for actions taken in good faith in the purported exercise of their functions, while ensuring that the inspectorate remains accountable for its actions.
Under clause 20, the obligations created by the Bill will be backed by proportionate sanctions to encourage compliance. The Government want to provide inspectors with powers to inspect premises, gather evidence and to issue enforcement notices, stop notices and fines if they find evidence of non-compliance with the obligations imposed by the Bill and by delegated legislation made under the Bill.
The Government plan to use the same inspectorate that currently undertakes inspection and enforcement functions under part 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Genetic Modification Inspectorate, to undertake inspection and enforcement functions in relation to the regulatory regime for precision bred organisms. Experts in other subject matters may need to be present at some inspections—for example, vets, where there is an inspection that relates to animals. We want to allow for the inspectors to be accompanied by such experts when an inspector considers it necessary.
We believe that the clause provides for an effective and proportionate inspection regime, with appropriate safeguards. For instance, the power of entry would be exercisable in relation to private dwellings only with the occupier’s consent or a warrant. The inspectors will have powers to inspect and search premises, organisms and documents, to take photographs and copies and to take samples.
Clause 21 defines a “part 2 obligation”, a key term used in the Bill to describe obligations under part 2 that can be subject to enforcement through civil sanctions and to set the remits of inspectors’ powers under the Bill and secondary legislation made under it. That will help developers and stakeholders better to understand their obligations under part 2, which can be subject to inspection and enforcement. Further, the clause allows regulations to treat the provision of false information in an application as a failure to comply with a part 2 obligation. That would enable inspectors to check whether false information has been provided and to issue enforcement notices if the evidence shows that it has.
Daniel Zeichner
It is interesting to note that suddenly we have a wealth of detail, but it is not entirely clear how that fits with some of previous bodies we have discussed. Is the regulator part of some new organisation that sits next to ACRE? Is it part of the welfare body, or is it something separate, again? We have some difficulty understanding exactly how all this fits together. It is quite interesting to look at the impact assessment of the number of applications that the Department anticipates. The spectrum outlined starts at zero over the next few years, which rather makes this a pointless exercise, frankly. We hope that the applications are not at that end of the spectrum. We believe that they will range from a medium position up to an upper band of, I believe, 18. I anticipate that with the animal aspects coming forward, possibly one would expect to see more applications. I believe that it is more oriented towards animal welfare aspects than to crop protection, but who knows? That is the truth.
It is quite hard to comment on the clauses, other than to say that the monitoring regime is welcome, and that the inspection regime is welcome. It is still a bit of a puzzle to see how it all fits together. We have no amendments tabled and no objection to the clauses, but we would like a better account of how the system fits together, not least because if we did have that, it would be much easier to explain to the public why they should have confidence in it. It is quite hard to explain that as the system emerges through this rather curious process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Advisory bodies
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 22, page 15, line 26, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 23 stand part.
Clause 24 stand part.
Amendment 20, in clause 25, page 16, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 9, in clause 25, page 16, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consider (among other things) the possible direct or indirect adverse impact of precision breeding traits on the—
(a) respiratory system,
(b) cardiovascular system,
(c) immune system,
(d) bone strength,
(e) mobility, and
(f) ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns
of precision bred animals and their qualifying progeny.”
Clause 25 stand part.
Daniel Zeichner
Amendment 18 is another that seeks to replace the negative procedure with the affirmative procedure. Much has been said about the advisory bodies in the Bill—that is the point we are reaching in the clauses. We understand—because it is outlined in clause 22(1), which contains a reference to the Environmental Protection Act 1990—that ACRE will be the advisory committee that considers whether precision bred organisms are indeed precision bred. We are familiar with ACRE, a senior member of which gave oral evidence.
As I hinted in my previous comments, however, the welfare advisory body that considers the impacts on animal welfare is much less clearly defined. The Bill allows for that body to be an existing committee or a new one. Much of the administrative set up of the Committee, and details on how it will operate, are—guess what?—being left to secondary legislation.
Had the Bill not been drafted in such haste, and had the Government determined those details, we would not have felt the need to table so many new clauses. This is a framework Bill. It is a far-from-satisfactory piece of legislation that, as I have just explained, makes it quite hard to work out how the whole system will function. In the light of the role that the welfare advisory body will play in making important considerations about the welfare, pain and health of animals that we now all agree are sentient beings, the provisions in clause 22 should be laid under the affirmative procedure, not the negative procedure. We have tabled amendment 18 to that effect.
I mentioned that I would come to the definition of “adverse effects”, which are referenced in clause 25 but are not laid out in full. That clause states simply that “regulations may prescribe” what is considered an adverse effect on the health or welfare of an animal. As this matter underpins the Bill, and given the ability of the welfare body to consider applications, I believe that that necessary requirement should be a “must” rather than a “may”. We have tabled amendment 20 to that effect.
Amendment 9 was tabled to give examples of what the Bill should consider when it comes to adverse welfare effects, such as the impact of precision breeding traits on the respiratory system, on the immune system and on the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. There is a fairly familiar pattern in what we are seeking to achieve through our amendments, and I suspect that I know what the Minister’s answer will be.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendment 18, but he will not be surprised to hear that I do not feel that it is necessary. In the case of the measures in clause 22, the affirmative procedure would be inappropriate. The identity of the welfare body will be of interest to Parliament. The appointment itself is a straightforward administrative matter, and it is therefore appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
Almost inevitably, I disagree. The measures are of considerable significance and public interest, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 5th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 July 2022 - (5 Jul 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements: Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk; please switch electronic devices to silent; and tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. As the eagle-eyed among you will have spotted, as a Yorkshireman, I consider the heat to be oppressive, so people can remove their jackets, if they so wish.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. This shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again to sum up. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.
Clause 1
Precision Bred Organism
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 29, clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out
“or a precision bred animal”.
This amendment removes animals from the scope of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, clause 1, page 2, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on amendment 29.
Amendment 28, title, line 2, leave out from “plants” to “animals” in line 3 and insert
“, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants”.
This amends the long title to remove animals from the scope of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
Good morning to you, Mr Davies, and to everybody. I think this will be an interesting and, I hope, fruitful discussion. It is a fascinating subject, and it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies.
At the outset, let me start by repeating Labour’s mantra on this Bill. We are pro science, pro innovation and we want Britain’s scientists to succeed and to be at the very forefront of development. We want the investment, but we argue that investment comes from regulatory certainty and clarity. We are concerned that the Government have sadly failed to provide that. As a consequence, the risk is that, far from getting ahead, the UK gets caught in a paralysis, as investors look to see what others are doing and put developments on hold. This legislation really matters.
I hope that the Government will weigh carefully the superficially attractive benefits of moving quickly in search of what they claim to be a Brexit opportunity against the longer-term benefit of getting it right. The genetically edited tortoise versus the selectively bred hare, or vice versa one could perhaps say.
We are particularly concerned about the place of animals in the Bill, so we are starting with what could be described as a veritable blockbuster group of amendments, which would frankly remove animals from the scope of the Bill. We think that that is appropriate for several reasons. We recognise that the Government may not agree with us on this, and in the unlikely possibility of their winning the votes, we have tabled many further amendments to later clauses that we think will strengthen the framework of the genetic editing of animals, which will be discussed later. We have done this, because as I said on Second Reading, we think that the Government have got it the wrong way round on animals.
All the secondary legislation that has preceded the Bill was really about plants, not animals. Likewise in much of the discussion ahead of the Bill, much of the Government’s language again focused on plants. The consultation that was held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs referenced animals, but I would say in passing that at the time that did not seem to be the main focus of attention. It was a surprise to many in the House, as well as to concerned outside stakeholder and advocacy groups, that the Government chose to include animals in the Bill as they have.
When we look at the Bill, there is some evidence of the lack of really concrete provisions in the vague and non-committal timeframes offered by the Government, and the admission that much of the preparation necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been done. A document that I hope Members have had the opportunity to read is the impact assessment. If we want to know what the Government are really thinking, it is not in the Bill, but in the impact assessment, and I will reference it many times.
A good example of the point that I am making is on page 41 of the impact assessment, right at the top, in paragraph 109:
“Despite the potential benefits accrued by applying changes to the GMO regulations in animals, there is currently high risk of considerable consumer backlash in altering their regulations.”
The Government are well aware of the risks, and we are as well.
The Bill is in effect a framework Bill, with little detail on actual intentions and provisions laid out in law. It delegates a broad set of sweeping powers to Ministers not only to bring in a lot of secondary legislation, but to amend primary legislation with a Henry VIII clause hidden further on, which we will debate later.
The impact assessment lays out some further detail on the powers in the Bill. Again, it explicitly states on the secondary power contained in it that
“an understanding of the impacts of these provisions is not fully developed”—
so, not fully developed—
“A full understanding of the impacts will be developed ahead of any of the provisions being tabled, with impact assessments for each developed for scrutiny.”
That is on page 38, in paragraph 97. In the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill, they are admitting that a huge amount of work still needs to be done.
The Government also know, as we well know from the many discussions we have had in this very room on secondary legislation, that it is slightly disingenuous of them to suggest that we will have further discussion because, with secondary legislation, we know full well that there is no ability to amend and, frankly, fairly limited opportunity to scrutinise. Given that the issues are big, complicated and of public interest, I do not think that that is good enough.
Those who have looked at our procedures and at the way we operate in this House have said before that, if the Government intend to do that kind of thing, they could have drafted statutory instruments in advance, for example, but none of that has happened. The Bill is in essence a framework Bill, and as others have argued elsewhere, that is not the right way to do legislation. That is important not just in principle, but because the Bill is a significant piece of legislation. It could—will—have wide-ranging impacts on our food system, on the health and welfare of animals in this country and, as I have argued before, on the investment climate.
As has been raised numerous times, both on Second Reading and by many of the witnesses in the evidence sessions—those excellent sessions we had—the public have real concerns about the technology, in particular about its application to animals. Again going back to the impact assessment, paragraph 9 on page 11 states:
“Historically, ethical concerns have dominated the GM space, preventing proper consideration of scientific evidence.”
In itself, that is an interesting sentence, although not one I would recommend: to suggest that ethical concerns should not be considered in the broader debate is not a good starting point. It is a clumsy observation.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about that point. We heard from several witnesses that we should be talking about animal welfare not in this Bill, but in connection with other legislation, such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or the farm animal welfare codes. That is almost, “Put that to one side; this is just about the science.” Does he share my concern that we are not looking at the Bill in the round and considering those ethical issues?
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, my hon. Friend speaks good sense. She is absolutely right. There is huge interest and I think understanding among the public of the potential benefits and of the potential risks. That is why we should have a proper discussion and debate in the round. We will keep coming back to that today and on further days, as we try to discern the Government’s thinking from the Bill. We have to work quite hard to understand the wider framework within which this sits, and the overall impact it will have. We will keep coming back to that, so I very much agree with her.
To go back to the impact assessment, at paragraph 122, again there is recognition that public acceptance remains uncertain, with the document referring to
“public scepticism and non-acceptance of GE products, including those that qualify as PBOs”—
precision bred organisms.
The Government are also clear—as are we—about the potential benefits and the need to weigh them proportionately with the risks. We would argue that to do so, and to ensure public confidence, the Government need to be absolutely transparent and explicit about the changes they are seeking to make. As I have indicated, however, that is not really going on at the moment. It seems that we are being asked to vote for a blank cheque that would give the Government the power to set up any regulatory framework that they desire, without proper discussion about the merits of one particular framework over another.
That was made clear in evidence, particularly that of Professor Gideon Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at DEFRA, who said:
“The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 18, Q26.]
I quite agree. He also said that the process of considering the evidence on animal welfare
“will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 17, Q24.]
We know that the Government’s thinking is that that would take some years—possibly two to three; possibly longer—but no such process or timescale is laid out in the Bill. If more time is needed to get the provisions right, why not focus on doing that rather than asking us, essentially, to allow them to pass and to ask questions only afterwards? I do not think that is how we get good legislation, and even more worryingly, that is not how we maintain public confidence. This is quite a big decision, as these matters are a big part of the Bill, but we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that animals should be excluded for now, until DEFRA and the Government have carried out the very large piece of work that they clearly and self-evidently need to do—as they admit—before they are ready to come back to the House with concrete proposals.
Amendment 29 would remove “or a precision bred animal” from the definition of “precision bred organism” in subsection 1(1). That term will itself be subject to further discussion in a few minutes, but I think that the effect of the amendment is clear.
Amendment 30 would remove paragraph 1(7)(b) and is consequential on amendment 29. Should the amendments be successful, there would need to be many further consequential amendments later in the Bill, but rather than putting the Clerks to the task of considerable further drafting work, we thought it might be sensible to test the water first. Consequently, we will not press amendments 29 and 30 to a vote, but we will test the view of the Committee with amendment 28, which can be found the end of the amendment paper and would amend the Bill’s title to remove references to animals.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
This is, of course, English legislation. As I said on Second Reading, the regulation of genetically modified foods is a devolved matter. The Scottish Government have been clear that they are opposed to GM food while they sensibly await confirmation of the EU’s position on gene editing.
The potential impact of the Bill on Scotland, through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, must be recognised and commented on. Indeed, as we have heard from the Opposition, the Regulatory Policy Committee and others, there are concerns about a variety of trade, transparency and marketing issues that were not addressed in the impact statement. The Scottish Government have been clear that we intend to stay aligned with EU regulations as far as is possible and practicable.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I have been listening closely to what the hon. Lady has said. At the very beginning of her speech, she said that the Scottish Government were against genetic modification or genetic editing, but in her next sentence she said, “but we are waiting to see what the EU is going to do.” Which is it? Are they against genetic editing or are they waiting to see what the EU does before they change the law in Scotland?
Deidre Brock
It is quite simple. We are currently opposed to GM food, but obviously we do not want to erect further barriers to our largest market, so we are waiting to see the position after the review.
The amendments and new clauses that I have tabled and which we will discuss later on seek to amend the 2020 Act to ensure that the Scottish Parliament’s authority to legislate in the marketing of precision bred organisms is respected, and seek to prevent the operative parts of the Bill from coming into force until a common framework agreement on precision breeding has been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I would be grateful if the Minister, when she rises to speak, could give an explanation of why that common framework procedure was not followed before the Bill was introduced.
If the UK Government press ahead without taking such steps, we are concerned about the impact on exports due to what is currently a much higher bar for approval in the EU. We heard criticisms in the evidence sessions that the category of precision bred organisms is not recognised anywhere else in the world, and is not based on scientific criteria, which could present problems for trade in those goods. If the EU retains its current opposition to gene editing, there are, for example, concerns about the export of Scottish salmon to Europe, and to France in particular. It has been suggested that products might be considered on a product-by-product basis, but we have heard little detail and there are real questions about cost and workability.
On the need for alignment with the EU, I have tabled new clause 10, which would ensure that, if gene editing does get the green light, we ensure strong labelling and traceability. Otherwise, how do we prove to European importers, while the EU has its current approach, that the product has not been contaminated? I know that is a loaded word, but it expresses the views of a considerable number of people who are concerned about GM foods.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she saying that we should not bring the regulations into force until the EU has brought its regulations into place?
Deidre Brock
Yes, I am. I thought I was fairly clear on that, and I think the Scottish Government’s position is very clear. I refer the hon. Member to the letter that the Scottish Government wrote to the UK Government on the issue recently.
My new clause would ensure clear and visible labelling—
The Chair
Order. I gently say to the hon. Lady that we are discussing the amendments before us—amendment 29, 30 and 28. I do not want her to use this debate as an opportunity to give us a taster of her future speeches. She will have plenty opportunity to make her case on her amendments. Could she make sure her remarks relate to amendments 29, 30 and 28?
Deidre Brock
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Davies. If the Opposition were to choose to press amendment 29 to a vote, I would support it. From the moment the Bill was published, the Scottish Government raised the issue as a direct threat to Scottish interests. The EU is not considering animals as part of its review, so the potential for the UK Government to align with our largest trading partner and its eventual position is even further reduced by this measure. I look forward very much to the Minister’s comments on those points and to the points I raise in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for his opening statement, which highlighted that Labour is supportive of science and innovation, and of making sure that as a country we optimise those things in which we really do excel.
I acknowledge the support that the Bill has received from the research community, industry and a broad base of stakeholders. We heard in the evidence sessions how important and exciting this area is, and about the potential benefits for the food system and the environment. None the less, at the outset, I would like to state that I appreciate the concerns raised. I hope that the debates that follow and the way in which we proceed reassure the hon. Member and others. We intend to move slowly and steadily and to follow the science.
As explained on Second Reading, the Government believe that legislation has not kept pace with developments. The existing provision is some 30 years old, and our understanding of the safety and benefits of technology such as gene editing has advanced significantly. We have already taken that first step in regulatory reform with the statutory instrument that came into force in April. It has already enabled exciting research in the hon. Gentleman’s and my part of the world, East Anglia, into high vitamin D tomatoes, which could bring health benefits to many, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s observation that even in that case we need to think carefully.
Deidre Brock
I appreciate the Minister’s enthusiasm and her ambitions for everything that the Bill might be able to achieve, but given that Europe is not looking at gene editing for animals as a part of its review—certainly not at the moment—how will that further affect our trade in animals with Europe, particularly if no labels or traceability are attached to these animals?
Jo Churchill
I believe that the hon. Lady has tabled amendments on that subject, and we will come on to discuss them. In my view, this is part of our responsibility, alongside that of the scientists, who are at the forefront of what they do. I would gently temper the hon. Lady’s description: this is not unbounded enthusiasm; it is pragmatism. It is about a deep belief in our science and our ability to do good; that is different from enthusiasm. We are building in transparency, and we need to utilise those skills. On my visits to these great institutes around the country, I have met scientists and researchers from across the world, not only Europe. Although I take the hon. Lady’s point about gravity economics, what we do has a broader benefit to people across the world. There are clear benefits.
We need to safeguard welfare, and that is why we have laid down in the Bill a framework for the regulatory system. It is imperative that we get this right. That is why it is important that we work with expert groups, industry and non-governmental organisations on enabling the right regulations to ensure that the system is effective, safe and workable.
All animals are protected by comprehensive and robust legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering and to not provide for their welfare needs. The Bill’s system to protect animal health and welfare will work with those regulations. The Animal Welfare Act is supplemented by detailed regulations on farmed animal welfare. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 include specific requirements to protect animals that are bred or kept. The regulations prohibit breeding procedures that cause or are likely to cause suffering or injury. They state:
“Animals may only be kept for farming purposes if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health or welfare.”
In addition, animals used in scientific research projects, which would be the first stage of developing a breeding line using precision breeding for animals, are protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—ASPA—which was referred to in the evidence we took from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which was glad to see that that is the case. This legislation ensures that animals are only ever used in science where the potential harm to animals is limited, there are no alternatives, and where the number of animals is the minimum needed to achieve a scientific benefits, and that includes a harm-benefit analysis.
The measures we are introducing support the regulations by requiring an animal welfare declaration and independent scrutiny by an expert group before an animal can be marketed. We are ensuring that the health and welfare of the animal and its offspring will not be adversely affected by any trait resulting from precision breeding.
If we want to drive innovation and investment in this area while continuing to be at the forefront of animal welfare, we need to move forward and show how the best regulatory systems can work. The Bill provides a clear signal that the UK is the best place to conduct the research and bring products to market. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Minister for her constructive tone. I suspect that the arguments we will pursue over the next few days are already becoming clear. There is considerable agreement. No one disputes that it would be wonderful to be able to tackle bird flu or PRRS. Of course, if we can find a solution, it would be hugely beneficial not just in a financial sense but in terms of welfare as well. The question is how best to achieve that, and I suspect that that is going to be the key part of the debate.
I shall start by admitting my first procedural failure of the day. Contrary to my original suggestion, I am advised by the Clerks that we cannot yet vote on amendment 28 because it does not relate to this clause. Therefore, with your permission, Mr Davies, I would like to reverse my original suggestion and ask that we vote on amendment 29 but not on amendments 28 and 30. Despite spending many hours sitting on Bill Committees, some of us are still learning some of the procedures. I understand that amendment 28 relates to the long title of the Bill.
To go back to the broader issue, some of the points made by our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, will come back in our discussions, I am afraid, because where we sit in relation to other jurisdictions and approaches is a complicated question. There is no two ways about that, and I will say more about it in a few moments’ time.
The cost issue raised by the Minister—the £1.75 billion—was interesting. There are potentially huge benefits here, so it is odd, looking at the impact assessment, to see the relatively modest sums that the existing system puts in place. I wonder whether there is a slight mismatch in seeing the current set-up as such a brake on development; it seems to me that there may be other issues as well, although I might be missing something. We are trying to achieve the right regulatory framework to allow investment to take place; the question is whether this the right way to do it. At the moment, I persist in thinking that the measures before us on protection for animals are not sufficiently developed.
Something I have noticed in other Bill Committees I have been involved in is that we home in on the legislation before us and it is quite hard for Members to understand fully the wider landscape in which that legislation sits. It might be assumed that Members are all-knowing and fully understand the entire set-up, but to me, it sometimes feels more like looking at a lump of marble and trying to discern the sculpture within. We need to be pretty imaginative to see exactly where the Bill fits and what consequences it will have.
I am reassured on some of the points about the wider framework for animal protection, but it is also fair to say that there has been a lot of legislation recently. For this, the Government deserve some credit: it is changing the landscape, but it is not entirely clear how it will all fit together. That gives further weight to our view that, on balance, it would be better not to bring the provisions in this part of the Bill into force until further work has been done.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 1, clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) But for the purposes of this Act an organism is not ‘precision bred’ if any feature of its genome results from any technique or process which involves transgenesis.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end insert—
“; but such changes may not provide for the definition of ‘modern biotechnology’ to include any technique which involves introducing exogenous genetic material.”
This amendment would prevent any technique which involves introducing exogenous genetic material from being included in any future change to the definition of “modern biotechnology” for the purposes of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
We now come to the heart of the Bill—I was about to say, the “meat of the Bill”, but whatever the genetically edited alternative to the meat of the Bill would be. This is the discussion of the definitions, which is tricky stuff.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, in the private meetings that the Minister kindly arranged for herself and the Opposition Front Benchers through to Second Reading, it has been fairly clear that the stated intention of the Bill is to deregulate the law on gene editing, or precision bred organisms, as they are considered to be—organisms that could have been created through traditional breeding processes, in contrast to genetically modified organisms, which could not. I suspect that we will have quite a discussion on that point. The distinction originally came from the 2018 European Court judgment, which many at the time considered problematic because it seemed a legalistic judgment rather than one that reflected an understanding of the changes and developments in technologies over the last 30 years.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am not looking sceptical. You are describing nature. You are describing the fact that bits of genetic material will get swapped around in a series of different vehicles, especially in plants such as plasmids. What you are asking us to do is—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough now. I am not proposing anything; the hon. Gentleman is.
Katherine Fletcher
I apologise for the inappropriate language, Mr Davies; I am just getting a bit over-excited. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to include a legalistic definition of nature. I have scrutinised the Bill quite carefully, and I believe that it has sufficient protections to replicate the best parts of nature. That is why I was looking the way I was.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the intervention—enthusiasm is welcome. The hon. Lady gets to the nub of the point: it is very difficult to describe in law—which is what we as legislators are trying to do—the complexities of the natural world. I suspect that we will probably go around in circles on this, but my point is that the reliance on the notion of something occurring naturally would make the law difficult to interpret—that is key. That is why it is hard for legislators to pin those things down, and I have some sympathy with who have had to capture them in drafting the Bill.
As I am sure the Committee will remember, I pressed Professor Henderson on that point. He said:
“The Bill is designed not to allow exogenous material”.
That is not explicitly coded in the Bill, however. He also said that this is
“something of a grey area.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 15, Q18.]
He was absolutely right about that. He said that transgenesis can occur naturally, and he drew a distinction between intentional and unintentional transfer, which, again, I can understand.
I appreciate that, as the hon. Member for South Ribble implied, the distinction is complicated and messy, but it is important. Unfortunately, although that is the distinction that the Government have presented in the Bill, not only does it not appear in the Bill, but it is contradictory. As we read it, it seems that transgenesis is possible under the Bill, so long as it could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding processes. I appreciate that it is difficult, but I ask the Minister to explain today how her earlier remarks, and the remarks made by others—that gene editing does not involve introducing DNA from one organism into another—are reflected in the Bill. I do not think they are.
The other related point is the general looseness of the definitions in the Bill. I am sure we all recall the striking evidence from Dr Edenborough QC, a distinguished lawyer, who may well end up advising on how disputes in this area might be resolved. That is an important point: we are setting the law, but others will then interpret it. If it is not clear, we will see trouble ahead.
As Dr Edenborough explained in the evidence session,
“‘could have resulted from’ is staggeringly imprecise. Is that ‘likely’? Is that ‘very possible’? What level of probability is it?”—Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 125, Q199.]
In essence, he raised that many things that would be permissible under the Bill and qualify as precision bred organisms would be unclear. The Government need to clarify what they intend here. Without clarity, there is a real risk of challenge. That goes back to my opening point, and I think it will be a thread running through our debates. With the lack of clarity comes uncertainty, and with uncertainty comes a risk to investment, which is exactly opposite to what the Bill is designed to achieve.
That is why we have tabled the amendments—to try to bring the Bill in line with the distinctions the Government have themselves drawn between genetic editing and genetic modification. The amendments would tighten up the Bill, provide clarity of purpose and bring the Bill in line with the Government’s stated aims.
Amendment 1 explicitly rules out transgenesis by adding a new subsection to clause 1, while amendment 2 amends the definition in the subsection (8) definition of “modern biotechnology” to exclude the introduction of “exogenous genetic material”. Both amendments would bring the Bill into line with the stated objectives of the Government. We will seek a division on amendment 1, although I am happy to withdraw amendment 2. We hope the Government can support us on amendment 1.
Jo Churchill
Amendment 1 would exclude from the definition of a precision bred organism any organism that has contained transgenic material during any step of its development. I thank the hon. Member for the amendment, but do not feel that it follows the best scientific advice and evidence and would undermine the purpose of the Bill.
It is important that we follow scientific advice and regulate based on the nature of genetic changes made to organisms, rather than on techniques used to develop them. The scientific advice is clear: if an organism contains genetic changes that could have occurred naturally or by traditional breeding methods, that does not present a greater risk than a traditionally bred counterpart, irrespective of the techniques used to develop it.
No precision bred organism will contain transgenes. Some of its ancestors may have contained them, but those transgenes must have been removed for the organism to be classified as precision bred. That is laid out in the Bill.
The transgenic intermediate stages are important, as they enable the precise changes to be made to the DNA of organisms. The transgenes themselves are then subsequently removed. For example, CRISPR-Cas9 DNA would need to be taken out of precision bred animals and plants.
During the evidence sessions, we heard from Professor Nigel Halford of Rothamsted Research. He is using that approach to develop low-acrylamide wheat—a wheat that can provide public health benefits, as well as broader benefits.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee for displaying my ignorance, but I am interested in the Minister’s comments about the potential ancestry of genes’ genetic material, which would then have been removed by the end of process. Does that happen in nature?
Jo Churchill
It has to go through the regulatory framework to be defined as precision bred, to ensure that any of those precise changes are changes that could have occurred in nature, because we are describing what would happen in nature.
Katherine Fletcher
In nature there will be random deletions continually within the genome, so the idea of sections of DNA being taken out or added in is part of the process.
Kate Green
Is the Minister therefore saying that it is not possible to determine whether the way in which genetic material may have moved in and out will replicate what could have happened in nature, but only that the outcome will replicate what could have happened in nature?
Jo Churchill
During the evidence sessions, we heard from Professor Halford and Professor John Napier, who is developing camelina crops that are high in healthy oils. In both examples that they cited, transgenic DNA introduced during the gene editing process was removed. Under the amendment, both of those examples would fall outside the scope of the Bill, and the plants would be classed as genetically modified organisms, but they are not, because they do not contain any transgenes that are actually part of the process The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the fact that we can have these little bits of DNA left over in ourselves from viruses and so forth.
We must make sure that we understand what we are looking at. We heard very clearly from Professors Halford and Napier that the techniques are more targeted and therefore very precise, known changes can be made. Therefore we know what we are looking at, and this is stepwise procedure. Some of the narrative infers that the Bill will be passed, and then, tomorrow, the changes will happen. It is not like that; we are talking about the development of science and ensuring that the regulatory framework that we have been working under from 30 years ago, which has been recognised virtually across the world as inadequate, is changed, so that we can keep up with the science.
If we accepted the amendment, it would make the Bill irrelevant. Countries elsewhere with proportionate regulations would be able to exploit the huge potential of the technology as it develops, whereas we would remain impeded by the current legislation. I urge hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment relating to the definition of precision bred organisms, although I think he said that he intended to push it to a vote.
Jo Churchill
Yes.
The hon. Gentleman has said that he will not push amendment 2 to a vote. The amendment focuses on the definition of modern biotechnology. The techniques to which he refers were the subject of the European Court of Justice case in 2018, to which he also referred. That finding set us on today’s path. The Court ruled that all organisms produced by the techniques should be regulated as genetically modified organisms, irrespective of whether the end product could have occurred naturally or by traditional breeding.
As we heard from Sam Brooke of the British Society of Plant Breeders in the first evidence session, that ruling resulted in many companies halting their research on gene editing and other precision breeding techniques. Subsequently, the EU has recognised that that finding is not in line with current scientific knowledge or development, and has committed to reviewing its own legislation. That is why I am keen that we share our knowledge with it to help us all move forward.
Under the Bill as currently drafted, organisms produced by the techniques should only be classed as GMOs if the genetic changes they contain could not have occurred naturally, or been produced by traditional breeding methods. That does not mean that we consider that the exogenous DNA must be excluded from the process of producing such organisms altogether, as stated. The key point is that we should focus on the nature of the genetic changes in organisms, which are actually released or marketed, as per the scientific advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. The broad guidance it produces is very clear. It means that, in order to produce a precision bred organism, developers have to remove exogenous DNA, such as the CRISPR-Cas9 gene used in gene editing, from the organisms. In effect, they are removing the tool they used to make the changes, leaving behind the new trait.
In order to carve out precision bred organisms from the legislation controlling the use of GMOs with the Bill, we have defined the techniques used to produce them as “modern biotechnology”. We are then separating organisms produced by modern biotechnology into GMOs and precision bred organisms in order to ensure that the two regulatory systems dovetail. That term must remain aligned to the GMO legislation, which means continuing to include techniques that introduce exogenous DNA. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing amendment 2.
Daniel Zeichner
I hope everyone is still with us, because this is not simple. Part of the problem is that we are learning more all the time. We are trying to set out a regulatory framework and structure that will stand a reasonable test of time. The Minister is slightly unfair with her dramatic language of how we are shackled. Different Administrations across the world take different approaches, of which there is a whole range therefore, which suggests that the choice is not a simple binary one between doing this or that. The reason people do things differently is that people are more or less cautious. Part of the debate—the question—is where we want to be on that spectrum, and where we think we will be best placed to attract investment and to give people confidence and certainty about the approach we are taking.
I am still worried, because two almost-parallel things seem to be going on. On the one hand, there is an appreciation that the newer technologies absolutely involve transgenesis, even though the Government and others have been pretty clear in reassuring people that that is not what is going on. On the other hand, the fall-back is then, “Well, that could have occurred naturally,” which is absolutely right, as has been explained to me—nature does that anyway. However, for the legislation proposed in the Bill, does that mean we should not be explicit about reassuring people that transgenesis is excluded? By stating that as we have proposed in the amendment, people get that absolute confidence.
Kate Green
I have listened to the Minister and to the scientific explanation of the hon. Member for South Ribble—which was much appreciated. Does my hon. Friend agree that that transparency should extend, from the public perspective, not just to the end product, as it were, but to what will have happened at every stage of the process?
Daniel Zeichner
I rather agree. The problem is that although we are spending time and effort to understand this, that does not always get translated into the wider world. We have seen before how this issue cannot necessarily always be explained as carefully as it might be to the wider world, which is why it is so important that we do not leave uncertainty or doubt in the Bill. That is why this stronger amendment would give us that clarity to reassure people, because that is what they want to hear—people are concerned. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote, because it would give clarity.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I apologise to Members for detaining them, but I want to speak to the clause because it is a key part of the Bill. We are at this point establishing a new category of a precision bred organism. My worry is that it is not a clear category, not least because only a few months ago another new category was introduced—the higher qualifying plant. The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022 were discussed in this very Committee room—I remember the Minister and I discussing them—and have come into force, which was an initial step before this Bill was introduced. At the time, I highlighted the warnings from various learned societies that that was not a category that they recognised, and I am afraid the precision bred organism occupies a similarly ill-defined space.
In the Bill, reference is made to other previous SIs, but not to the most recent one. I notice that the SI from 2002 is referenced in subsection 3, where “modern biotechnologies” are defined, but I cannot see any reference to this year’s SI, so perhaps the Minister will tell us what is happening with that. Paragraph 3.2.2.1 of the impact statement makes it clear that the intention is to revoke the SI and reintroduce the provisions in the Bill, but it certainly is not clear to me where in the Bill that is being done, so I hope the Minister will elucidate. Perhaps it is hidden in the secondary legislation provisions, in which case it is quite opaque, which is part of our general concern about the Bill.
The danger is that we could be in a position where we unintentionally have two pieces of law governing this area and laying out two different definitions at the same time—the qualifying higher plant and the precision bred organism. I want to make this point because it is important, given some of the contributions that have already been made. There is a further problem as the European Union has a different term for what looks like an attempt to define much the same thing—an NGT, or a product of new genetic techniques. I do not want to rile Government Members by suggesting that that might be a better name for what we are doing, but it probably captures more accurately what we have discussed so far, because these are indeed new genetic techniques, and will probably go on being new genetic techniques.
Does that matter? I think it might, and that is the problem. It goes back to the points made earlier by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The movement of goods and materials across borders is vexed at the best of times, and pretty fraught at the moment. The trade implications are explored in section 6 of the impact assessment, which makes interesting reading with some quite bold assertions. I will refer to them because, although the view of the Government is that this probably will not be a problem, they do to their credit go into what could occur as a consequence of it becoming a problem. It is pretty alarming. Should there be a dispute, the impact assessment states:
“This would have a relatively significant impact on UK producers…UK crop-related food exporters are heavily dependent on EU consumers’ demand. Approximately 55% of all crop-related food exports from the UK are to the EU…And so, it would be difficult to replace EU demand. Therefore, there is a possibility for a portion of the £8.56 billion worth of crop related exports to the EU to decrease, potentially outweighing the scale of direct benefits to business. Nonetheless”—
This is very reassuring—
“this represents only 2.5% of our annual total value of exported goods and 5.4% of our annual value of exported goods to the EU. And so, even if UK crop-related food exports are maximally impacted, the overall impact on the UK balance of trade is minimal.”
Well, I do not think it will come as a great reassurance to those involved in the sector if that is part of the potential risk.
There are big risks here. Not only do we have that issue, but there is also the wider issue of the Cartagena protocol, which governs the movement of these organisms across borders. I suspect that by introducing the precision bred organism, we are introducing a new category, which again leaves us open to challenge. In all these cases, the argument will always be, “Is it in anybody else’s interest to challenge?” What we know from all these trade negotiations is that if there is any possibility of someone picking a fight, they can always use something like this to pursue it.
In conclusion, we are stepping into some tricky territory. We generally hope that other countries will come with us in similar ways and that any differences can be resolved without recourse to challenge, but we should be aware of those risks and proceed with care. Investors will ask themselves a simple question: is there a risk here, and if so, does the potential benefit outweigh the potential disadvantage? It has been suggested—indeed we heard it in the evidence from the Agricultural Industries Confederation—that there is a concern that people will look at the legislation and think, “This is not very certain or clear. We will wait and see what others do first.” Far from speeding things up, we could end up delaying them. The Government need to show that these questions have been addressed and answered. This is a small clause, but it has occupied quite a lot of time and is hugely significant to how we go forward.
Jo Churchill
The approach we have taken to regulating genetically modified organisms has not kept pace with scientific progress. The hon. Gentleman referenced the UN’s Cartagena protocol on biosafety, in which “modern biotechnology” is a term used. Its definition of modern biotechnology aligns with techniques such as those listed in sub-paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002. We are using the same list of techniques in this clause—see subsection (3)—to ensure that the new regime fits neatly alongside the one that regulates GMOs without leaving gaps or overlaps, which I think is the right course of action to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks, and without bringing any organisms that are not currently regulated as GMOs into the new regime regulating PBOs.
Some 30 years ago, modern biotech was used to transfer DNA between very different organisms. It can now be used to introduce changes that could have occurred naturally and through the use of traditional processes. As we have heard, that makes it much more targeted. The legislation controlling organisms produced by modern biotechnology needs to reflect these developments and our increased knowledge. Most notably, the science is telling us that we should not regulate precision bred organisms differently from their traditionally bred counterparts.
Clause 1 describes precision bred organisms, which we are carving out from legislation on the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. The definitions have been drafted using the latest scientific advice, and they are designed to ensure that this regulatory system can work. We are taking a critical step towards proportionate, science-led regulation of genetic technologies. As highlighted by Sam Brooke in the evidence sessions, the Bill will encourage greater research, innovation and investment in precision bred technologies. In doing so, it will lead to environmental, health and economic benefits for the UK.
It is vital that we add precision breeding to our toolbox to help us address some of the challenges we know we are facing, not only as a country but globally. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the SI. This will be revoked when we introduce secondary legislation after the Bill passes. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Meaning of “plant” and “animal”.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jo Churchill
Clause 2 defines “plant” and “animal” for the purposes of the Bill. The definitions in subsections (1) and (2) cover multicellular plants and animals; they do not cover micro-organisms. The clause expressly excludes humans from the scope of the Bill. Under current legislation, humans and human embryos cannot be classed as genetically modified organisms, and nor will they be classed as precision bred organisms under the Bill. Subsections (3) to (5) establish the developmental stage at which a plant or animal falls into the scope of the Bill, by defining what is meant by an organism.
Daniel Zeichner
I am sure that everyone will be relieved to know that this is going to be a quicker debate than that on the previous clause. The clause appears to be quite straightforward, defining the terms “plant” and “animal”. I have one question. Subsections (3) and (4) mention gametes. Subsection (3)(a) states that references to plants and animals
“include an embryo and all subsequent developmental stages of an organism”.
For plants, references include
“a seed or a vegetative propagule”
but
“do not include a gamete.”
Could the Minister explain why gametes are not included in the definitions and what purpose their mention in the clause serves?
Jo Churchill
Please bear with me as I go through my copious notes. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat what part of the clause he was referring to?
Daniel Zeichner
Subsections (3) and (4). What is the purpose of those subsections, because it is not entirely clear to me?
Jo Churchill
The gamete contains only half of the genetic code required to reproduce a whole organism. A whole functioning plant or animal cannot be generated from a gamete and is therefore not considered an organism for the purposes of the Bill. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Daniel Zeichner
It is certainly an answer to the question—I am not sure it is an answer I fully appreciate and understand, but I will go away and look at it further. I am grateful to her for that answer.
Jo Churchill
I am very grateful for the question. As he and I both know, I have learned an awful lot about all these particular things going over all the details. If there is anything further, I would be happy to answer.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Restrictions on release of precision bred organism in England
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 3, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) the organism has been developed for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes—
(i) producing food in a way that protects or enhances a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;
(ii) growing and managing plants or animals in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;
(iii) producing food in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;
(iv) protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals;
(v) conserving native animals or genetic resources relating to any such animal;
(vi) protecting or improving the health of plants;
(vii) reducing the use of pesticides and artificial fertiliser;
(viii) conserving plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant;
(ix) protecting or improving the quality of soil;
(x) supporting or improving human health and well-being;
(xi) supporting or improving the sustainable use of resources.”.
This amendment would require that a precision bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit, if it is to be released into the environment.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 4, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Clause 4 stand part.
Daniel Zeichner
Amendments 32 and 10 concern the requirements for releasing a precision bred organism. I go back to my mantra—we are pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system, while addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has sometimes created.
In our view, the UK has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others would follow and that provides a clear public good. We recognise that the laws need to be updated to match current scientific understanding, as we talked about earlier. We want our scientists to succeed, and we want them to use their skills for good here in the UK.
To get the legislation right, the Government must balance several risks and benefits. Without consumer and business confidence, we fear we will not see that innovation happening here in the UK and we will not see the subsequent improvements to environmental sustainability and better food security that we all seek.
We want the UK to prioritise innovations that provide public benefit and prosperity. There are so many good examples happening across the country, including in my constituency of Cambridge. The Minister has already referred to the many examples presented to us in the evidence sessions last week. I pay tribute to the passion, expertise and dedication that all those people bring to their work.
I was particularly struck by the evidence given by Bill Angus, in which he noted the motivations behind the work he does as a wheat breeder and as vice-chair of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, and the passions that drive it. Likewise, Professor Giles Oldroyd gave compelling evidence on the work being done at the University of Cambridge, focusing on improving the sustainability of farming systems and, in particular, removing the need for inorganic fertilizers. Those are clearly areas where gene editing could bring significant benefits for environmental sustainability and in reducing food insecurity across the world. Those should be the innovations that are championed.
However—there is always a “however”—we also heard evidence that while gene editing could be used for good, it could be used for ends that to many of us do not seem so desirable. I found the evidence from Peter Stevenson of Compassion in World Farming very persuasive. Here I am thinking of some of the harmful impacts that, sadly, traditional breeding methods have wrought on different animal species, whether that is farm animals that have been bred to produce high yields, which shortens their lifespan, or companion animals such as dogs, which have been bred to have bodies so small that they can barely sustain their internal organs. There is a risk that the Bill could be used to breed animals in a way that meant they would suffer more or be made to tolerate harsher conditions.
There is widespread agreement across the House that we are proud of the animal welfare and environmental standards that we have in the UK, but we know that not all countries around the world share that ethos or those aims, and that they might have different intentions for these new technologies. The question we pose in our amendments is, how can we ensure that the technology is used for good here in the UK, and who decides what that good might be?
The Bill includes some animal welfare tests, which we welcome—we shall discuss them in more detail later—but that is about it. There is a question in my mind: is development of further herbicide-resistant crops allowing more herbicide to be used, not less, what we really want to see? I do not think so. Are there tests in the Bill to stop that? That is where, again, I worry. I am not convinced, although I am happy for the Minister to point those tests out.
Our amendments propose something more explicit. Amendment 32 would create a public benefit test before precision bred organisms could be authorised and released. An organism would have to have been developed for any of the purposes described in the amendment, and I am sure all members of the Committee agree that that is an excellent list. Sharp-eyed Members might think that they have seen the list before. Labour Members are keen recyclers, and Government Members will be delighted to know that those worthy goals have been lifted from the Agriculture Act 2020. The added benefit is that that makes it all much easier for Conservative Members to support all this. What is not to like in the proposal?
The amendment would ensure that we got the most out of the Bill. As Professor Sarah Hartley of the University of Exeter said in evidence:
“The Bill enables science to develop in this area, but it does not enable us to direct the science and technology towards doing any good. That would require a different form of governance.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 123-24, Q193.]
That is the key point, but there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that will happen. Members might remember the exchange I had with the scientist who is developing the tomato with added vitamin D. I love the enthusiasm of scientists, which is fantastic, but they are great optimists in many ways, and they assume that everyone is, like them, developing positive stuff that will be good for the world. I hate to enlighten them about the fact that there are people out there who do not take exactly the same view.
When making legislation, we have to ensure that, as well as welcoming those who are undoubtedly trying to do good, we guard against those who are not. Amendment 32 would strengthen the Bill, harness the good that can be created through such technologies, and properly encode the Government’s stated aims for the Bill in the text itself.
Amendment 10 concerns the notification requirements for the release of a precision bred organism. The secondary powers in clause 4 are important, as they will specify the information that a notifier is required to disclose before releasing a precision bred organism. That is important not just to ensure that concerned members of the public remain informed, but also for what is termed “co-existence”—the ability of organic growers to maintain the integrity of their product.
We heard evidence from representatives of the organic sector. They made it clear that they cater to a group of people who do not want to see genetically modified or edited organisms in their food. Whatever our wider view of the Bill, I think we can all agree that those people have a right to that choice. With thorough information in release notices, organic farmers can make informed decisions about their crops or animals, take the necessary measures, and track their supply chain. That is an important set of issues, and given the clause’s importance, we believe that any powers created through it should be properly discussed and given proper scrutiny by this House rather than being waved through.
I fear that we will make a number of similar points as we discuss whether legislation should be decided via the negative or the affirmative procedure. It would have been helpful and desirable for the Committee to have had details on the powers, rather than being asked to give the Government a blank cheque to do what they think is best. In the absence of any detail, I think that we should be able to debate and scrutinise the secondary legislation when it is laid before the House. That is what amendment 10 would secure.
Although we will not necessarily press both amendments to a vote, I think amendment 10 is sufficiently significant for us to divide the Committee, but let us see what the Minister says.
Kerry McCarthy
In speaking to amendment 32, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge quoted oral evidence. I had a bit of a Twitter conversation with David Rose, professor of sustainable agricultural systems at Cranfield University. He was due to give evidence but could not because of ill health. Professor Rose said that the Government have not considered how the Bill will lead to more sustainable agriculture, and that, although gene editing does have potential, it could, if used badly, make agriculture less sustainable.
Professor Rose posed a number of questions. What is gene editing for? That goes to the very heart of what the Committee is trying to nail. Who benefits? Will it reduce chemical use? Will it facilitate further monoculture? Will it intensify animal protection? The fact that those questions and concerns exist mean that gene editing could be used for good or for bad, so it would be helpful to have a public interest test in the Bill.
The Agriculture Act 2020 contains very clear tests on public money for public good, and establishes quite a clear idea of what is regarded as a public good in food and farming—certainly in how people farm their land, although not so much on the animal side of things. There is concern, however, that the Government are rowing back a little on that agenda as they start to consider how to distribute subsidies to farmers.
As we look at the more technical side of things, it would be good to reiterate that the Government do see that there is a need to promote the public good with regard to this legislation. Sue Pritchard, chief executive of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission—with whom I am sure the Minister is familiar—agreed with Professor Rose, saying that his comments were “consistent” with the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission consultation response; she also agreed that DEFRA must anticipate good and bad consequences. That is our concern: while we have heard lots about the potential, it is just not clear that the safeguards are there against potential misuse of the legislation.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Can the hon. Lady provide the Committee with more evidence for her assertion that we are moving to an American or Australian system of farming? None of my farmers want to deviate from any of their world-class standards, so I am curious about where she gets that idea from.
Kerry McCarthy
We have seen planning applications, for example, for huge pig farms where there have been lots of concerns about the impact on the local environment. One of the problems is that although those planning applications can be rejected on the grounds of the environmental impact—slurry leaking into the soil and the water supply, for example—they cannot be objected to on animal welfare grounds. There are quite a lot of examples of that happening. I have also been to chicken farms with high numbers of chickens kept in close confinement and a high turnover, as it takes 28 days to bring a chicken up to market weight. My concern is that if gene editing allows us to accelerate that process even further, the sheer number of animals involved could lead to welfare concerns.
There were also some very good arguments that gene editing could reduce the need for antibiotics. It would allow us to deal with disease at source, so we would not have to worry so much about disease spreading. Obviously, reducing antibiotics use would be very good, given the impact it can have on human health if it leaks into our food supply chain. At the same time, though, if we are less worried about disease spreading among animals because we have managed to breed out that concern, that could open the door in some sense to putting an awful lot more animals in close contact and, perhaps, not being as worried about husbandry.
I think it is very good that, for the most part, British farmers do not want to go down that American route. We had that argument over the Agriculture Act and the Trade Act 2021—about protecting standards and trying to support British farmers who do not want to do that. That is a very good thing. However, given the possibility that British farmers will have to compete with imports that are produced to lower standards, there may be some who do want to go down that route. We see that with some food producers because they want to be able to produce more cheaply.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, scientists want to do the right thing and use gene editing for the right purposes. By and large, farmers in this country also want to do the right thing and farm to good, sustainable standards. However, if market forces are against them, there will always be the temptation to take advantage of being able to put animals in close contact; there will always be some people who choose to do that. I do not see the harm in trying to have safeguards in the Bill to prevent that. That is not to say that everyone will try if the safeguards are not there.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I am struggling to see where the evidence is that, through the passage of the Bill, our animal welfare standards, which are covered by other legislation, would somehow be cancelled out.
Kerry McCarthy
When we discuss clauses 11 to 13, I might raise some examples of where I am concerned about animal welfare standards. I do not think the farm animal welfare codes are particularly effective. There was concern about seven years ago that the Government wanted to put them on a self-regulatory footing. I need to check what happened with that, because there was public outcry about self-regulation on that front. The Government did a complete U-turn, but I am not sure whether they have tried to do it by stealth in the time since. I have a mental note to check what has happened to that since I played a leading role in trying to stop it being moved to that footing.
There have been undercover exposés filmed at certain farms about the way some animals are treated. I like to think I have a very good relationship with the National Farmers Union and Minette Batters. The vast majority of farmers want to do the right thing, but looking at some of the red tractor farms that are meant to be higher welfare and seeing what is being uncovered as a result of people going and filming, we cannot be complacent. The red tractor mark is meant to be a badge that consumers can trust to mean higher welfare, but there are many examples where they do not seem to have met those standards. That is proof that something is going wrong in the system.
Deidre Brock
I draw attention to clause 17, which is about the importation of precision bred organisms into England in this case, although the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 means that it can affect the situation in Scotland, too. I am not clear what kind of monitoring there would be of the gene editing procedures that are taking place in the countries that will be importing those organisms into the UK.
Kerry McCarthy
That is a fair point. Hopefully we will come to that when we get to clause 17.
To conclude, Joanna Lewis at the Soil Association talked about this “unhelpful trajectory”, and how that is in conflict with the Government’s goals on the sustainable farming transition. She says:
“We therefore need to ensure that we are not accelerating that trend through carte blanche deregulation.”—[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 56, Q92.]
I agree. She goes on to say that there is an opportunity to put good governance at the heart of the Bill, and to get that public interest test in there, which I support.
Jo Churchill
Amendment 32, as I understand it, would embed public interest into the Bill. We are very much aligned with the intentions behind the amendment, and are already undertaking a range of work across Government that delivers public good. Some of those have been mentioned. We want precision breeding technologies to deliver real benefits. They are a vital part of toolkit to deliver benefits for our food system and the environment. The hon. Member for Bristol East said—rather, implied—that our farmers were not doing the right thing.
Jo Churchill
Well, if they are doing the right thing and our researchers are, too, there is no need for that reassurance in the Bill. Throughout the Bill there is the PBO assessment via ACRE on both plants and animals; the animal welfare declaration and the animal advisory body; the PVS varieties listing for plants and seeds; the FSA and the food and feed marketing authorisation to check before food comes to market. There are checks and balances throughout the Bill. We are keen to see those things in the Bill that can deliver good—disease resistance, pest resistance and drought resistance.
Fay Jones
Does the Minister agree that this legislation is simply a tool to help the industry to carry on the good work that it has already been doing? We have talked about antibiotic use in agriculture. Since 2014, through the responsible use of medicines in agriculture, antibiotic usage has reduced by 50%. We are the fifth lowest user of antibiotics across the European Union. Does she agree that this legislation simply helps the industry carry on that good work?
Jo Churchill
I agree very strongly that we should allow our farmers and fishermen to optimise research, with the appropriate checks and balances, to ensure they can bring to market produce that is trusted by the consumer and safe. That is exactly what our system has been set up to deliver. It is really important that they can use cutting-edge science to help them deliver those benefits. I believe we are on the same trajectory; we are just having a worthwhile discussion about whether things should be on the face of the Bill or should be embedded in our systems.
Daniel Zeichner
Will the Minister comment on the point I made about the development of herbicide-resistant varieties? We know there has been an issue with glyphosate and so on. That is not necessarily something that we would all welcome. Is there anything in the Bill that would allow the Government to express a view on whether that is beneficial?
Jo Churchill
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to carry on speaking, I may well get to his point. The research is there to drive forward the ability to grow sustainably. He referred to the altruistic way in which Bill Angus approaches his work. We also heard from Professor Cathie Martin. She had that enthusiasm, but I am sure that many Members heard her contention that if she could get more of the population eating more fruit and vegetables, she would feel that she had really driven things forward and used these technologies to deliver a public good.
Although I understand the intention behind the proposal, I do not think it is necessary because it applies to release into the environment. That is principally covered in field trials, which are crucial to building our understanding of how genetic changes impact organisms under field conditions. They are an integral part of pure research, as well as breeding programmes.
Once again, I come back to the fact that we are at the start of this journey. We already know that the UK is delivering positive research. Professor Martin from the John Innes Centre spoke about the vitamin D tomatoes that her group is developing. We also heard about her commitment to strive towards improving the food we eat for the benefit of our health. It is important that such research proposals, which are often supplemented by money from the public purse, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, go through these assessments. We did not hear from just one person; we heard from many conducting the research. We should be proud of the research and the regulatory framework, which I believe is in place through ACRE, the varieties listing and the animal welfare declaration, for products brought to market—we will discuss that when we come to the provisions in part 3.
We do not think it is necessary to place restrictions on research using these technologies. We have no evidence to suggest that developers are doing anything that would fall outside the purpose of the Bill. The checks and balances, and the fact that ultimately it can be withdrawn if there is a concern over the technology—that is later in the Bill—give us what we need. We are striving to deliver public good.
As can be seen in the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Environment Act 2021, and in the sustainable farming incentive and environmental land management schemes, we are committed to developing a more sustainable and resilient food system, to ensuring and even enhancing animal health and welfare, and to protecting the environment. Recently, we announced the food strategy, which sets out a plan to make sure that we have a food system fit for the future, with sustainability from farm to fork and from catch to plate. We want to seize the opportunities and ensure everyone has access to nutritious and healthy food.
11 am
We are also committed to funding innovation. We have put over £130 million into joint funding with UK Research and Innovation for food systems research and innovation, £100 million into the UK seafood fund, and £270 million into farming innovation. We have invested £11 million to support new research to drive improvements in understanding the relationship between food and health. In total, that is over half a billion pounds, which should show the level of the Government’s commitment. Through the net zero strategy and the national adaptation programme, the Government have as a top priority mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change. Our commitment to the environment is demonstrated through the 25-year environment plan. The Bill can help with all of that. We see precision breeding as an enabling tool to help us to achieve objectives across these critical areas. Public good is very much embedded in what we are already doing and aligned with the interests of our researchers in the UK, and the checks and balances are there to ensure it.
I will end by restating the principle of the Bill, which is to regulate these technologies more proportionately to their risk. Placing additional regulatory requirements goes against that principle, and against the science and evidence. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging exchange, which touched on a series of the broader principles behind the Bill.
To respond to the interventions from Government Back Benchers, my concern is that when we look at the power relationships in the food system, we see that farmers and producers are not always in the strongest position. Quite often, they are under pressure, and they will be under particular pressure given the price issues that they face at the moment. Frankly, the people who are looking to invest in these new technologies, particularly the big players, will look for proper returns. That is perfectly proper; it is exactly what we would expect them to do. From the point of view of the individual producers, whether of crops or animals, people further up the chain may, in essence, be saying, “We’ve now got this tool and we want you to use it.” It is pretty clear that a lot of farmers pretty much have to do what they are instructed to do by people further up the chain. Consequently, the question whether something is in the “public good” or not becomes a very difficult one for people who may well want to do the right thing.
It also goes back to my question, which I am afraid the Minister did not address, about herbicide-resistant traits. That has been an issue previously, and we know that not all the developers of these technologies are looking to achieve the wider public good. Sometimes, all they are seeking to achieve is market domination and a significant return for themselves. That is not surprising, because that is what some of them are in business to do. What are we as legislators to do to protect wider society and our producers from that kind of pressure? I am not saying that will necessarily happen immediately, but the danger will be that if there is not any protection against that kind of thing, it can happen.
That is why I genuinely do not understand why the Government would not want this amendment to the clause, because everything the Minister said, which I think all of us would agree with in terms of the potential benefits and the good things that people are trying to do, would all be captured within a public benefit test like the one we propose, and only the things that we would not want to see would be discouraged by it. There is nothing to fear. Perhaps we should have spent more time on this during the evidence sessions, but my understanding is that other jurisdictions have introduced some kind of public benefit test for exactly the reasons I am outlining.
The issue goes right back—and I think we will keep going back to it—to where we started: what kind of regulatory framework we are setting up. At this point, I have to say that I think there is an ideological divide between the Government and Labour. Essentially, this is a highly deregulatory Bill—essentially it is saying, “Leave it to the market”. The market will do what the market will do: pursue the best possible return. Whether that always delivers the right societal return in environmental benefits and so on is a moot point. I think there is a genuine difference of opinion between us. The Opposition are clear that we would include such a public benefit test, because we are not convinced that the proposed framework will always work for the public good.
I will not waste the Committee’s time by having endless, pointless votes. I will withdraw amendment 32, but the Opposition would like a vote on amendment 10, because we think that it is significant. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Release of precision bred organism: notification requirements
Amendment proposed: 10, in Clause 4, page 4, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.—[Daniel Zeichner.]
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jo Churchill
We have moved on at some speed. The clause builds on clause 3 and sets out the requirements for notifying the Secretary of State before a precision bred organism is released into the environment for purposes other than marketing, in particular for field trials.
Under the clause, the Secretary of State has powers to make regulations, establishing the form and content of notices that must be submitted before a trial can take place and the information that must accompany them. That will enable us to tailor what information we ask for, which may be placed on a public register, to ensure that the requirements remain relevant and appropriate.
The clause also allows for regulations to be made establishing who can be specified in a release notice and for a minimum time period to be set between the submission of that notice and when a trial can take place. Regulations made under the clause are subject to the negative procedure. The clause will enable us to develop and expand the proportionate pre-trial notification regime that we introduced earlier this year in respect of plants to all precision bred plants and animals.
Daniel Zeichner
Clause 5 concerns restrictions on marketing precision bred organisms in England. I do not have a lot to say about it, other than to explore with the Minister how it will be determined that a precision bred organism is indeed that; this goes back to the earlier, earlier debate.
My understanding is that the determination will be based on the definition, agreed by the Committee, as something edited using modern biotechnology in a way that could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding processes. Can the Minister say more about how it will be determined that the organism could have been produced in that kind of way? What kind of evidence will be sought and how will the whole process work? It is not entirely clear to me from the Bill as written.
Jo Churchill
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the ACRE process and the guidance from the penultimate evidence giver, Nigel Moore. The ACRE guidance lays out how it will be determined, which is part 1 of the PBO assessment. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the guidance notes because they lay out very specifically and clearly how that will be determined.
Daniel Zeichner
I suppose my concern is that this seems to be a very closed world in which a group of eminent and expert people are involved in making judgments. There is no external input. Given that all those people basically work in the same institutes, is it not a rather closed system?
Jo Churchill
I believe nomination to ACRE works to the Nolan principles. Yes, those people are eminent, but they are also held in high esteem and regard and have to work to those Nolan principles when acting in the capacity of their position on that committee. It is difficult to unpick who the hon. Gentleman would see as the most qualified, if it is not those who are elected by their peers and go through an appropriate system. They must have the expertise because it is important that those who are determining know what they are doing; otherwise, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, he and I would be a lot less enabled.
Daniel Zeichner
I return to a point I made when we discussed the statutory instrument. I am in no way trying to question the integrity of those who sit on those committees. However, when we look at their declaration of interests, almost all—perhaps inevitably—are linked to some of the major industries in the field.
I ask the question again. Does the Minister genuinely believe that the system and set-up will fill the public with confidence or will they look at it and worry?
Jo Churchill
I think most people will see it as proportionate and want to have those who are expert in the field making judgments. It is they who will say whether the technology is a PBO and can move forward. The hon. Gentleman’s argument slightly falls down because the issue applies to just about every overarching body, in that they have, by definition, some knowledge of the issue on which they are deciding.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 7th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 July 2022 - (7 Jul 2022)
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 7th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 July 2022 - (7 Jul 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 26, page 16, line 29, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 26, page 16, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Clause stand part.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to continue under you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and it is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Banbury, who is now the Minister for our proceedings. Obviously, these have been difficult days for Members on the Government Benches, and I extend my sympathies to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I hope that Members will agree that the spirit in which we conducted our proceedings on Tuesday was constructive. We probed the Government’s intentions, and we will continue to do so and seek to improve the legislation this afternoon.
This clause represents a significant aspect of the Bill and we welcome it, although we note that a number of Government Back Benchers expressed concern on Second Reading. I will speak to our two amendments but also more broadly about the principles underlying these clauses as we see them and why we think that they are integral to the overall package.
Much has been said about the strength of the food and public health measures in the Bill and the fact that the Food Standards Agency will have a role to play in ensuring that any precision bred organisms that reach supermarket shelves are adequately regulated. Part 3 of the Bill, which we are discussing now, covers the food and feed produced from precision bred organisms, and clause 26 concerns regulation of food and feed produced from precision bred organisms—an area on which, as I have said, much has been promised.
We have already talked frequently—I am sure that the Minister has read the record of the proceedings from the other day—about the example of tomatoes fortified to contain higher levels of vitamin D, and I think we have agreed that it is important that information for consumers in such cases is managed carefully. But before getting to that point, we must ensure that any foods created with precision bred organisms are safe for human consumption.
As I said on Second Reading, I am particularly proud that a Labour Government established the Food Standards Agency; I think that it does an excellent job. I will say a little more later about its potential role, but I do think that we have high standards here in the UK and we also have trust, and that is in no small part down to the work and reputation of the Food Standards Agency.
However, I am expressing concern about the current wording of subsection (1) precisely because, although it confers on the Government the option to create provision for regulating the placing on the market of food and feed produced from precision bred organisms, it does not make that mandatory. In other words, although the Bill makes regulation of precision bred food and feed a possibility, it leaves it open to the Government not to take up that power should they not desire to do so. Our amendment 21 would change the subsection’s language from “may” to “must”, so that the Government were mandated to take up the power; that would not be optional.
I do not think this is a minor point. All the subsections conferring delegated powers do so by stating either that the Government “must” take up the power or that they “may”, so a decision clearly has been taken about which powers should be mandatory and which ones optional. In my very helpful meetings with the former Minister, she told me that close attention had been paid to the clauses conferring delegated powers and that the language around these had been chosen very specifically. I feel that this is an area where take-up of the power should be mandatory and that the language should be amended.
We heard evidence in the evidence sessions that backs up this position. Professor Robin May, chief scientific adviser at the Food Standards Agency and a professor of infectious disease at the University of Birmingham, said that
“it is important to be sure that”
precision bred
“products are safe…The entire point of this technology is to do things that could have been achieved through traditional breeding, but much faster. It is important that we have safety checks along that pathway.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 19, Q27.]
This amendment is also in line with the public polling and research that the Food Standards Agency has conducted. Professor May said that there is a
“really strong view that the public want some level of regulation and safeguards in this”.––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 19, Q28.]
Therefore I am not convinced that the public will be reassured to know that the Government might create a regulatory system for precision bred food but they also might not. The public want certainty, as do producers who will be embarking on the process of creating and then marketing precision bred products. Our amendment 21 would achieve that.
Subsection (2) lists the sorts of things a regulatory framework for precision bred food would achieve. Again, however, this is a “may” or “might”, instead of a “must’ and “will”. The subsection contains issues as important as traceability and imposing
“requirements for the purpose of securing traceability in relation to food and feed produced from precision bred organisms that is placed on the market in England”.
Without the ability to trace products, how will we be certain that we can remove any that have unexpected health consequences? How will we reassure organic producers and those who do not want to have precision bred inputs in their supply chain? It makes little sense to outline this level of detail in the Bill, which we welcome, without the commitment to take them up. That is all the more so because the Government’s language suggests that there is a firm commitment in the Bill—the Minister is nodding, so I suspect that is what she will tell us—when the actual wording does not really say that. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
“The Food Standards Agency will”—
—not may—
“also conduct a very thorough and comprehensive assessment of any food safety issues. I think that will give people the reassurance they need.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 376.]
Although we have not tabled further amendments to the clause, because we are debating the clause stand part simultaneously I will also mention that subsection (6) only makes it a possibility, not a certainty, that the FSA will conduct the “thorough and comprehensive assessment” to which the Secretary of State referred. Perhaps what he should have said is that the Bill gives the Government the option to create regulations regarding food, and powers for the FSA to manage them, but that they have yet to make their mind up and that it would be perfectly compatible with the Bill for them to choose not to do it at all. If it is something that will definitely happen, why not make it an actual commitment in the Bill by changing “may” to “must”? I recall that we have had this discussion once or twice before in previous sittings of the Committee.
I suspect the Minister will be reassuring—she is very good at that—but we seek certainty. We welcome the detail that the Food Standards Agency has provided on how it might go about setting up such a system if the powers are used by the Government. It issued a helpful publication earlier this week, which I suspect members of the Committee have seen, although that too will need further discussion, because it has proposed two tiers of checks, with tier 2 checks being engaged when a precision bred organism has been created
“in which there is likely to have been a significant change in the composition of the product that is typically eaten. Such changes that may, for instance, include alterations to the type or level of nutrients or allergens within the product to a level beyond that usually seen in products based on conventionally bred organisms… Here further evidence of safety and a more detailed risk assessment would be required prior to an authorisation decision”.
Although that is reassuring, some people will question who will make the initial judgment about what constitutes “significant change”, and how such a decision will be arrived at. However, it fleshes out the thinking, which is welcome. It is a shame that, because of the “may” and “must” issue, we do not see any guarantee in the Bill that the FSA will even have the opportunity to play a role, or that there will be a regulatory system for food in the first place, so I would welcome reassurances from the Minister.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I would like to provide the hon. Gentleman with reassurances. He and I have discussed many times the “may” and “must” issue in the context of the Agriculture Act 2020, the Fisheries Act 2020 and, I believe, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.
It is indeed vital that the Bill gives the necessary power for regulations to be made to enable the Food Standards Agency to ensure that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the food we eat is safe for human consumption. My Department has spoken in depth, and many times, to the Food Standards Agency about this matter, and I did so myself this morning in preparation for this afternoon’s sitting. I have been fully reassured that any measures that are proposed will be taken up by the FSA and will be proportionate and appropriate. The FSA is committed to open and transparent policy making, which will be wholly evident as it continues the process of building the new framework. Work is already under way to make sure that the right stakeholders are involved, including officials in Wales and Northern Ireland, and Food Standards Scotland. They will be able to shape the frameworks and how they operate in practice.
There are already existing provisions in general food law for securing traceability of food and feed at all stages of production, processing and distribution. Businesses wishing to market precision bred food and feed will of course need to comply with the existing legal provisions. The Bill includes the option to impose specific requirements for securing traceability, if they are deemed a good idea. That will allow the FSA to consider new methods of traceability as the science develops, future proofing the Bill in the context of further innovation, about which we have not yet thought. I urge members of the Committee to consider the evidence that they heard last week and the vital work that the FSA does to protect our consumers. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendments 21.
On clause 26 stand part, innovation in our food and feed industry is developing at a faster pace than we have ever seen before. New technologies, as the Committee has heard many times, enable us to utilise better and more sustainable production methods. It is vital that appropriate measures are in place to ensure that consumers can trust the food that they eat. The regulatory framework has been inherited from the EU. Now that we are forging our own path, it is vital that the framework provides consumers with food they can trust and also keeps pace with new technologies.
The framework for regulating genetically modified organisms, which, as we all know, precision breeding technologies currently fall within, does not adequately reflect the lower risk profile of PBOs, where such organisms are often indistinguishable from products that could be produced using traditional breeding methods. The clause will allow the FSA to build a framework that responds to the lower risk profile of PBOs. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome the Minister’s reassurances, although I am not sure she really addressed the “may” and “must” issue. On this particular occasion, it would have been straightforward for the Government to say what was going to happen. Although I see the opportunity through secondary legislation to take account of changing technologies, which we all recognise is likely to happen pretty quickly, it is essential that provisions and safeguards are put in place. On that basis, although I do not feel the need to push amendment 22, I would like to test the view of the Committee on amendment 21.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 27, page 18, line 16, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, in clause 27, page 18, line 20, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 25, in clause 27, page 18, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Clause stand part.
Daniel Zeichner
Our amendments to this clause follow a similar line of reasoning as the previous ones. They continue the discussion around whether the provisions must be introduced or simply might be.
Clause 27 is about the food and feed marketing authorisations register. Extensive reference has been made to that register throughout the passage of the Bill and during the evidence sessions. The Bill would confer a delegated power on the Government to make provision to require the Food Standards Agency to establish and maintain a public register containing information regarding information concerning food and feed marketing authorisations. I have already said many times why I think access to information is important, and will help give confidence to consumers and those farming in ways that require separation from those using gene edited organisms.
We also think the register could be helpful in tackling some of the devolution issues that were referred to in the evidence sessions. The central provisions of the Bill apply to England only, but the Welsh and Scottish Governments were consulted at very late stages. Both Governments have raised concerns that the mutual recognition principle of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will mean that it will be possible to legally place precision bred food on the Welsh and Scottish markets even if the Welsh and Scottish Governments choose not to adopt the changes contained in the Bill, which obviously presents a challenge. It is for the Government to resolve that challenge, but I would have certainly liked to have seen them consult the devolved Administrations earlier and in a more constructive manner.
However, in the absence of a solution to that problem, while precision bred products will be able to be legally placed on the market in Scotland and Wales, I imagine that some supermarkets and shops may decide that they want to operate within the spirit of Scottish and Welsh legislation and not stock precision bred products on their shelves, as is their right. The register of foods authorised for sale may help companies address that conundrum—certainly, without it, it is hard to see how they could do so without setting up very expensive parallel production systems, which might simply not be practical in many cases. In other words, a chain of unintended consequences might follow, which I do not think anyone would wish to see.
As I said on Second Reading, in the modern world, consumers increasingly want more information about the products they are buying. We can see that reflected in the market, such as the rise of environmental information on product labels. We will discuss labelling later when we debate one of our new clauses, but as I anticipate that that new clause might not be adopted by the Government, the register will be the only source of information for consumers and businesses looking to gain information on these products. As such, it is a pretty key provision of the Bill.
In our evidence sessions, Professor May of the Food Standards Agency said:
“The idea behind the register is to have a public awareness of the products that are going through this pathway and are ultimately out on the market, in a similar way to the public registration of foods at the moment…My view as a scientist is that this should be the same for precision breeding. We should have a register that says, ‘Here is a product that has been considered. We have looked at it; it hasn’t rocked up without any kind of due diligence around it.’ It is there in the public domain for people to see what process it has gone through and be reassured that those products have had some level of scrutiny.”—[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 24, Q40.]
That is absolutely right. He continued,
“there will be some consumers who have strong views on this, and they may or may not wish to purchase something accordingly. It is important that the information is available for them, so that they can pause if they want to and find out. Even if most people do not, it is available, should they wish to do so.”—[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 24-25, Q41.]
Again, that seems absolutely right to me.
The FSA clearly thinks there is a strong basis for establishing the register, as borne out by the evidence it has seen. Despite that, clause 27 only makes the register a possibility, rather than a certainty; it is a provision that the Government may take up, but not one that they must take up. As we go around this perpetual loop again—I have forgotten how many Bills have given rise to this discussion—perhaps the Minister can explain exactly why she thinks the wording should only be “may”, rather than “must”. With the number of key provisions that are being put not only into secondary legislation, but into secondary legislation that the Government are not even bound to introduce, there is a risk that some people looking at the Bill could say that there is a gap between the safeguards that are being promised and the reality that is being delivered.
I am sure the Minister will be affronted by such a suggestion, but as ever, salvation is at hand. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 would amend each subsection of clause 27 so that the Government must engage the provisions contained therein, rather than may. We think the register is a key element of the Bill, especially considering the Government’s stance on labelling, and so there must be a strong commitment within the Bill itself.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
This will be a short contribution. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish and Welsh Governments’ views on the situation. He will be aware that clause 27 just talks about the Food Standards Agency and the Secretary of State, and does not cover Food Standards Scotland, Scottish Ministers or indeed Welsh Ministers. With that in mind, I hope he will look carefully at new clause 9 and my amendment 37, which is coming up, because they will neatly address the problems he referred to.
Victoria Prentis
I completely agree that it is vital that this Bill should grant the necessary power that will enable regulations to be made to allow the FSA to ensure trust in food, as I said earlier. In addition to a proportionate framework for the regulation of PBOs, it is important that consumer confidence is assured. We feel that a transparent public register for precision bred food and feed will do just that.
On the “may” and “must” point, I apologise; I thought we had been through this so many times that the hon. Member for Cambridge would not want me to say it again. It is rather like the conversations we can have with members of our families, when they say, “Please be quiet. You’ve told us that 3,000 times already!” Perhaps that is only me.
Victoria Prentis
I am very happy to explain the role, as I am many other things—not fighting with one’s younger sister, for example.
The role of the FSA is enshrined in law. Its purpose is to provide food safety and consumer confidence. In our view, “must” is therefore not necessary. We are working with the FSA on this, and it has a role and a duty to provide consumer confidence, which is why we are completely assured that it will maintain this register, as it maintains other registers and keeps them regularly updated. To that end, members of the Committee may be reassured by the evidence of Professor Robin May, which the hon. Gentleman referred to. The professor spoke at length about the need for transparency within the register and how it will provide consumers with the information they need. We feel that is very important.
The FSA is committed to food safety. It is equally committed, as was explained in evidence, to using these powers in a proportionate way that both supports innovation and protects consumers. We are convinced it will deliver a food and feed register that gives consumers the information they need. We therefore do not feel that the amendments are necessary.
On clause 27, we feel that genetic technologies such as precision breeding present opportunities for innovation. Setting out a clear framework for the regulation of precision bred organisms will help ensure that we maintain that really important public trust. The clause will introduce powers that will provide transparency for consumers, the industry and enforcement bodies through the establishment of the public register. In addition to the register, which will be established under clause 18, the food and feed register will give extra clarity about PBOs are being used in food production.
The international market for PBOs is growing quickly, and countries recognise the need to align their regulatory frameworks. Establishing a register will be seen as a positive step by our international trade partners, who are keen to see that we are open for business and ready to accept imports of precision bred crops in this market. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we rely on a certain amount of agricultural food and feed imports, and we hope the Bill will facilitate trade with large exporters such as Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the US and Australia, which already have established regulatory frameworks.
We will come to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith later when we discuss new clause 9. The register will make clear the nation in which the authorisations apply. Authorisations, including on the register, will be indicated as enforced in England only. However, the UKIM Act 2020 means that market access principles will apply for PBO goods produced in or imported into England that can be lawfully sold here. That will allow those goods to be sold on the Scottish and Welsh markets. This clause will grant the power required to allow the FSA to establish a register that will give the required transparency.
Daniel Zeichner
Normally I find myself generally reassured by the Minister, but on this occasion, as a consequence of her comments, I am less so.
Daniel Zeichner
Indeed. I am afraid that however many times she tells me about “may” and “must”, I am still not convinced. On a day when trust in politics is pretty central to a public conversation, she will be unsurprised to find that the Opposition are not entirely convinced.
On a separate point about growing trade with some of the countries that the Minister noted, I am not sure I am reassured about the standards of some of those countries or that we want to import more from them—particularly precision bred food or that subject to standards that may be different from our own. That opens up a whole series of issues. The Opposition are clear that we want to grow and produce more here, and we do not want to be moving towards importing more from other countries that are producing to standards different from our own. Far from being reassured, I will go away and look very closely at what has been said, because it rather confirms a direction of travel that the Opposition are not comfortable with.
On that basis and in the spirit of not wanting to take too much time from the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendments 24 and 25, but I will press amendment 23 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clause 29 stand part.
Clause 30 stand part.
Victoria Prentis
Briefly, the Bill has so far introduced provision to ensure that PBOs will be subject to pre-market assessments that are proportionate to the level of risk posed. However, the role of the regulator does not stop with authorisation, and measures must be put in place to ensure compliance with any conditions that are imposed on the marketing of these products. It is essential that enforcement bodies have the appropriate powers to monitor compliance and investigate suspected failures to comply.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Meaning of “relevant breach” etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clause 32 stand part.
Clause 33 stand part.
Clause 34 stand part.
Clause 35 stand part.
Clause 36 stand part.
Clause 37 stand part.
Clause 38 stand part.
Victoria Prentis
Very briefly, these clauses cover the enforcement measures in the Bill. They provide powers for “relevant breach” and “relevant obligation” and they define those terms. They provide powers to make regulations on enforcement, set out the powers for regulations to provide compliance notices and set out provisions that must be included in regulations and stop notices. They also set out provisions that must be included in regulations that provide for monetary penalty notices and in respect of enforcement notices, and they enable enforcement notices to be issued to provide for reviews and appeals. They address how the new regulatory regime might recover the costs incurred of dealing with non-compliance. I commend all eight clauses to the Committee.
Deidre Brock
I want to ask the Minister about something that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) said the other day on the meaning of a relevant breach. I do not expect the Minister to be able to provide me with an answer straight away, but I would be grateful if she could write to the Committee or give us further information on that matter. The previous Minister reassured us that precision bred organisms may not contain exogenous DNA, so the question was: would the release of an organism that still contains exogenous DNA, or any kind of DNA, constitute a relevant breach? If we could get an understanding of that at some stage, I would appreciate it.
Victoria Prentis
As I am not absolutely certain about that conversation the other day, with your leave, Mr Stringer, we will write to the hon. Lady on this occasion.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 32 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Fees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 40 stand part.
Clause 41 stand part.
Clause 42 stand part.
Victoria Prentis
This group covers administrative clauses regarding fees and notices, provisions to allow PBOs not to be treated as GMOs under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and subsequent necessary powers. I reassure the Committee that we do not intend to charge fees initially in order to incentivise innovation and investment in PBOs, but we will keep that under review. If fees are introduced later, they will be set at a cost recovery level. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner
I would like to speak briefly on clause 42, as it contains one of those notorious Henry VIII clauses, which need to be considered carefully. The clause concerns powers to make consequential provisions. Subsection (2) says,
“Regulations under this section may modify legislation.”
We have had this debate many times before about the procedural and technical elements of the Bill, which are thin and constitute poor legislative practice in general, because many of the key provisions are not properly spelled out in the Bill. As we have said, many of the secondary powers are merely optional.
Clause 42 is problematic because it gives Ministers the power to change and amend primary legislation without having to go through the normal scrutiny processes. This is a familiar argument, but it bears repeating—not least because the Minister today will be well aware of the issue and would, no doubt, berate me if I made such a proposal. These clauses shift power away from Parliament towards the Executive, so they clearly need to be strongly justified.
I understand that some elements of the Bill would amend primary legislation in an administrative way, but I still think it is right that the Minister should justify her use of this subsection, given that it would give her Government wide, sweeping powers, which could also be applied in a non-administrative way. It is a question worth addressing.
It is also a question the Government will have to answer when the Bill comes to the Lords. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will consider whether any of the Bill’s provisions inappropriately delegate legislative power, and the Government will have to provide the Committee a memorandum identifying the purpose of each delegation, providing the justification for leaving the matter to delegated legislation and explaining why the proposed level of parliamentary control is thought to be appropriate.
I am sure the Minister will be pleased to know that I have looked at the memo from the Department to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I suspect the Minister may read out in a moment. I was not entirely convinced by the previous Minister’s arguments on these points. Given that the Lords Committee pays particular attention to any proposal in the Bill that uses a Henry VIII clause, because of the way it shifts power, I hope she will be able to provide me with further justification while we in the Commons have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s feelings about Henry VIII clauses. I think it is right that they are used judiciously and carefully.
To turn to clause 42 specifically, precision bred organisms are currently regulated by many GM legislative instruments that will need amending to reflect the changes made by the Bill. They will in the main be very technical amendments that will merely reflect the changes that we make if the Bill is passed. There are also references to GM organisms in numerous legislative instruments that will need adjusting, for the same reason. Other parts of law are passed, and GM references feature in many different forms of our legislative framework. The power in clause 42 enables the Government to make reasonable, proportionate and technical amendments. In that light, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 40 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Regulations
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations under this Act must be made in accordance with—
(a) the environmental principles set out in section 17(5) of the Environment Act 2021, and
(b) Article 391 (Non-regression from levels of protection) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, done at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 27, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under this Act unless—
(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before Parliament under section 18(6) of the Environment Act 2021, and
(b) section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 is in force.”
This amendment would prevent the exercise of any powers granted by the Bill until the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.
Daniel Zeichner
Some Members may have found the previous conversations slightly dry.
Daniel Zeichner
However, now we are getting to some really interesting points. We have tabled two amendments that would insert additional subsections into clause 43 with regard to the environmental principles of the Environment Act 2021 and the non-regression principle laid out in the 2020 trade and co-operation agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Union. Veterans of the Environment Act proceedings will recall extensive discussion of those issues, and I suspect that one or two Government Members will rise to the defence of the trade and co-operation agreement, particularly the non-regression clauses.
This is quite technical, but it is important because it is about upholding the standards that we have committed to in both domestic legislation and international agreements. It is about upholding the promises that we have made. Arguably, it is one of the reasons why the previous Minister is not here today. These are serious issues and, as she put it, a
“jocular self-serving approach is bound to have its limitations.”
How right she was. Our amendments highlight some of those limitations.
The first of these relates to the Environment Act 2021 and specifically the Government’s obligations under sections 17 to 19. Section 17 states:
“The Secretary of State must prepare a policy statement on environmental principles”
to be interpreted and applied in the making of Government policy. Section 17(5) lays out a definition of “environmental principles”, which include
“the principle that environmental protection should be integrated into the making of policies…the principle of preventative action to avert environmental damage…the precautionary principle, so far as relating to the environment…the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and…the polluter pays principle.”
Some Members will recall extensive discussion in the Environment Act proceedings as to exactly what that meant.
Section 18 details the timeframe for the policy statement, and section 19 details the obligations that Ministers are under once the statement is finalised. Section 19(1) states:
“A Minister of the Crown must, when making policy, have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles currently in effect.”
The problem is that the Government have yet to finalise the statement. A draft was published in May 2022, but we are yet to have a response from the Secretary of State, or the final version of the policy statement. Sadly, the Minister who issued the press release about the statement, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is no longer in her place, either.
The Environment Act was heralded by the Government as “World-leading”—remember that? The Prime Minister hailed it as the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth, neatly timing Royal Assent to the Bill with the COP26 summit hosted in Glasgow. However, a raft of policies in this sphere and specifically in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been brought forward that will have significant impacts on the environment, before the Government have fulfilled their obligations under the Environment Act.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot hail the success of their environmental legislation, while failing to follow through on it or deliver on its aims and failing to hold themselves accountable in their creation of policy to the obligations that were set out. Great claims have been made, but they are not being followed through.
Amendment 26 would help the Government out. It would ensure that regulations under the Bill are made in accordance with the environmental principles set out in section 17(5) of the Environment Act. Amendment 27 would ensure that no regulations may be made under the Bill unless the policy statement has been finalised and laid before Parliament, and Ministers are under an obligation to pay due regard to it. I look forward to enthusiastic support from those on the Government Benches to furthering the aims of their own legislation.
Amendment 26 concerns article 391 of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU, which was agreed in December 2020—I am sure the Minister remembers it well. Chapter 7 of the TCA covers environment and climate, and defines environmental levels of protection as
“the levels of protection provided overall in a Party’s law”—
that refers to the parties to the agreement, before anyone gets any ideas—
“which have the purpose of protecting the environment including the prevention of a danger to human life or health from environmental impacts”.
The TCA then lists some specific examples, some of which would concern this Bill. Those include:
“the protection and preservation of the aquatic environment”
and
“the management of impacts on the environment from agricultural or food production”.
Each party in the agreement—the EU and the UK— committed to
“the principle that environmental protection should be integrated into the making of policies”,
as well as to “the precautionary approach” and
“the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source”.
Article 391 of the TCA sets out the rules on non-regression from these levels of environmental protection. It allows
“each Party…to determine the environmental levels of protection and climate level of protection it deems appropriate and to adopt or modify its law and policies in a manner consistent with each Party’s international commitments”.
However, the TCA also aims to prevent either party from weakening environmental legislation below the levels in place at the end of the transition period:
“A Party shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its environmental levels of protection or its climate level of protection below the levels that are in place at the end of the transition period, including by failing to effectively enforce its environmental law or climate level of protection.”
I am not a lawyer, although the Minister is, as I have often pointed out, but it seems to me that the non-regression rules allow the UK to argue that it is allowed to change its regulation on precision breeding to create the new category we are discussing, that it can do so safely and that there is an environmental case for doing so. However, while we may argue that, some may equally argue—we heard this in the evidence sessions—that doing so poses environmental risks. Although the Bill attempts to manage those, and we broadly agree they could be managed, the safeguards should be strengthened. My point is that there are potential grounds for disagreement.
It also seems that the EU could make a determination on how the UK has moved, carry out an assessment itself on the balance of risks and benefits, and make a judgment on whether we have adhered to the non-regression rule. Given that we trade with the EU extensively, and this element of the TCA explicitly references impacts on trade, I hope the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s assessment of how the Bill will interact with the TCA, whether parity is maintained and whether there will be any trade repercussions as a result.
The other day, I quoted the impact assessment on the economic consequences of the EU taking a different view, and I want to go back to that. Although the text was printed in Hansard, I am not sure that I presented those details with quite the force I should have done. Paragraphs 144 to 146 of the impact assessment, on page 48, in the section “Assessment of likely EU response”, are frankly staggering. The Government appear to be prepared to concede that, if there were a disagreement, our markets—our exports to the EU—would in effect be closed. Paragraph 146 states:
“Approximately 55% of all crop-related food exports from the UK are to the EU…And so, it would be difficult to replace EU demand”—
you’re telling me it would be difficult! It goes on:
“Therefore, there is a possibility for a portion of the £8.56 billion worth of crop-related exports to the EU to decrease”.
But most staggeringly of all, that is followed by an attitude of, “Well, never mind,” as the impact assessment continues:
“Nonetheless, this represents only 2.5% of our annual total value of exported goods and 5.4% of our annual value of exported goods to the EU. And so, even if UK crop-related food exports are maximally impacted, the overall impact on the UK balance of trade is minimal.”
I find that absolutely staggering and, on behalf of the food and agriculture sector, I invite the Minister to dissociate herself from that aspect of the impact assessment. The impact assessment has a lot of interesting stuff in it, but I suspect a lot of it was not read as closely as it should have been.
Victoria Prentis
I have listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. It is not necessary to put either amendment in the Bill, and I will do my best to reassure him as to why that is the case.
The scientific advice is clear that precision breeding poses no greater risk to the environment than traditional breeding. Section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 provides that Ministers must have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. DEFRA has already published and laid that statement before Parliament for debate. I understand that that is the draft version, but we have made it clear that our intention is to publish the final version in autumn this year. Therefore, by the time regulations are made under this Bill, the final version of the policy statement will have been laid before Parliament, and section 19 will be in force. It is therefore unnecessary to make a provision that will be meaningless by the time the Bill comes into force.
However, to provide more assurances, let me add that one of the five principles—the precautionary principle—was touched on in the evidence sessions, including by the hon. Gentleman, and I believe that many of the experts are satisfied that it is being met. They include Professor Jim Dunwell, the chair of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment; Dr Alan Tinch; and Professor Gideon Henderson. To quote Gideon,
“the Bill we are putting forward now is precautionary—it follows the guidelines of the precautionary principle. We are not leaping in with both feet, but we are moving in stepwise motion.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 89, Q145.]
In line with the requirements of section 20 of the Environment Act, we have reviewed whether the Bill reduces existing environmental protections. Based on the scientific advice from the independent scientific committee ACRE, our assessment is that the provisions do not have the effect of weakening environmental protections. We published that statement when the Bill was introduced.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about the TCA. The scientific advice is clear that precision breeding poses no greater risk to the environment than traditional breeding, and we therefore believe that the Bill is consistent with our non-regression commitment to the EU. Indeed, the EU is consulting on its own new regulatory framework for precision bred plants. The TCA aims to prevent either party from weakening their environmental protections below the levels that were in place at the end of the transition period. Article 391 states:
“The Parties…shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment…environmental levels of protection”.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am listening to a really good debate. Does the Minister agree that the Bill gives us the opportunity to strengthen our environmental protections, not just to maintain the status quo? It is a great leap forward.
Victoria Prentis
The Government certainly believe that there are real environmental benefits to allowing carefully regulated precision breeding that enjoys public trust, and we are keen to realise those benefits. Although I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) is no longer in position, I was pleased to take over the Committee stage of the Bill because, as Farming Minister, I have long taken a close interest in it. I am very excited, for example, by the reduction in pesticide use that may be brought about really quite quickly if we pass the Bill and crack on with appropriate precision breeding. I do not think it is necessary or appropriate for regulations to be made subject to amendments 26 and 27.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Two things concern me. First, we know that the Secretary of State has repeatedly expressed doubt about the precautionary principle, suggesting that it is implemented in too strong a fashion and that he wants to row back from that. Secondly, in 2017 we were promised these environmental principles imminently. Now, in 2022, we have a draft statement. That suggests that the Government are not keen to get these principles into law and to implement them; rather, they are doing everything they can to drag their feet. Does the Minister not realise why I have concerns about that?
The Chair
Order. If Members wish to make interventions, they should be brief. If they want to make longer interventions, they should try to catch my eye and make a speech.
Victoria Prentis
I understand the hon. Lady’s reservations but I do not share them. The Government have moved as fast as they can, with substantive and lengthy environmentally friendly legislation, much of which the hon. Member for Cambridge and I have discussed at considerable length in Committee and otherwise.
I am proud of the Government’s record on environmental protection. The passing of the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Fisheries Act 2020 will put us on a much more sustainable level in both those industries, in terms of how we apportion public subsidy and how farmers and fishermen grow and fish the food we are proud to enjoy. I am proud of our recent work in the food strategy, where we set out as a Government policy goal the level of self-sufficiency we enjoy at the moment. All that must be read under the overarching protections in the Environment Act 2021, which was also passed by this Government. I am proud of our record.
I will move briefly to clause 43, which provides for the parliamentary procedures to be used when making regulations under the Bill. The clause allows for transitional, transitory or saving provision to be made to ensure a smooth transition from existing arrangements to new ones. That is necessary, because these are complicated pieces of legislation. To reassure hon. Members, I will give one example. Consequential regulations under clause 42 might make provision for entries in the GMO register concerning any qualifying higher plants grown in field trials. Under the changes recently introduced by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022, those can then be copied across to the PBO register, which we will have established under clause 18. I therefore beg to move that clause 43 stand part.
The Chair
It is okay. You have made your points, Minister. If any other Members wish to speak on clause 43, that will come later.
Daniel Zeichner
What the Minister said was very interesting, not least because one of the questions we have puzzled over is whether qualifying higher plants fit into this structure. We are beginning to see that it is as a consequence of some of these powers, which are, to put it mildly, obscure. As I commented the other day, it is quite hard to discern the overall structure of this legislation, given how little is in the Bill, so I found her comments quite helpful.
We will not pursue amendment 26, which concerns the trade and co-operation agreement, today. I am sure the matters in that amendment will roll on inexorably—they are complicated. The basic point is that different people can interpret things differently, and that gives the possibility of challenge. That is the problem. I fear we will be locked into these kinds of problems for a long time to come, sadly, and we will need to rely on good will and co-operation with our neighbours, which is important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made a very strong set of points on the question of the environmental principles and the link to the precautionary principle. Of course, this debate has been ongoing for a long time. I do not think it is unfair to point out that the Secretary of State sees this—a diminution of the precautionary principle—as a Brexit opportunity. Labour does not agree with that, and we have sought at every opportunity to tease their position out of the Government, but frankly they are saying one thing and doing another.
However, that is a debate that can be conducted another day. Environmental lawyers are looking closely at all of this. It is a complicated area, to put it mildly. I dare say it will be contested and probably determined elsewhere. In the meantime, we will continue to point out that gap. On that basis, I will not press amendment 26, but I would like to put amendment 27 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 27, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under this Act unless—
(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before Parliament under section 18(6) of the Environment Act 2021, and
(b) section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 is in force.” —(Daniel Zeichner.)
This amendment would prevent the exercise of any powers granted by the Bill until the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 48, page 30, line 18, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) may not appoint a day on which any of sections 11 to 15 is to come into force unless the welfare advisory body has advised the Secretary of State that it is satisfied that regulations made under Part 2 establish a proper process to ensure that the health and welfare of animals, and their qualifying progeny, in respect of which a precision bred animal marketing authorisation is made will not be adversely affected by any precision bred trait.”
This amendment would prevent regulations being made on precision bred animals until the welfare advisory body is satisfied that animal health and welfare will be ensured.
I would like to speak briefly on this amendment, which concerns the extent and application of the sea areas. On Second Reading, I raised the fact that there are legitimately held and differing views within the different Administrations in the UK. It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations were not happy with the way this had been handled so far; I suggested that
“the Government should tread carefully.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 382.]
As I have said today, the regulation of genetically edited organisms is a devolved matter. The central divisions of the Bill apply to England only, but the Welsh and Scottish Governments were consulted at a late stage. Based on evidence I heard in this Committee, it is clear that the frustrations with the Government’s approach to co-operation with the devolved Administrations are ongoing. I am disappointed that the Government did not consult the Welsh and Scottish Governments earlier, as I said before, and that they have not laid out more detail, in either the explanatory notes or the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, as to the precise impact it will have on Wales and Scotland and any proposed mechanisms moving forward.
The Opposition have tabled a new clause on labelling, and we have already raised a point about how some of the information-sharing provisions in the Bill could be strengthened to facilitate supply chain tracking and coexistence. I hope that the Minister will say more about the Government’s discussions with the devolved Administrations and the plans they have.
Victoria Prentis
Are we speaking only to amendment 3? I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment. I can assure him that the Government are committed to appointing a welfare advisory body that will provide expert scientific advice to the Secretary of State, as set out in clause 22. We want to ensure that the body will be functionally independent and that it will provide scientific advice. We are committed to appointing a body with the most suitable expertise for the role. We will work closely with existing animal welfare experts, such as the Animal Welfare Committee, to ensure that there is a rigorous and proportionate system to safeguard animal welfare.
Daniel Zeichner
In responding to the Minister’s excellent contribution, I should explain that what I said previously relates to clause 47 and so can be ignored—I managed to speak to completely the wrong clause, which of course happens late in the day.
Daniel Zeichner
I am not surprised. I will try to find my way back to the right clause.
Amendment 3 is relatively straightforward. It would prevent regulations being made on precision bred animals until the welfare advisory body is satisfied that animal health and welfare will be ensured. I have previously cited evidence in which DEFRA itself admits that the elements of the Bill relating to animals that are delegated to secondary legislation are not yet fully investigated or prepared. Sadly, we have been unsuccessful in removing the animals from the scope of the Bill. In the absence of that, we have tabled a series of amendments that would provide a check and balance on any secondary legislation, especially given that some of it will be subject to the negative procedure.
The Government have emphasised that the welfare advisory body provided for in the Bill will be composed of experts in their field. The Opposition think that it seems sensible for the body also to play a role in determining the effectiveness of the Government’s proposal on animals, and that is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
I am conscious that I am responding to the Minister. I heard what she said. I do not entirely agree, but given that I have not explained it very well, we will let this one pass. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 48, page 30, line 20, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations may not be made under or by virtue of this section unless a common framework agreement relating to the release and marketing of, and risk assessments relating to, precision bred plants and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals, has been agreed between a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.
(5B) “Common framework agreement” has the meaning given by section 10(4) of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.”
This amendment would prevent the operative parts of this Bill coming into force until a common framework agreement on the regulation of precision breeding had been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9— Power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms—
‘(1) Schedule 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 11 insert—
“Marketing of precision bred organisms
11A The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any Act of the Scottish Parliament, or any subordinate legislation made under or by virtue of such an Act, relating to the marketing of—
(a) precision bred organisms, or
(b) food or feed produced from precision bred organisms.”’
Deidre Brock
As has been stated, this is English legislation. As I said on Second Reading, the regulation of genetically modified organisms is a devolved matter—no ifs, no buts. That has been clear from the responses from the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The Scottish Government have been clear in their opposition to the UK Government’s moves on this. They do not presently intend to amend the GMO regulatory regime in Scotland to remove categories of products currently regulated as GMOs while they sensibly await the outcome of the EU’s consultation on whether some gene-edited organisms will be excluded from the GM definition. No one in Scotland wants to see further barriers to trade with our largest trading partner, but as the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned, there are clear indications in the impact statement that that is a very likely outcome of having different approaches. It should be further noted—we have not really discussed this to any great extent—that the EU is currently considering only plant-based GEOs, not animals.
The potential impact of the Bill on Scotland through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, as referred to by the Minister, must be recognised. If the Scottish Parliament did not ultimately decide to allow gene edited organisms to be sold, Scotland would still be prevented under the Act from stopping those products being sold in our shops. That, of course, is exactly the kind of scenario that the Scottish National party warned against when the legislation was forced through this place.
As the UK Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill acknowledges, removing gene edited products from England’s regulatory regime for GMOs would mean divergence from the current EU approach. As such, it would have implications for compliance, costs and future trade. New trade barriers could also come in the form of checks and certification requirements on UK food exports entering the EU’s single market, which could affect not only products exported to the EU that contain precision bred plant material, but those in the same product categories that do not—something that, again, emphasises the importance of labelling and traceability, which I will address a little later.
The Scottish Government have made it clear that they intend to stay aligned with EU regulation as far as possible and practicable. The UK Government’s refusal to commit to dynamic alignment with the EU has already led to significant trade impacts and costs for Scottish businesses. For example, Scottish businesses have written to the UK Government on numerous occasions regarding the losses to the multimillion-pound Scottish seed potato industry from being unable to access the EU export market, yet there has been very little progress in re-establishing that trade. There are many other examples I could mention. We do not want to erect further barriers to our largest market, so we are waiting to see the position as the EU progresses its review, including its consultation.
If the EU retains its current opposition to gene editing, there are concerns about, for example, the export of Scottish salmon—a huge export product to Europe, and particularly to France. It has been suggested that products might be considered on a product-by-product basis, but there is little detail for us to scrutinise that and to examine potential costs and logistics challenges. In the meantime, the SNP Scottish Government, and indeed the Welsh Government, simply insist that the devolution settlement is respected.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Nobody disputes that it is within the devolved competencies for the Scottish Government to determine genetic modification in Scotland, but if the European Union did change—we heard in evidence that it is considering doing so, and one of the worries of some of the people who gave evidence was that the UK would be left behind if we did not remove the legislation now—would the SNP be prepared to consider accepting the Bill and working with the UK Government, so that we stick together?
Deidre Brock
That is exactly why the Scottish Government intend to wait for the outcome of the consultation, and why we would like to see the UK Government doing similarly. I would point to the New Zealand Government, who undertook a really extensive consultation with stakeholders, consumers and citizens generally. Ultimately, they chose to continue to include gene edited organisms within their definitions of genetically modified organisms. The outcomes are by no means guaranteed, and I think the precautionary principle should be applied here as well.
New clause 9 would amend the United Kingdom Internal Market Act to ensure that the Scottish Parliament’s authority to legislate in the marketing of precision bred organisms is upheld. Similarly, amendment 37 would prevent the operative parts of the Bill coming into force until a common framework agreement on precision breeding has been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
I would be really grateful if the Minister—I appreciate that she is very new to her post—could offer an explanation for why common framework procedures prior to the Bill’s introduction were not followed before it was introduced. As the Minister will know, the Scottish and Welsh Governments repeatedly requested sight of the draft Bill, but it was introduced to Parliament before that happened. That is simply not the action of a Government who respect devolved Governments, and I would be grateful if the Minister also provided an explanation for that.
Victoria Prentis
On amendment 37, the regulation of GMOs is, as we have heard, a devolved matter. We have invited the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government to join us in bringing forward the Bill. If they took up our offer, it would provide confidence to investors who are looking to support Scottish and Welsh research into precision breeding.
A common framework covering GMO marketing and cultivation was within scope of the common frameworks programme, but all four Administrations agreed that a common framework was not required because the administration and co-ordination of this policy area was provided for through existing inter-governmental arrangements under the GMO concordat. If the DAs were in agreement, we would be willing to revisit that analysis and look again at whether the GMO concordat and the intergovernmental arrangements for which it provides are sufficient for intergovernmental working, and, where relevant, to manage divergence in the regulation of genetic technologies. I would be delighted to take that work further if it is of interest to the DAs.
In addition to engagement between DEFRA and DA genetic technology officials, it is worth noting that precision breeding policy interacts with four of the provisional common frameworks. Engagement among respective officials is also ongoing through the relevant framework fora in those four areas.
As the Committee heard from Professor Bruce Whitelaw of the Roslin Institute, and as has been presented to the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government by the National Farmers Union—I have read the evidence it gave—the provisions in the Bill apply substantively to England, but they have the potential to bring benefits across the UK.
We have introduced the Bill to ensure that we keep up to date with the latest science, and to remove the limitations placed on us by outdated regulation that has not kept pace with scientific development. Amendment 37 would put us at further risk of falling behind other countries, which the NFU was concerned about in the evidence sessions. We will continue to engage with the DAs to address the concerns that they have raised, but I encourage the hon. Lady to embrace the opportunity that the Bill presents to unlock the benefits of scientific research and development and ensure that the UK continues to invest in innovation in the agri-food industry and reap the wider potential benefits from it.
New clause 9 would exclude legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament relating to the marketing of precision bred organisms, and regulations made by the Scottish Government under that legislation, in scope of the UK Internet Market Act 2020 market access principles. There is an established process for considering exclusions to the application of the UKIM market access principles in the common framework areas. That process has been agreed by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. The UK Government are fully committed to common frameworks and to taking forward discussions with the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the interaction between the proposals in the Bill and UKIM.
As we heard from Dr Ferrier of the NFU, it will be at least five years before products come on to the markets for farmers and growers. We hope that consumers across the whole of the UK will be able to benefit from the research into precision bred plants and animals that the Bill will enable. We therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment so as not to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions.
Deidre Brock
It is kind of the UK Government to want to bring benefit to all of the devolved nations of the UK—a very benevolent approach that I am sure everyone appreciates—but this area is devolved and we should have full control over it.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I just want to clarify, should we be surprised that the United Kingdom Government are interested in the rural interests of every nation in the United Kingdom?
Deidre Brock
I am actually very interested in rural interests, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I am very concerned about the impact on trade with the EU, which is the UK’s largest trading partner, and the impact, potentially, on farmers. The Minister mentioned that it will be five years before commercial benefits can be felt—at least; we were hearing anywhere up to 11 years —so why the rush? Why push this through when we potentially could really impact our trade with Europe?
I do not wish to sound rude about it at all, because I respect the Minister hugely, and particularly the way she has stepped up this afternoon—excellent effort. Given that it sounds as if there is likely to be some movement in discussions on the GMO concordat, perhaps I could arrange a meeting with her, before Report, to discuss that further and get a clearer understanding of what is entailed within those discussions. I would appreciate that very much.
Deidre Brock
The Minister is nodding her head, so I assume that is acceptable. Given that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Labelling
“(1) A person must not—
(a) market a precision bred organism, or
(b) place food and feed produced from precision bred organisms on the market
unless labelled in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section.
(2) Regulations under this section must ensure that the labelling referred to in subsection (1) provides sufficient information to support informed consumer choice, having regard in particular to—
(a) nutritional content,
(b) the potential presence of allergens or other substances which may cause adverse human health impacts, and
(c) the environmental impact of the product.
(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult representatives of—
(i) consumers,
(ii) food producers,
(iii) suppliers,
(iv) retailers,
(v) growers and farmers,
(vi) the organic sector,
(vii) other persons likely to be affected by the regulations, and
(viii) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and
(b) seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency on the information to be required to be provided on labelling.
(4) Section 30 (Interpretation of Part 3) has effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of Part 3.” —(Daniel Zeichner.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the labelling of precision bred organisms and food and feed products made from them.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred animals—
“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny.
(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.
(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Daniel Zeichner
I have been referring to new clause 1 throughout the Bill’s passage through Committee. Labour has been clear that we regard labelling as an important part of this new regulatory framework, and it is sadly not really referenced in the Bill, although it is discussed and then dismissed in the impact statement.
The Bill will create a new type of food product on supermarket shelves: the precision bred organism. As I said earlier, it is clear that there is a trend towards consumers wanting more information about their food—what it contains, where it comes from and its environmental impact, which are all important. As I am sure the Minister now knows, and will be tired of hearing, Labour will buy, make and sell more in Britain. How could one do that without knowing how our food is made and where it comes from?
Our new clause 1 would require the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that precision bred food and feed is labelled to provide
“sufficient information to support informed consumer choice, having regard in particular to—
(a) nutritional content,
(b) the potential presence of allergens or other substances which may cause adverse human health impacts, and
(c) the environmental impact of the product.”
It would also require the Secretary of State to consult stakeholder groups before pursuing that and to seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency.
The Government have said time and again that they support nutritional labelling to inform consumers of any allergens or if the nutritional content of a food is changed from its natural state. They must put that in the legislation and make it a commitment in the Bill. We have also heard about the issues of co-existence with other production systems and supply chain tracing, and how the legislation might have an impact on the organic sector. It is important that it is properly consulted, so that whatever labelling regime the Government introduces, it allows for different types of food production to co-exist.
The only information the Government have divulged in writing regarding labelling is their opposition to it, in the impact assessment, based on the costs it could incur for businesses. However in the impact assessment they have not actually calculated the costs and benefits of labelling, so I am unsure how they came to that judgment. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Indeed, in that part of the impact assessment, around pages 40 and 41, it is interesting that, in paragraph 114, the Government notes that
“maintaining a labelling and tracing system could also have wider benefits, most notably, improved consumer confidence in food products potentially adding value across the food supply chain.”
Well, absolutely.
The impact assessment also states:
“Given uncertainties, as set out above, we have not monetised the estimated annual cost of a labelling and tracing system to business.”
That was identified by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which in its report—which, I have to say, categorised the Bill as “not fit for purpose”—stated:
“The traceability and labelling costs, the primary benefit for the preferred option and which differentiates the two regulatory options considered, is not quantified. As this is the main difference between the two regulatory options, the Department needs to provide some quantification of the scale of the potential impact from this change.”
I would be grateful if the Minister commented on what is, frankly, a pretty damning assessment. I appreciate that she is new to this area and that it may not be possible for her to do so today, but a written assurance that those serious issues will be addressed would be welcome at a later stage.
Further to that, in its written evidence to the Committee, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics noted that the Government’s present stance on labelling
“runs contrary to the findings of many public engagement initiatives that have broached this question... in this context, not labelling amounts to the withholding of information about consumer preferences”.
Katherine Fletcher
In the oral evidence sessions, we heard about not only the costs of implementation but the practical challenge with labelling precision bred organisms, which is that they are scientifically and practically indistinguishable from traditionally bred organisms—that is, the ones that we have, know and love day-to-day. I note that the hon. Gentleman has not touched on a mechanism for how that labelling could be executed. The only practical way that we could know for certain whether a crop, for example, was precision bred would be to insert exogenous DNA for the purpose of labelling, which clearly goes against the spirit of some of the other debates we have had.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady raises a series of interesting and important points. I do not disagree with what she has said, other than to say that I think it is possible—this came through in some of the evidence as well—to maintain traceability throughout the process if we are careful about how we do it, but we have to set up systems to do so. It is clear from the impact assessment that the Government have thought about this issue, and our view is that to maintain the necessary public confidence it is absolutely right for it to be considered carefully. As such, our new clause would put the structure in place for that discussion to happen. If the hon. Lady looks carefully at what the new clause actually says, she will see that.
I was about to make exactly the same point as the hon. Lady: we understand the challenges that labelling may pose. However, as was said in the impact assessment, the significant benefit it would bring in terms of public trust and supporting consumer choice may well be worth having. Our view is that the Government have not given sufficient thought to the matter nor evaluated it sufficiently, as is admitted in the impact assessment. Our new clause 1 would require them to undertake further consultation on labelling and then introduce an appropriate system.
Victoria Prentis
I know that labelling has been raised as a concern by Committee members and others, and I understand that the new clauses intend to provide information to consumers, so I will try to provide some reassurances on that point.
The Bill is based on the science, and the science tells us that precision bred organisms are equivalent to, and pose no greater risk than, their traditionally bred counterparts. We have received advice from independent scientific experts and heard from many witnesses who considered labelling to be unnecessary in the case of precision breeding. Dr Helen Ferrier of the NFU agreed that it would be “misleading” to consumers to require a compulsory label, as there is no scientific difference. Dr Richard Harrison said,
“I do not think there is any scientific rationale to have additional labelling criteria for gene-edited products, because they are fundamentally indistinguishable from nature.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 63, Q103.]
The Bill is consistent with the science, but also with the approach taken by many international partners around the world that have already legislated in this way. We do not think it is necessary to label based on the technology used.
Much of the proposed new clause is already covered by existing food legislation—in particular, regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. We know that there are exciting developments to improve the nutritional content of some food, but consumers will want to know of any nutritional or allergen composition that might affect them.
Regulations on the provision of food information to consumers already adequately cover nutritional and allergen labelling, and that does not change because the product is derived from a precision bred organism. We therefore do not think it is necessary to include additional provisions in the Bill. We will respond to the further information that the RPC requests in an enactment 1A, to be brought forwards towards the end of the Bill’s passage through Parliament.
Daniel Zeichner
I listened closely to the Minister and am wondering what an enactment 1A means and when it will happen.
Daniel Zeichner
I am not sure I am totally reassured by that. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to us at some point about how the Government are addressing those criticisms.
Daniel Zeichner
Yes. In a way, we are going round in circles. We entirely understand the scientific arguments, but the question is how we maintain consumer confidence. The Food Standards Agency’s work shows that the public want to know. We believe the public have a right to know, and the question is how that might be done. The most recent advice from the FSA, which I cited earlier, shows that it has been thinking hard about that and may be able to draw distinctions between different types of product coming on to the market. That suggests to me that there is the possibility to provide more consumer information.
I suspect there is a wider debate about labelling, because we want to ensure that the information that we offer to consumers is not so overloaded in so many different areas that it is hard to interpret. That is a legitimate debate, and I am sure we will pursue it. We think it is important that this option remains under consideration in the Bill, and for that reason I want to press new clause 1 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 is another of our attempts to make the introduction of the Bill’s provisions on animals contingent on DEFRA and the Government undertaking the work that we think they need to do before they are ready to bring forward serious and detailed proposals on this issue. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022—I suspect there are veterans of its passage here—enshrined the recognition of the sentience of animals into law and established an Animal Sentience Committee whose role is to consider
“whether, or to what extent, the government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
As I understand it, the Animal Sentience Committee is yet to be established. Perhaps the Minister can provide a timeline for that, because we cannot find any commencement information on it.
The 2022 Act was introduced as part of the Government’s action plan for animal welfare, which they made a lot of and said was the “first of a kind”. The Government made big promises and indicated that the Act was a defining piece of legislation to promote the health and welfare of animals. My question to the Minister is: why did the Government not wait for the Animal Sentience Committee to be established and have time to report on the Bill before introducing it? If they really wanted to recognise the sentience of animals, they would prioritise the committee’s establishment before pressing ahead with legislation that will have a real and significant impact.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister to respond, I should say that I sense there is some confusion among Members about new clause 10. The place to discuss new clause 10 was in the previous debate. The vote on it is at the end because the new clauses are taken in order. I will ask the proposer of new clause 10 whether she wished to move it at that stage. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith wants clarification, I am happy to give it to her.
Deidre Brock
I am a little confused, because new clause 10 was grouped with new clause 1 and I thought I would be speaking at the same time as the hon. Member for Cambridge. Forgive me.
The Chair
The debate on new clause 10 should have taken place when new clause 1 was moved. I read out “with which it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10”. The vote on it comes in the order of the new clauses.
Deidre Brock
Given the confusion, I will withdraw any suggestion of a vote.
The Chair
It is my job to keep order and try to make sure that hon. Members ask the Government what they want and make whatever points they want to make. When we come to vote on it, although it will not be completely orderly, if the hon. Lady wishes to make a small number of comments, I will allow it.
Victoria Prentis
The 2022 Act received Royal Assent in April, and work is now under way to establish the Animal Sentience Committee by the end of this year. Applications to the committee have now closed and we are proceeding with the next steps. We very much hope to have the committee up and running by the end of this year. Given that, as the hon. Gentleman said, it will be some years before precision bred animals are anticipated to be released or brought to market, delaying the provisions for 12 months from the date on which the Animal Sentience Committee is established is unnecessary. We fully expect the committee to be established much more than 12 months prior to the first precision bred animals being released or brought to market.
The Government were clear during the passage of the sentience legislation that we would not dictate the Animal Sentience Committee’s work plan. It will be for the committee, once established, to decide which policy decisions it wants to scrutinise, and its expert members will be best placed to know where they can add value to the animal welfare debate. It would be contrary to that important principle if this Bill was used to mandate the committee to produce a report before the provisions in the Bill can be commenced. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Daniel Zeichner
There is nothing in the new clause to mandate the Animal Sentience Committee to do anything; it would give the committee the opportunity to make a report, should it wish. I would be surprised if it did not wish to do so. The problem is the wider question of the framework of protections, which is clearly under discussion and under review in general. It is now quite a complicated web, and we want to make sure that the new element—the Animal Sentience Committee, which we strongly support—fits in an appropriate manner.
This goes back to the points we made at the start of the Bill Committee, when we questioned why the Government are so determined to include animals in this legislation at this stage when there are so many reasons not to, not least the Government’s own reasons, given that they say it will be some years before the process moves forward. It would be better to separate animals out; we stand by that point and the new clause is a further example of why that would be sensible. I hear what the Minister says, but we will have a vote on it anyway.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to consider the following:
New Clause 4—Accounts and audit—
“(1) The Authority must keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts and must prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts.
(2) The annual statement of accounts must comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, as to the information to be contained in the statement, the way in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(3) Not later than five months after the end of an accounting year, the Authority must send a copy of the statement of accounts for that year to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify and report on every statement of accounts received under subsection (3) above and must lay a copy of the statement and of the report before each House of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.
(6) In this section “accounting year” means the period beginning with the day when the Authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.”
New Clause 5—Reports to Secretary of State—
“(1) The Authority must prepare and send to the Secretary of State an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of the period of twelve months for which it is prepared.
(2) A report prepared under this section for any period must deal with the activities of the Authority in the period and the activities the Authority proposes to undertake in the succeeding period of twelve months.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every report received under this section.”
New clause 6—General functions of the Authority—
“(1) The Authority must—
(a) keep under review information about the use of genetic technology in plants and animals and any subsequent development of genetic technology and advise the Secretary of State about those matters,
(b) publicise the services provided to the public by the Authority or provided in pursuance of release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act,
(c) provide, to such extent as it considers appropriate, a code of practice, advice and information for persons to whom release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act apply
(d) maintain a statement of the general principles which it considers should be followed—
(i) in the carrying-on of activities governed by this Act, and
(ii) in the carrying-out of its functions in relation to such activities,
(e) promote, in relation to activities governed by this Act, compliance with—
(i) requirements imposed by or under this Act, and
(ii) the Authority’s code of practice
(f) perform such other functions as may be specified in regulations.
(2) The Authority may, if it thinks fit, charge a fee for any advice provided under subsection (1)(c).”
New Clause 7—Duties in relation to carrying out its functions—
“(1) The Authority must carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically.
(2) In carrying out its functions, the Authority must, so far as relevant, have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice (including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed).”
New Clause 8—Power to delegate and establish committees—
“(1) The Authority may delegate a function to a committee, to a member or to staff.
(2) The Authority may establish such committees or sub-committees as it thinks fit (whether to advise the Authority or to exercise a function delegated to it by the Authority).
(3) The members of the committees or sub-committees may include persons who are not members of the Authority.
(4) Subsection (1) has effect subject to any enactment requiring a decision to be taken by members of the Authority or by a committee consisting of members of the Authority.”
New Schedule 1—Genetic Technology Authority: Supplementary Provisions—
“Status and capacity
1 The Authority is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown; and its property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
2 The Authority has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge, except the power to borrow money.
Expenses
3 The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay the Authority out of money provided by Parliament such sums as he thinks fit towards its expenses.
Appointment of members
4 (1) All the members of the Authority (including the chairman and deputy chairman who must be appointed as such) must be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The following persons are disqualified for being appointed as chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority—
(a) any person who is, or has been, concerned with the creation, release or marketing of plant or animal organisms, gametes or embryos created using genetic technology, and
(b) any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving such creation, release or marketing, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.
(3) The Secretary of State must secure that at least one-third but fewer than half of the other members of the Authority fall within sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b), and that at least one member falls within each of paragraphs (a) and (b).
5 (1) A person (“P”) is disqualified for being appointed as chairman, deputy chairman, or as any other member of the Authority if—
(a) P is the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order,
(b) in the last five years P has been convicted in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man of an offence and has had a qualifying sentence passed on P.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), the date of conviction is to be taken to be the ordinary date on which the period allowed for making an appeal or application expires or, if an appeal or application is made, the date on which the appeal or application is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails by reason of its non-prosecution.
(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), the reference to a qualifying sentence is to a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than three months (whether suspended or not) without the option of a fine.
Tenure of office
6 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 7, a person holds and vacates office as a member of the Authority in accordance with the terms of the person’s appointment.
(2) A person may not be appointed as a member of the Authority for more than three years at a time.
(3) A member may at any time resign their office by giving notice to the Secretary of State.
(4) A person who ceases to be a member of the Authority is eligible for re-appointment (whether or not in the same capacity).
(5) A person holding office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority is to cease to hold that office if the person becomes disqualified for appointment to it.
(6) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member of the Authority—
(a) has been absent from meetings of the Authority for six consecutive months or longer without the permission of the Authority, or
(b) is unable or unfit to discharge the person's functions as chairman, deputy chairman or other member, the Secretary of State may remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member.
(7) The Secretary of State may suspend a member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority if it appears to him that one of the conditions in paragraph (6) is or may be satisfied in relation to the member.
7 (1) This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State decides to suspend a member under paragraph 6(7).
(2) The Secretary of State must give notice to the member of the decision and the suspension takes effect on receipt by the member of the notice.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) is treated as being received by the member—
(a) in a case where it is delivered in person or left at the member's proper address, at the time at which it is delivered or left;
(b) in a case where it is sent by post to the member at that address, on the third day after the day on which it was posted.
(4) The initial period of suspension must not exceed 6 months.
(5) The Secretary of State may review the member's suspension at any time.
(6) The Secretary of State must review the member's suspension if requested in writing by the member to do so, but need not carry out a review less than 3 months after the beginning of the initial period of suspension.
(7) Following a review the Secretary of State may—
(a) revoke the suspension, or
(b) suspend the member for another period of not more than 6 months from the expiry of the current period.
(8) The Secretary of State must revoke the suspension if at any time—
(a) the Secretary of State decides that neither of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 5(5) is satisfied, or
(b) the Secretary of State decides that either of those conditions is satisfied but does not remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority.
Disqualification of members of Authority for House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly
8 In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
“The Genetic Technology Authority”.
Remuneration and pensions of members
9 (1) The Authority may—
(a) pay to the chairman such remuneration, and
(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of the chairman or any other member such pensions, allowances, fees, expenses or gratuities, as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.
(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Authority otherwise than on the expiry of their term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Authority may make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
Staff
10 (1) The Authority may appoint such employees as it thinks fit, upon such terms and conditions as the Authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
(2) The Authority must secure that any employee whose function is, or whose functions include, the inspection of premises is of such character, and is so qualified by training and experience, as to be a suitable person to perform that function.
(3) The Authority must, as regards such of its employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.
(4) If an employee of the Authority—
(a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and
(b) becomes a member of the Authority, that employee may, if the Secretary of State so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if the employee’s service as a member of the Authority were service as employee of the Authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of the employee by virtue of paragraph 7 above.
Proceedings
11 (1) Subject to any provision of this Act, the Authority may regulate its own proceedings, and make such arrangements as it thinks appropriate for the discharge of its functions.
(2) The Authority may pay to the members of any committee or sub-committee such fees and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
12 (1) A member of the Authority who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a release notification or marketing authorisation under this Act shall, as soon as possible after the relevant circumstances have come to the member’s knowledge, disclose the nature of that interest to the Authority.
(2) Any disclosure under sub-paragraph (1) above must be recorded by the Authority.
(3) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be determined by the Authority under paragraph 9(1) above, the member must not participate after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision of the Authority with respect to the release notification or marketing authorisation, and if the member does so the deliberation or decision is of no effect.
13 The validity of any proceedings of the Authority, or of any committee or sub-committee, is not affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of a member.
Instruments
14 The fixing of the seal of the Authority must be authenticated by the signature of the chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority or some other member of the Authority authorised by the Authority to act for that purpose.
15 A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Authority, or to be signed on the Authority’s behalf, may be received in evidence and is deemed to be so executed or signed unless the contrary is proved.
Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner
16 The Authority is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner and accordingly, in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which lists the authorities subject to investigation under that Act), the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
“Genetic Technology Authority”.”
Daniel Zeichner
I am sure that hon. Members will be happy to know that the finishing line is in sight. However, I am afraid that between now and then there is actually what we think is an extremely important set of suggestions as to how the Bill could be strengthened, because these new clauses and new schedule would establish a genetic technology authority, whose purpose would be as per new clause 6.
Sharp-eyed members of the Committee may recognise the language used in our new clauses, because it is modelled on the legislation introduced to establish the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the body set up to oversee the use of gametes and embryos in fertility treatment and research. In practice, the new clauses consider many of the wider ethical questions that the topic of genetics throws up, and the practical application of the law based on their expert independent judgment. To some extent, this follows on from my previous comments about the broader landscape of how we regulate these issues.
Several of the stakeholders in this field have argued for, and/or alluded to in our evidence sessions, the establishment of a similar body for gene-editing technology. They include the Nuffield Centre on Bioethics, the Royal Society of Biology and the Royal Society.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has raised examples in its report of such ethical dilemmas that the Bill does not address. It says that
“we identified the need for further scrutiny and controls to ensure that animals are not bred in ways that diminish their inherent capacities to enjoy experiences that constitute a good life.”
It also says:
“The case for such a body has only strengthened over time, as a result of developments in breeding practices and the prospect of new breeding technologies such as genome editing. It would ensure that the welfare of founder animals”—
breeding stock—
“would be properly evaluated.”
The report concludes by saying:
“In the current governance architecture in England, there is no existing body with the appropriate powers and relationships to undertake this function”.
That is a really important point. There is no existing body with the appropriate powers and relationships.
Likewise, I was very struck by the evidence from Dr Madeleine Campbell of the British Veterinary Association. She said there needs to be
“an independent body, with suitable expertise to understand and interrogate both the basic science and the animal welfare science, and to understand and explain the ethics around that...it needs to be able to look both proactively and retrospectively at data about the health and welfare of animals…It would be an independent oversight body—in my mind’s eye, very analogous to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—that can take an independent look at the data and then make recommendations for policy changes in light of that data, as the science develops.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 102, Q164.]
She also made the point that the situation needs to be monitored over time, because sometimes things do not show up immediately, which is the way that the Bill is set up to analyse. As it stands, the Bill does not seem to make provision for that kind of long-term monitoring.
The editing of the DNA of living beings clearly raises many ethical and practical questions. Several have been discussed in this Bill Committee, ranging from intellectual property to animal welfare.
On intellectual property, the potential for the patenting of DNA has been raised. I found the evidence from Bill Angus, of Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd, very compelling. He said that he was
“worried about perhaps an agenda that this could be dominated by large multinationals, although one of the joys of wheat-breeding globally over the last 100-plus years has been the freedom to exchange germplasm. As soon as we start putting constraints on that, as soon as we start having people talking about ownership of genes and ownership of genetic material, or licensing genes that are already in the public domain, it starts to fill me with a great sense of foreboding.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 44, Q74.]
That is exactly the sort of issue a genetic technology authority could look at.
Mr Angus explained the current system for intellectual property with respect to conventionally bred plants, stating that
“company A produces a variety and he introduces a trait into that variety. In two years’ time, once that variety has been added to the UK national list, another breeder can use that trait. That is the freedom to operate. It is really important that this is sustained and that people are not locked out of new developments. What may happen—this is an area I feel quite uncomfortable with—is that we may start to see larger organisations move the goalposts in terms of trying to stop other breeders from using genetic resources that have been developed.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 46, Q77.]
This topic is not covered in the Bill at all. I hope that is because the status quo will be maintained. Will the Minister tell us that today and explain the safeguards in place?
The point serves to highlight the importance of careful deliberation. Based on the evidence I heard from the previous Minister and from DEFRA officials, I am not convinced the requisite time has gone into making the necessary preparations for the Bill. We understand why the Government have moved in haste, but it is for political reasons. That does not make for good legislation or environmental safety.
Labour are pro science and pro innovation. We really want to be able to capitalise on the potential benefits of gene editing here in the UK and see that investment directed here. We need a strong regulatory framework— stronger than what is provided in the Bill—and remain concerned that if we do not get this regulation, companies will decide not to set up their businesses here, to await others and consumers will be nervous. If that happens, far from speeding up the technology, the Bill would have the opposite effect. Doing it right matters; doing it quickly is not the same thing.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has also raised the cost to the system if consumer confidence is not achieved, saying:
“The Department presents the concerns that the public may have with gene edited products, as being driven by misinformation or worse...However, the IA should consider the relationship between public attitudes and public acceptance, with the former typically driving the latter. Consumer sentiment towards gene edited products has real cost implications, even if only as risk to the policy fully realising the benefits”.
I am grateful to organisations such as Beyond GM, who have taught me much about how these technologies are regulated elsewhere in the world, and have highlighted aspects we may learn from.
Australia takes a principles-based approach, with regulations taking into account societal and environmental benefits. In Argentina, gene edited products are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, based on the characteristics of the gene edited products and their potential risks to human health, animals and the environment, as compared to the risks presented by their conventional counterparts. There are other models around the world.
Establishing a proper regulatory body that can look at these issues of consumer confidence, proportionality, environmental safety and the implementation of the legislation could address these issues and make the new system better for everyone. It would be better for the researchers and businesses working in this area, as they can have confidence in the regulatory system and its public acceptance, better for consumers, who will have the confidence to consider buying precision bred products based on informed choices, and better for the country as a whole, with the benefits of the Bill being realised while any potential environmental issues and risks are safeguarded against.
New clause 3 would establish such a body. New clause 4 provides detail of the accounts and auditing of the authority. New clause 5 sets out the annual reporting requirements of the authority. New clause 6 sets out the functions of the authority, which I have already referred to. New clause 7 sets out that the authority must carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically. New clause 8 allows the authority to delegate its functions to a committee or member of staff, and new schedule 1 lays out supplementary administrative provisions for the establishment of the authority. This seems to us to be a sensible, proportionate approach that strengthens the Bill and I commend it to the Minister.
Victoria Prentis
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and let me give him an alternative solution. We have committed to consider wider regulatory reform of genetic technologies as part of our stepwise approach to developing a more proportionate governance framework in this area. This is a more appropriate context for discussions on an over-arching body, such as a genetic technologies authority, and it is consistent with a recommendation made by the Regulatory Horizons Council in its recent report.
The Bill has a narrower focus, and we know this is not in scope, but science is at the heart of the Bill, which is why I listened so carefully to the considered thoughts of the hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State is required to make decisions based on the advice of expert committees. We intend ACRE to advise the Secretary of State on whether he should confirm the status of a precision bred organism. That is the committee that advises on genetically modified organisms.
ACRE’s opinion formed the basis for our intervention in a pivotal European Court of Justice case in 2018 and for the consultation we held on the regulation of genetic technologies last year. More recently, it has published technical guidance on the distinction between a GMO and a precision bred organism, which is fundamental to this role. This is a complex and controversial area, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, and we can expect ACRE to be put under considerable scrutiny, rightly. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the committee operates to the highest standards of impartiality and has the expertise to deal with the task in hand.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his detailed considerations on this topic but establishing a new independent body is not necessary at this point and does not provide value for money when we have an established committee with a superb track record in this area. However, I acknowledge this is a topic that we are likely to come back to when we consider wider GM regulatory reform in the future.
With your leave, Mr Stringer, as I believe this is the last time I will speak in this Committee, may I do some thank yous, not least to you for coping with a new Minister halfway through the Bill proceedings and for keeping us in order?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), whose work on the Bill and generally in the Department, on climate change and adaptation in particular, I really value, as I do her personal friendship and help to me over the time she has spent in DEFRA. I very much hope she will be back.
I thank the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Edinburgh North and Leith for their constructive help with the Bill. I would be delighted to discuss the points that arise from our deliberations with them at any point.
Specifically, I thank Laila Sedgwick, Fiona White, Janet Talling, Lizzie Bates, all the Bill team and my private office, who managed to brief me on the Bill so effectively in the few hours we have had available. I also thank the Bill Committee, our Whip—in particular, of course—and, indeed, the Government Whips Office, who have shown extraordinary grit over the past 12 hours. I thank everyone for their work on the Bill.
The Chair
Thank you for those kind words, which were of course completely out of order. I call Daniel Zeichner.
Daniel Zeichner
Thank you, Mr Stringer, and I shall seek to be out of order in a similar way. Before I do so, I will address the points made by the Minister.
There is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee. Our view is that the Government are being far too deregulatory. We understand why they are doing what they are doing, but we think that they would achieve their objectives more effectively by setting out a stronger regulatory framework. That is probably a fundamental difference of political philosophy, not to be resolved at this point.
I noted with interest the Minister’s comments about possibly coming back to this issue of a wider authority if the Government have opportunity in time to look at the broader issue of genetic modification. I suggest that the better thing to do is to establish that wider body sooner rather than later, so that the overall framework can be established to give the kind of public and investor confidence that I believe is essential if we are to reap the benefits of the technology, while ensuring that the public have confidence that the environmental safeguards are in place.
I am disappointed, though not surprised, that the Minister has rejected our suggestion of a new body. One of the striking things about Parliament is that, often, when things are rejected, they reappear a bit further down the line. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that that would be the right thing to do. We will press for a vote on the new clause. I will not detain the Committee by having votes on the whole string of new clauses; we will make do with one on just new clause 3.
Briefly, however, I make my thanks to you, Mr Stringer, and your fellow Chairs. This has been a well-conducted discussion about a complicated set of issues. I have already expressed my commiserations to the previous Minister, who is not present today, and I congratulate the Minister who is, because it is a tough thing to be dropped into something like this at a very late stage.
I thank the Clerks in particular, Huw Yardley and Abi Samuels, who have done an amazing job in translating our sometimes half-formed ideas—perhaps they used CRISPR-Cas9 to edit them, although whether they managed to remove it again, I do not know. They have managed that with huge good humour and good will, often working rather late.
I thank my colleagues in my office, Rob Wakely and Milly Lynch, who do an amazing job. As Conservative Members may discover at some point in the future, it is quite tough being in opposition sometimes—not terribly well resourced—but I hope that we have done justice to a very complicated set of issues.
I thank colleagues across the Committee. Our debates have been constructive and positive. I particularly thank my hon. Friends and my Whip, and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The discussion has been carried out with good humour through difficult times. But I do want to go to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Just so that we are clear, new clauses 4 to 8 and new schedule 1 fall, because they are consequential provisions. Does the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith wish to press new clause 9 to a vote? We debated it with—
Deidre Brock
I said that I would not press new clause 9 but would have further discussions with the Minister. Thank you, Mr Stringer.
The Chair
New clause 9 is not moved. We now come to new clause 10, where I will allow the hon. Lady to say something if she wishes to do so.
Deidre Brock
That is much appreciated, Mr Stringer. I will be brief. I suspect that I have a very good idea of what the Minister would say, if she were to answer, because of her answers to the hon. Member for Cambridge, but I tabled new clause 10 because it would ensure that the sale of precision bred products came with appropriate labelling and traceability.
Having no requirement to label obstructs the enforcement of Scotland’s devolved powers to regulate produce and impedes our intention to align, wherever possible, with the EU. By not requiring labelling of GMO products for sale in England, the UK Government make it much harder to filter products for sale to markets such as Europe. The new clause would therefore ensure clear and visible labelling on the front of the packaging of food or feed from a precision bred animal or its progeny.
We have heard from witnesses that it is scientifically possible to tell precision bred organisms from traditionally bred ones. Nevertheless, it has to be remembered that that is not a unanimous view, across all scientists. I am of the view that transparency and consumer choice are really important and that we need to recognise that citizens are crucial stakeholders in the food system. As we have heard, a recent survey showed that 84% of the public consider it important that all GE products introduced for sale in the UK be labelled as such and 63% of people consider it very important. A mere 8% do not consider it important. The public have a right to know how their food is produced, even if the changes in GE foods that come down the line could have occurred in crops naturally.
It is my belief and that of the Scottish Government that labelling is vital. I will revisit this point on Report. I think it is incredibly important and I want it to be on the record, and then I will perhaps have further discussions with Labour colleagues.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Monday 31st October 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 31 October 2022 - large font accessible version - (31 Oct 2022)
20:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 37 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 280 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 136 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 141 / Noes: 275 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Accounts and audit—
“(1) The Authority must keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts and must prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts.
(2) The annual statement of accounts must comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, as to the information to be contained in the statement, the way in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(3) Not later than five months after the end of an accounting year, the Authority must send a copy of the statement of accounts for that year to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify and report on every statement of accounts received by him under subsection (3) above and must lay a copy of the statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.
(6) In this section “accounting year” means the period beginning with the day when the Authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.”
New clause 3—Reports to Secretary of State—
“(1) The Authority must prepare and send to the Secretary of State an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of the period of twelve months for which it is prepared.
(2) A report prepared under this section for any period must deal with the activities of the Authority in the period and the activities the Authority proposes to undertake in the succeeding period of twelve months.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every report received by him under this section.”
New clause 4—General functions of the Authority—
“(1) The Authority must—
(a) keep under review information about the use of genetic technology in plants and animals and any subsequent development of genetic technology and advise the Secretary of State about those matters,
(b) publicise the services provided to the public by the Authority or provided in pursuance of release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act,
(c) provide, to such extent as it considers appropriate, a code of practice, advice and information for persons to whom release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act apply,
(d) maintain a statement of the general principles which it considers should be followed—
(i) in the carrying-on of activities governed by this Act, and
(ii) in the carrying-out of its functions in relation to such activities,
(e) promote, in relation to activities governed by this Act, compliance with—
(i) requirements imposed by or under this Act, and
(ii) the Authority’s code of practice,
(f) perform such other functions as may be specified in regulations.
(2) The Authority may, if it thinks fit, charge a fee for any advice provided under subsection (1)(c).”
New clause 5—Duties in relation to carrying out its functions—
(1) The Authority must carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically.
(2) In carrying out its functions, the Authority must, so far as relevant, have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice (including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed).”
New clause 6—Power to delegate and establish committees—
“(1) The Authority may delegate a function to a committee, to a member or to staff.
(2) The Authority may establish such committees or sub-committees as it thinks fit (whether to advise the Authority or to exercise a function delegated to it by the Authority).
(3) The members of the committees or sub-committees may include persons who are not members of the Authority.
(4) Subsection (1) has effect subject to any enactment requiring a decision to be taken by members of the Authority or by a committee consisting of members of the Authority.”
New clause 7—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred organisms—
“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny.
(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.
(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult representatives of—
(i) consumers,
(ii) citizens and civil society,
(iii) food producers,
(iv) suppliers,
(v) retailers,
(vi) growers and farmers,
(vii) the organic sector,
(viii) other persons likely to be affected by the regulations, and
(ix) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and
(b) seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency on the information to be required to be provided on labelling.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the labelling of precision bred organisms and food and feed products made from them and to consult with named stakeholders before doing so.
New clause 8—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred animals—
“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny.
(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.
(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 9—Power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms—
“(1) Schedule 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 11 insert—
‘Marketing of precision bred organisms
11A The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any Act of the Scottish Parliament, or any subordinate legislation made under or by virtue of such an Act, relating to the marketing of—
(a) precision bred organisms, or
(b) food or feed produced from precision bred organisms.’.”
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out
“or a precision bred animal”.
This amendment removes animals from the scope of the Bill.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) But for the purposes of this Act an organism is not “precision bred” if any feature of its genome results from any technique or process which involves the insertion of exogenous genetic material, whether or not such material is subsequently removed.”
This amendment would exclude the use of exogenous genetic material in the creation of precision bred organisms.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) the organism has been developed for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes—
(i) producing food in a way that protects or enhances a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;
(ii) growing and managing plants or animals in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;
(iii) producing food in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;
(iv) protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals;
(v) conserving native animals or genetic resources relating to any such animal;
(vi) protecting or improving the health of plants;
(vii) reducing the use of pesticides and artificial fertiliser;
(viii) conserving plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant;
(ix) protecting or improving the quality of soil;
(x) supporting or improving human health and well-being;
(xi) supporting or improving the sustainable use of resources.”
This amendment would require that a precision bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit, if it is to be released into the environment.
Amendment 4, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
“(za) that the precision bred traits will not have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny,
(zb) that the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny are not likely to experience pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity,
(zc) that the precision bred traits will not facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that are crowded, stressful or otherwise likely to have an adverse effect on animal welfare,
(zd) that the objective of the precision bred traits could not reasonably have been achieved by means that do not involve modification of the genome of the animal.”
The amendment requires a range of factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a precision bred animal marketing authorisation.
Amendment 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
“(za) that the scientific evidence does not indicate that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny, and if so”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from issuing a precision bred animal marketing authorisation if the scientific evidence indicated that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny.
Amendment 6, in clause 26, page 16, line 29, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to regulate the placing on the market in England of food and feed produced from precision bred organisms.
Amendment 7, page 16, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the marketing of food or feed produced from a precision bred organism on the market in England except in accordance with a marketing authorisation, and imposing requirements for the purpose of securing traceability.
Amendment 8, page 16, line 36, after “traceability”, insert “through supply chain auditing”.
This amendment makes supply chain auditing the method of securing traceability in relation to food or feed produced from precision bred organisms that is placed on the market in England.
Amendment 9, page 17, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment requires the prescribing of requirements that must be satisfied in order for the Secretary of State to issue a food and feed marketing authorisation in relation to a precision bred organism.
Amendment 10, page 17, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment prescribes which requirements must be satisfied in order for the Secretary of State to issue a food and feed marketing authorisation in relation to a precision bred organism.
Amendment 5, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under this Act unless—
(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before Parliament under section 18(6) of the Environment Act 2021, and
(b) section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 is in force.
(8) Regulations under this Act must be made in accordance with—
(a) the environmental principles set out in section 17(5) of the Environment Act 2021, and
(b) Article 391 (Non-regression from levels of protection) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, done at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”
This amendment would prevent the exercise of any powers granted by the Bill until the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.
Amendment 13, in clause 48, page 30, line 20, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations may not be made under or by virtue of this section unless a common framework agreement relating to the release and marketing of, and risk assessments relating to, precision bred plants and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals, has been agreed between a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.
(5B) “Common framework agreement” has the meaning given by section 10(4) of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.”
This amendment would prevent the operative parts of this Bill coming into force until a common framework agreement on the regulation of precision breeding had been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
New schedule 1—The Authority: Supplementary Provisions—
“Status and capacity
1 The Authority is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown; and its property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
2 The Authority has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge, except the power to borrow money.
Expenses
3 The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay the Authority out of money provided by Parliament such sums as he thinks fit towards its expenses.
Appointment of members
4 (1) All the members of the Authority (including the chairman and deputy chairman who are to be appointed as such) are to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The following persons are disqualified for being appointed as chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority—
(a) any person who is, or has been, concerned with the creation, release or marketing of plant or animal organisms, gametes or embryos created using genetic technology, and
(b) any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving such creation, release or marketing, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.
(3) The Secretary of State must secure that at least one-third but fewer than half of the other members of the Authority fall within sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b), and that at least one member falls within each of paragraphs (a) and (b).
5 (1) A person (“P”) is disqualified for being appointed as chairman, deputy chairman, or as any other member of the Authority if—
(a) P is the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order,
(b) in the last five years P has been convicted in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man of an offence and has had a qualifying sentence passed on P.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), the date of conviction is to be taken to be the ordinary date on which the period allowed for making an appeal or application expires or, if an appeal or application is made, the date on which the appeal or application is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails by reason of its non-prosecution.
(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), the reference to a qualifying sentence is to a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than three months (whether suspended or not) without the option of a fine.
Tenure of office
6 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 7, a person holds and vacates office as a member of the Authority in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2) A person may not be appointed as a member of the Authority for more than three years at a time.
(3) A member may at any time resign his office by giving notice to the Secretary of State.
(4) A person who ceases to be a member of the Authority is eligible for re-appointment (whether or not in the same capacity).
(5) A person holding office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority is to cease to hold that office if the person becomes disqualified for appointment to it.
(6) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member of the Authority—
(a) has been absent from meetings of the Authority for six consecutive months or longer without the permission of the Authority, or
(b) is unable or unfit to discharge the person's functions as chairman, deputy chairman or other member,
the Secretary of State may remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member.
(7) The Secretary of State may suspend a member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority if it appears to him that one of the conditions in paragraph (6) is or may be satisfied in relation to the member.
7 (1) This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State decides to suspend a member under paragraph 6(7).
(2) The Secretary of State must give notice to the member of the decision and the suspension takes effect on receipt by the member of the notice.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) is treated as being received by the member—
(a) in a case where it is delivered in person or left at the member's proper address, at the time at which it is delivered or left;
(b) in a case where it is sent by post to the member at that address, on the third day after the day on which it was posted.
(4) The initial period of suspension must not exceed 6 months.
(5) The Secretary of State may review the member's suspension at any time.
(6) The Secretary of State must review the member's suspension if requested in writing by the member to do so, but need not carry out a review less than 3 months after the beginning of the initial period of suspension.
(7) Following a review the Secretary of State may—
(a) revoke the suspension, or
(b) suspend the member for another period of not more than 6 months from the expiry of the current period.
(8) The Secretary of State must revoke the suspension if at any time—
(a) he decides that neither of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 5(5) is satisfied, or
(b) he decides that either of those conditions is satisfied but does not remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority.
Disqualification of members of Authority for House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly
8 In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
“The Genetic Technology Authority”.
Remuneration and pensions of members
9 (1) The Authority may—
(a) pay to the chairman such remuneration, and
(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of the chairman or any other member such pensions, allowances, fees, expenses or gratuities,
as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.
(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Authority otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for him to receive compensation, the Authority may make to him a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
Staff
10 (1) The Authority may appoint such employees as it thinks fit, upon such terms and conditions as the Authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
(2) The Authority must secure that any employee whose function is, or whose functions include, the inspection of premises is of such character, and is so qualified by training and experience, as to be a suitable person to perform that function.
(3) The Authority must, as regards such of its employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.
(4) If an employee of the Authority—
(a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and
(b) becomes a member of the Authority,
he may, if the Secretary of State so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if his service as a member of the Authority were service as employee of the Authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 7 above.
Proceedings
11 (1) Subject to any provision of this Act, the Authority may regulate its own proceedings, and make such arrangements as it thinks appropriate for the discharge of its functions.
(2) The Authority may pay to the members of any committee or sub-committee such fees and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
12 (1) A member of the Authority who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a release notification or marketing authorisation under this Act must, as soon as possible after the relevant circumstances have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest to the Authority.
(2) Any disclosure under sub-paragraph (1) above must be recorded by the Authority.
(3) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be determined by the Authority under paragraph 9(1) above, the member must not participate after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision of the Authority with respect to the release notification or marketing authorisation, and if he does so the deliberation or decision is of no effect.
13 The validity of any proceedings of the Authority, or of any committee or sub-committee, is not affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of a member.
Instruments
14 The fixing of the seal of the Authority must be authenticated by the signature of the chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority or some other member of the Authority authorised by the Authority to act for that purpose.
15 A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Authority, or to be signed on the Authority’s behalf, may be received in evidence and is deemed to be so executed or signed unless the contrary is proved.
Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner
16 The Authority is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner and accordingly, in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which lists the authorities subject to investigation under that Act), the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
“Genetic Technology Authority”.”
Amendment 2, in title, line 2, leave out
“and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals”
and insert
“, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants”.
This amendment, which is contingent on Amendment 1, would change the long title to reflect the removal of animals from the scope of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
This Bill is now on its third Secretary of State, and I think the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), is the fourth Minister to speak to it.
I welcome back the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who took the Environment Act 2021 through Committee. She will be delighted to know that I will never cease to remind her that the Government’s 25-year environment plan was supposed to be for 25 years, not to take 25 years.
On Friday, we once again saw why the Conservatives cannot be trusted on the environment. They are breaking their own law by failing to come up with critical air, water and biodiversity targets on time. On the same day, the Prime Minister gave up on the UK’s leadership role on climate change by ducking COP27.
When the Government bring forward such a vague, thin Bill, asking the country to trust them to get the secondary legislation right, they can hardly be surprised that people are sceptical, and we are. Their failure fails Britain, and we all deserve better. This is an important Bill that, with the right regulatory safeguards, will reassure the public and provide the right environment for the research and investment we all want to see. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that good regulation is the key to both innovation and investor confidence.
This Bill concerns our food. After 12 years of Conservative government, people are fighting to keep their head above water against the rising tide of inflation, which is even higher for essentials such as food. It is no exaggeration to say that people are at breaking point, and the fears for this winter are very real. Despite the possible gains that science and innovation might bring, this Bill does not bring urgent relief to families across the country, but it is an important step in enabling scientific advancements with the potential to deliver huge benefits by helping us to produce our food more efficiently and sustainably.
Labour Members are enthusiasts for science and innovation, which can help to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, safety and security of our food system, while addressing the environmental, health, economic and social harms that the modern system has unfortunately caused. These are the challenges that Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set out to tackle, but the Government have, of course, completely failed to engage with it seriously.
However, alongside the challenges, there are opportunities. The UK has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others would follow. Even though they rejected them in Committee, there is still time for the Government to accept the improvements that we and many stakeholders believe are necessary to achieve that goal.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive, pro-science approach that he is taking—it is not surprising, given the constituency he represents. Do we not also need to learn from the experience of the vaccine taskforce, which demonstrated how we can achieve results at pace without in any way infringing on safety and while still applying proper regulation? Is that not the challenge for the Government tonight?
Daniel Zeichner
My right hon. Friend, as always, speaks good sense. He is absolutely right; with focus and a proper attempt to meet the challenges we face, it is remarkable what can be done. But this needs leadership and, as ever, it is missing.
Let me turn in detail to the public interest test and our amendment 3. The potential benefits of gene edited crops include creating plants resistant to extreme weather conditions and diseases, which could reduce the need for pesticides and create higher yields to address rising food insecurity driven by climate change and other factors. Genetic editing could also be used to improve the nutritional quality of food. For example, giving farmers the tools to beat virus yellows without recourse to neonicotinoids is a prize worth having.
However, we must recognise that any new technology also carries risks: risks of unintended consequences; risks of technology being misused; and risks of commercial pressure being exerted in ways that might not be for the benefit of the wider public. Those are all risks that must be properly recognised and addressed, because unless public and investor confidence is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be squandered. Unfortunately, the Government’s blind faith in the market means this is a laissez-faire, minimalist Bill, which does not come close to an effective regulatory framework to guide and oversee the work of researchers and developers.
Amendment 3 would therefore require that a gene edited organism has been developed to provide one or more of the public benefit purposes listed, if it is to be released into the environment. The amendment neatly recycles much of the wording in section 1 of the Government’s own Agriculture Act 2020, which lists the public goods that can be funded. We are simply applying the same approach to the development and use of gene editing technologies. We believe they should be used only where that is clearly in the public interest, including, for instance, in protecting a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment; mitigating climate change; improving the health or welfare of animals or plants; and supporting human health and wellbeing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
During the Bill Committee, we heard that one of the potential benefits of these innovations was a possible reduction in the overuse of antibiotics on farms, because we would be able to breed things that are more resistant to disease. Although I welcome that, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the comments on antibiotics made by the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), when she was briefly Health Secretary? Is he concerned about her seemingly relaxed attitude towards these entering the food chain and the impact on public health?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right; people should not be careless about antibiotics and that was not an approach to be encouraged at all. I share her concerns.
Amendment 3 would strengthen the Bill by harnessing the good that can be created through such technologies and ensuring that they are not developed and used for purposes that would not deliver beneficial outcomes—surely that is an objective we can agree on across the House. We believe that would take the Bill much further forward in establishing the kind of regulatory framework that really would place the UK in a leading position. That sits alongside our new clauses, which would establish a single, robustly independent regulator, along the lines of the very successful and genuinely world-leading Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. That regulator does not just approve an application, but tracks, traces and checks over time. That is an important and very different approach, and one discussed in Committee by expert witnesses.
Our new clauses would ensure that Ministers’ decisions on gene editing are properly guided by the environmental principles set out under the Environment Act 2021, and that there is no regression from the environmental standards agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, which is pretty important when it comes to trade issues. Our new clauses would build an environment in which the UK really could attract the worldwide talent and investment in gene editing research and development that we all want to see.
On animal health and welfare, I turn to our amendment 4, which I am delighted to see has been endorsed by Compassion in World Farming and 12 other animal protection organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. The amendment would require a range of animal health and welfare factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a marketing authorisation for a gene edited animal. We appreciate that gene editing can be used in the same way as “traditional” selective breeding to produce fast growth, high yields and large litters, which, sadly, we also know are capable of causing suffering in farmed animals.
Clearly, we have existing legislation to protect animal health and welfare, but the concern is that we should be very clear at the outset that we do not want to see gene editing used in ways that make it more possible for animals to endure harm and suffering. As the Nuffield Council on Bioethics put it,
“animals should not be bred merely to enable them to endure conditions of poor welfare more easily or in a way that would diminish their inherent capacities to live a good life.”
Some researchers aim to use gene editing to improve disease resistance in livestock. Of course, that could be hugely beneficial and could help to reduce the serious harm caused by the overuse of antibiotics, for instance. It would be hugely beneficial if we could find ways to tackle porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs or avian flu. But the public would not want to see gene editing used to allow animals to be kept in poorer, more crowded, stressful conditions by making them resistant to the diseases that would otherwise result.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When it comes to this genetic technology, the farmers I represent are keen to see this happening in a way that does not harm their animals. They are not out to harm them; they want to protect them. I know that the Minister understands that, as my local farmers and I do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the farmers do not want to see anything happening that will harm the animals?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but of course there are always economic pressures and this is about making sure we guard against those. The Minister will be familiar with the chlorine-washed chicken debate, where lower welfare standards are disguised and the Government are always at pains to assure us, “We’re not going to tolerate that.” So they must not allow new scientific developments to be the tech equivalent; there must be no backsliding.
Referring to the power of gene editing to reduce the risk of disease, Nuffield’s 2016 ethical review of genome editing highlighted the problem. It said:
“If this risk were reduced or removed altogether then it might be easier to pack more animals together in crowded spaces.”
That is the concern, so let us guard against it. We believe we can create a regime that can do much better than that, but it requires this Bill to be strengthened to make it happen.
On transparency and labelling, the research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that although consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from genetically modified foods, they overwhelmingly want effective regulation of gene edited products, with transparent information and clear labelling.
The Government are trying to gloss over the issues by inventing the entirely non-scientific term “precision breeding”. I could speak at length about this term; I will not, but there is much dispute about it. It is a term without clear scientific meaning. Frankly, it has been invented by the Government for their convenience and is a misnomer. Telling us in a rather paternalistic tone that we need not worry because there is no difference between gene edited or traditionally bred crops and livestock does not convince. There is a risk that, as worded, the Bill will allow trans-genetic transfer—effectively, GM through the back door. I know the Government deny and dispute that, and we had a lengthy discussion about it in Committee, but I and many others remain unconvinced.
Leaving that matter aside, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want, and to be able to know, how their food has been produced. Clear labelling is the way to deal with another potentially difficult issue: the legitimately held views of different Administrations in the UK. It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way in which the issue has been handled so far. I suggest that the Government tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.
Labour is also concerned at the number of key elements of the Bill left to secondary legislation, with little or no opportunity for scrutiny or amendment. The Government must spell out the detail to boost confidence for businesses and consumers. The organic sector and those developing cultivated meat have expressed concerns over the lack of clarity in the Bill, which once again risks driving investment and research elsewhere.
It should not be forgotten that the Regulatory Policy Committee made a damning impact assessment of the Bill, giving it a red rating because it failed to take into account the impact of creating a new class of genetically modified organism; failed to assess the impact on businesses, especially SMEs; failed to acknowledge and assess competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts; and failed to address the impacts arising from removing labelling and traceability requirements. I hope the Minister will address those points.
In addition to that list of failures, the Bill fails to address the trade implications of the misalignment in regulation of genetically engineered organisms between the UK’s devolved nations and with our EU neighbours. That could have a significant impact on many food businesses that are struggling to rebuild trade with EU countries despite all the self-inflicted red tape, added costs and barriers that the Government have created.
John Spellar
Is not the EU in a slightly difficult position because of a perverse judgment from the European Court of Justice against the views of many EU nations, which would have taken the same rational position as my hon. Friend on gene editing? If we take the lead on this issue and do not wrap ourselves up in endless judicial review and litigation, could we not work with our European neighbours and partners to bring an advance not only in this country, but across Europe?
Daniel Zeichner
My right hon. Friend speaks good sense once again. Of course, that quite legalistic judgment was met with surprise by many. The question is how we go forward. Others in Europe are going forward as well. I suspect that we will end up in similar places at similar times, but it would be sensible to end up in a much more similar place than looks likely if we pursue the Bill as it has been developed so far. The worry is the effects that the changes are already having on sectors such as the organic sector, which used to have exports to the EU worth some £45 million a year, according to Organic Farmers and Growers, which rightly remains concerned about the Bill as it stands.
Much more could be said on a topic that is as fascinating as it is interesting and important, but I will spare the House and direct those Members who are interested to look at the detailed discussion in Committee. Tonight I will end where I started and restate Labour’s commitment: we are pro science and pro innovation. We are in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. Science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon, but to achieve that—to give investors, researchers and the general public confidence—we need a much stronger regulatory framework.
At the moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is simply to leave it to the market. They think that minimalist regulation is the way forward, whereas we say that good regulation is the way forward—a fundamental divide in this Chamber. I would simply say that, given the evidence from the fundamentalist deregulatory experiment carried out on our country over the last few weeks, one hopes that those on the Treasury Bench might just have learned something.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
I will address new clause 1 directly. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, “We are very pro science and pro this technology,” and then spent the next 15 minutes explaining why he was not in favour of this technology, so I will address some of his comments.
The objective of the Bill is to achieve proportionate regulation of precision breeding organisms, which are currently regulated as genetically modified organisms. Science is at the heart of this policy, and the Bill rightly requires the Secretary of State to make decisions based on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—which advises on the regulation of genetically modified organisms.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
There is concern among the cultured meat industry, which is unsure about the impact of the Bill on its research and trade. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to show our support for this important new technology, which the UK is currently at the forefront of developing?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are many new technologies out there that we want to embrace and give the opportunity to come forward, albeit in a regulated format so that we can have confidence in our food systems, and that is the exact process that the Bill seeks to correct.
We do not label food products that have been produced through traditional techniques such as chemical mutagenesis, and we do not label foods as “novel” because precision bred products are indistinguishable from their traditionally bred counterparts. It would not be appropriate to require labelling to indicate the use of precision breeding in the production of food or feed. That view is shared internationally; many of our partners across the world, such as Canada, the US and Japan, do not require labelling for precision bred products.
The Food Standards Agency is developing a new authorisation process to ensure that any food or feed product will only go on sale if it is judged to present no risk to health, does not mislead consumers, and does not have lower nutritional value than its traditionally bred counterparts. In order to ensure transparency, the Bill enables regulations to make a public register through which information about precision bred food and feed products can be assessed by consumers.
I do not know whether it is appropriate to speak to other amendments now, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is up to you, but you will have an opportunity to speak again at the end of the debate.
Mark Spencer
I think I will leave it there and speak to other amendments at the end of the debate.
Mark Spencer
Before I sit down, I will of course take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for giving me the chance to intervene. I am very conscious that because of the status of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, Northern Ireland is currently under EU rules in this area. That means that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which my party and many farmers across Northern Ireland would like to see in place, will not apply to Northern Ireland. Will the Minister assure me that it is the intention of the Government to ensure that every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the same opportunities? We want those opportunities in Northern Ireland as well.
Mark Spencer
The last thing I want is to see farmers in Northern Ireland disadvantaged. There will be a huge advantage to English farmers over other parts of the United Kingdom, so we want to share this technology. There are parts of the United Kingdom, outside of England, particularly with James Hutton in Scotland and the Roslin Institute at Edinburgh University, where we are world leading in this technology. We have some of the best scientists in the world who genuinely lead this field and we want to share that technology across the United Kingdom and to see it embraced and celebrated.
David Duguid
A UK-wide approach would be preferred by food producers and farmers right across the country. Can the Minister confirm that the invitation is still open to the devolved Administrations, such as the Scottish Government, to help progress this technology on a UK-wide basis?
Mark Spencer
Of course it is. I encourage those devolved Administrations to get on board and to support this new tech. They should embrace it and give their farmers the same advantage that we will hopefully achieve in the world marketplace.
Mark Spencer
I keep saying that I will take a final intervention—the Whips will start to get upset with me, but I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention none the less.
John Spellar
I was hoping the Minister would expand on some other areas, but can he respond to my point about how the vaccine taskforce has shown that science and proper regulation can work at pace for the benefit of our people? Moreover, will he address the question of what protection the Government will give to institutions engaged in this area, whose facilities may be targeted for vandalism by those who are anti-science?
Mark Spencer
I can address many of those points when I sum up the debate, but I am interested to hear other comments from Members around the Chamber before I do so. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the sector already has some robust regulatory bodies, and we want to give them the power to regulate and oversee this technology. What we do not want to do is bind the hands of those bodies so that, in 20 years’ time, we have to re-legislate for another similar structure. We will have a robust regime in place, albeit heavily regulated, that allows the flexibility for this technology to go in directions that we cannot foresee at this moment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I look forward to further comments from colleagues and to responding to them later in the debate.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We are concerned about the disadvantageous position that the Bill will likely put farmers in and about the knock-on impact on farmers in Scotland, despite the fact that the Scottish Government are not yet at the stage to approve the technology in Scotland.
The regulation of genetically modified organisms is a devolved matter. There is no question about that, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments have made that clear in their responses. The Scottish Government have been clear in their opposition to the UK Government’s moves on this. We do not presently intend to amend the GMO regulatory regime in Scotland, as we want to await the outcome of the EU’s consultation on whether some gene-edited organisms will be excluded from the GM definition.
According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, we are already suffering a 4% reduction in GDP due to this hard Tory Brexit. We do not need to see the introduction of further trade barriers caused by the UK’s rush to make this change. A delay to see the outcome of the consultation early next year would be far more sensible than passing the legislation now. This is relevant because of the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which tramples over devolved competencies, and prevents the Scottish Parliament from refusing the sale of these products.
I wish to speak to new clause 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), which ensures that the democratic principle of devolution is upheld and that the Scottish Parliament still has the authority to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms. We have raised concern after concern about the implementation of the 2020 Act. If the UK Government intend to respect devolution, which the people of Scotland voted for, they must ensure that the Scottish Parliament can continue to take those decisions.
There are both animal welfare and environmental concerns relating to precision breeding. We must ensure that those are properly considered and that all information and evidence is available before taking any decision. We strongly welcome more research into gene editing and new genetic technologies, but that must precede the wide-scale deployment of such technologies.
The Scottish Government want to ensure that Scotland operates to the highest environmental and animal welfare standards, so that our world-class Scottish grown food continues to be outstanding. The impact assessment of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the precision breeding Bill acknowledges divergence from the EU approach, which could have implications for compliance costs and future trade. We must be able to export our produce and the Bill risks our farmers being further hamstrung—in addition to all the hardships they already face as a result of this Tory Brexit.
David Duguid
The hon. Member will be aware of the expression of disappointment from Martin Kennedy, president of NFU Scotland, that the Scottish Government have not become more involved in a UK-wide approach to this matter. None the less, she is absolutely right to say that this is a devolved competency. Does she agree that the UK Government have done nothing but be positive in terms of inviting the Scottish Government to be as involved in this matter as they possibly can be?
Kirsty Blackman
I cannot answer a question about the conversations that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have had on this matter, because I am not aware of exactly how those conversations have gone. What I am concerned about is the significant amount of produce that we export to the EU and the fact that the Bill poses a risk, for example, to the export of Scottish salmon. That is because the Scottish Government will lose some of their competency over this due to the internal market Bill and to the way that this framework is laid out.
Should amendment 1 from the Green party be pushed to a vote, the SNP will support it. The paucity of evidence is particularly acute in relation to animals. The Bill also risks violating the intention and application of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, passed for England and Wales earlier this year. The RSPCA has highlighted the fact that the public would not and do not support that.
New clause 8 relates to the labelling of food or feed produced by precision-bred animals. Eighty four per cent of people polled consider it important that all GE products introduced for sale in the UK are labelled as such, and only 8% do not consider that to be important. We are disappointed, therefore, that the UK Government no longer plan to consider requiring labelling for these products, despite the Minister saying in January 2022 that they would look at the matter. This will have a double impact in Scotland, because, even though the Scottish Parliament does not currently permit the marketing of these products, consumers will not be able to make an informed choice due to the lack of labelling requirements.
Mr Deputy Speaker, now is not the time for this Bill to pass. The UK Government have failed to make the case for “why now?” and have failed to ensure that the devolved competencies of the Scottish Parliament are respected as they seek to push through this legislation.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
As the former Secretary of State who introduced this Bill on Second Reading, I rise to express a little sympathy for amendment 4—not so much sympathy that I would vote for it if it went to a Division tonight. Nevertheless, I believe that it highlights some important issues that are worthy of further consideration.
First, amendment 1 proposes removing animals altogether from the scope of the Bill. Undoubtedly, using gene editing on animals raises complex ethical issues, along with the animal welfare dimension, and it was during such discussion when the Bill was being drafted that I considered excluding animals from the Bill. However, I want to explain to the House why, after reflection, I decided that we should include them.
First, from my experience in government and, indeed, in this place, there is always a tendency to put off things that are difficult or complex and to kick the can down the road, but the right thing to do is to grapple with these complex matters and chart a course through them. Secondly, when considering some of the issues that we might be able to address through precision breeding, it became clear to me that, if this technology was used properly, we could actually enhance animal welfare in certain areas. When I first became a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Beak Trimming Action Group set up by the last Labour Government was concluding its work. Beak trimming, using infrared beak tipping on day-old chicks, is required particularly for free-range systems, because otherwise there may be injurious pecking of laying hens. Through that work, we concluded that, while there were things we could do such as paying special regard to the feeding regime, it was against the welfare of those birds not to carry on the beak trimming.
Kerry McCarthy
I am very pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, as I have spent quite a lot of time trying to convince people that that does happen to day-old chicks. Is it not the case that some other European countries have introduced legislation on that point, so it is not necessarily linked to genetic technology? I think they have acted to prevent so many chicks being killed.
George Eustice
What a number of countries have done—the UK was in the vanguard of this—was to move away from maceration of day-old chicks towards the use of carbon dioxide and argon gas as a means of dispatching them. However, I think we could accelerate the process of identifying the eggs through the use of genetic technology.
Dehorning cattle is another mutilation that we would like to phase out over time. Progress has been made for some breeds on polled cattle—that is, cattle born without horns, so that we do not have to use a hot iron, albeit under anaesthetic, to de-bud them. Again, it is difficult to perfect without precision breeding techniques, but if we had that technology, we could have more polled cattle and reduce the need for conventional dehorning of cattle, or even pave the way for a regulatory change to prevent it.
There is also the prospect of breeding more resistance to diseases. In the dairy herd some selection is already done for natural resistance to bovine tuberculosis. It is limited in its ability, but if we had the technology, we might be able to go further.
At the moment, the Government plan to phase out and remove badger culling is predicated on a lot of confidence that a cattle vaccine will be viable and deployable, but it would be helpful to have additional tools in the box, and resistance to TB could be one of them. Of course, we are about to face another very difficult winter when it comes to avian flu, and this technology might have some application there.
However, my sense when I read amendment 4 was that whoever drafted it had had one sector in particular in mind—the broiler chicken sector. There is a genuine concern that the production speed of broiler chickens, reduced now to around 32 to 33 days, is so fast that they are having all sorts of leg problems, and we might be able to make some changes there. That is a legitimate point, because while we might say it has improved the welfare of a broiler chicken that it is bred to finish within 32 days, we might say it is in its welfare interest to ensure that it does not have leg problems. There is a second question, which is whether it is the ethical and right thing to do to produce a chicken within 32 days rather than, say, 37 days, in which case the welfare problem goes away.
A less obvious and less talked-about situation might be commercial duck production. We know that ducks need and want open water—it is part of their physiology and the way their beaks work. However, many commercial duck producers do not give ducks access to water. I have come across vets who will argue that it is in the interest of ducks not to have access to water, since that can spread disease and that is not in their welfare interest, but that goes to the root of the issue with animal welfare. We can either see animal welfare in the conventional five freedoms sense—freedom from pain, hunger, thirst and so on—or we can see it in the more modern sense of a life worth living.
The amendment does not work, because the more we put into an amendment the more we inadvertently exclude. If we accepted an amendment that proscribed certain things but missed certain things, at a future date a breeder might bring a judicial review and say, “Well, this wasn’t covered by the Bill and everything else was.” Therefore, we would not be future-proofing the importance of animal welfare.
However, that is where guidance could work. After Second Reading of the Bill, I asked our officials to give some thought to the idea of guidance, which might give organisations such as Compassion in World Farming and people such as Peter Stevenson, who is very thoughtful on these matters, the reassurance they need in the absence of a legislative change on the face of the Bill, which is difficult to do. The Minister may find that there is some guidance helpfully drafted—or it may be that it was not drafted, but it is not too late, because the Bill has time in the other House.
Will the Minister consider whether this issue of how the animal welfare body should approach its task and how it should assess the impacts on animal welfare could be dealt with in a non-statutory way through guidance. He and his officials will have to issue terms of reference anyway to the animal welfare body, which is likely to be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, and it would not take much to set out some parameters for the things we want it to bear in mind when making assessments.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will not speak for too long, but I want to address a couple of the amendments and some of the issues affecting the Bill overall.
I will start by being extremely critical of the European Commission—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Indeed. Most of us in this House think that science is broadly a good thing, or certainly at least neutral; it is a case of what we do with it. One of the things that has irritated me most about part of the Commission over a 20 or 30-year period is its knee-jerk objection to science in this area and the idea that there can be a moratorium not just on the application of knowledge, which is an issue, but on the very knowledge and research in the first place. That troubles me greatly. We should weigh all issues up and make wise, evidence-based decisions.
On the one hand, I welcome the Bill and I certainly welcome and support science-based approaches to technologies such as genetic modification and what the Government refer to as precision breeding. They have the potential to deliver a major improvement in productivity and on the environmental front, reducing the impact of farming. Genetic modification can have a positive impact by allowing us to address pest and disease pressures on crops and farm animals, and so reduce our reliance on fertilisers and pesticides; that helps more broadly in the fight against climate change. Genetic modification also provides opportunities for us to meet global need, including the food requirements of the global poor. However, there are problems with the Bill, and reasons why I would support the Government being more open to amendments from the other place, and especially to amendments 3 and 4 tonight.
Let me mention some areas in which the Bill is weak. It does not solve the intellectual property and commercial issues surrounding genetic modification technology. If we allowed science to be better used in farming, for the reasons we have set out relating to the environment and the quality and scale of production, but ended up making farmers, particularly tenant farmers, entirely beholden to the commercial interests of large, multinational agribusinesses, that would be an outrage. That is not what farmers in this country want; they want science applied, and they want freedom. They do not want to be pawns in a multinational game. That major area of concern is not addressed in the Bill.
The Bill is also light on the details of the new regulatory requirements for crops and animals. I accept that animals should be in the scope of the Bill, but we are transitioning from a very high regulation system to a relatively low regulation system. The lack of detail on how the new system will work makes it hard to support the Bill.
Amendment 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), would prevent the Secretary of State from authorising a new product if scientific evidence indicated
“that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny”.
Lack of detail on those kinds of situations makes it hard for us to go into the Aye Lobby and support the Bill this evening. Editing a pig’s genes could, for example, make it resistant to disease—that would obviously be a welcome advantage of this technology—but the Bill must not be a shortcut that allows pigs to be reared in less hygienic, more crowded conditions. Again, that issue is not covered. Animals’ welfare must not only continue to be protected but be continuously improved.
We do not want all the effort that has been put into the high standards in British farming to be wasted as a result of a back-door watering down of standards; but if there was such a watering-down, it would be part of a pattern, I am afraid. It would fit the pattern of the trade deals that are being designed and agreed to. The deals with Australia and New Zealand in particular basically throw away the high standards we have developed. It is not only that it is morally right to have those standards; they make the provenance of our produce important, make it high-quality, and give it high ethical value. What a desperate shame that free trade, which is a good thing, should be done so badly that our farmers are thrown under the bus, have their livelihoods threatened, and cannot take advantage of the benefits that free trade ought to provide. If the Bill is part of a deregulatory framework, or part of an agenda that seeks to unfairly disadvantage British farmers or throws the standards that they have developed under the bus, that is unacceptable. Unamended, the Bill forms part of a pattern of this Government throwing our farmers to the wolves.
Farmers do not benefit from the application of science envisaged in the Bill if they do not survive the transition from the current payment scheme to the new one. Reshuffle upon reshuffle has followed on from great uncertainty, which the Government introduced in September when they indicated that they might be prepared to rip up the environmental land management scheme. There are many problems with that scheme, by the way; the fact that only 1% of eligible farmers have applied for the sustainable farming incentive shows how poorly the Government are rolling out a scheme that most Members agree with in principle. The worst thing the Government could do is rip it all up; the best thing they could do is invest in protecting the £3.5 billion supposedly ringfenced for ELMS and allow the process to take place, so that farmers survive. Farmers will be in no position to protect our environment, produce our food or apply the science that the Government want them to apply if they do not survive.
In short, we strongly support the principle underlying the Bill, but we strongly urge the Government to consider the amendments before us this evening, and those that will undoubtedly be tabled in the other place, to improve regulation, safety and animal welfare, and protect farmers from the damage that could be done to them if they end up being the pawns of multinational global enterprises. I would hate the United Kingdom to end up a mirror image of the European Commission, which regulated to such an extent that applying science was impossible. Alternatively, the Government may deregulate to such an extent that it is hard to defend the science, and that would be a real shame for all of us who genuinely care about the application of science in farming.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I will speak to amendment 12; I hope to be commendably brief. A fundamental principle of veterinary science is that procedures should be carried out in the interests of the animal and animal welfare. Many of the proposals brought forward will, I believe, be in the interests of animal welfare, and I have no problem with them whatever. I simply seek an assurance from the Minister that, if it becomes apparent that a change that is to be made would have an adverse effect on animal welfare, no licence for the change would be granted. That is all I ask for.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to follow the important speech by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), with which I agreed. As I said on Second Reading, this is a flawed Bill; it is unclear and it is not robust, and legal experts have said that it is staggeringly imprecise. Nothing that has happened since Second Reading has caused me to change my mind, so I have tabled a number of amendments, and welcome the opportunity to speak to them, starting with amendments 1 and 2, which would remove animals from the Bill’s scope and title. For the record, it is my intention to press amendment 1 to a vote.
As I say, amendment 1 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill, but the intention is not, as the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested, to kick the can down the road; I genuinely believe that we need more time to look more carefully at what kind of regulatory framework we need, so that we can make the most of potential benefits, but also safeguard ourselves against risk. I acknowledge that there may well be potential benefits to the legislation, but I hope that others will acknowledge that there may well be serious risks, and I do not think that the work has been done to get the balance right in the Bill. We need more safeguards that are commensurate with the risks. That is why—for the moment, at least—we should remove animals from its scope. If the Government wish to legislate on gene editing of animals, they need to give much more thought to defining the circumstances in which that is acceptable, and to provide much more detail on how it will be regulated.
I recognise that clauses 10 to 15 are an attempt to prevent the significant risks that are associated with precision breeding, but I do not think that those measures are sufficient. When we debated the animal sentience legislation, the Government were prepared to accept that there should be a mechanism, via the animal welfare hub, through which the impact of animal sentience legislation could be properly considered by independent experts with the relevant skills. There is an urgent need for something similar that allows us to judge whether genetic engineering will be harmful to animals, how it can be better regulated, and how that can be done transparently. The model in clause 11, however, gives the person applying for authorisation and the Secretary of State far too much authority and responsibility, and the proposed animal welfare advisory body is given only a weak, secondary, advisory role. I worry that that suggests that welfare considerations will carry very limited weight in decision making.
It is also of concern that, under the Bill, the full regulatory system is supposed to be set through secondary legislation. That vastly reduces the scope for vital parliamentary scrutiny on issues of animal welfare and gene editing.
The claims made for gene editing mainly focus on increasing productivity and disease resistance. The Government argue that gene editing is simply an extension of traditional breeding, such as selective breeding, but is more precise and efficient. I assume that is intended to be reassuring, but over the last 50 years selective breeding has itself caused substantial health and welfare problems in most of the main farmed species. We have already heard about the concerns about broiler chickens who have been bred to grow so quickly that many suffer from leg disorders, while others succumb to heart disease. Hens have been bred to lay over 300 eggs a year. They have to draw on their own bone calcium to produce egg shells. This results in osteoporosis, leaving them susceptible to bone fracture. A cow producing milk for her calf would normally produce just over 1,000 litres in her 10-month lactation. Many of today’s dairy cows have been bred to produce 10,000, or even 11,000 or 12,000 litres of milk a year. That contributes, unsurprisingly, to many suffering from lameness, mastitis and reproductive disorders, and the animals live with those welfare problems for a substantial part of their lives.
Gene editing for even faster growth and higher yields would exacerbate the suffering caused by selective breeding. I believe it would be unethical to permit it for increased productivity, and it simply should not be necessary for disease resistance. The proper way to reduce diseases that are generated by keeping animals in poor conditions is to move instead to health-oriented farming systems, in which good health is inherent in the farming methods. Indeed, gene editing could lead to animals being kept in even more crowded and stressful conditions, as they would be resistant to the disease risks that are inherent in those conditions.
I cannot be the only Member who has been lobbied hard to remove animals from the Bill’s scope. I urge the Government to listen to the public and look again at this. They should return the legislation on this subject only once they have given much more detailed consideration to the issues that I have raised. Another of those issues is that nobody involved in drafting this legislation could, I imagine, have honestly envisaged it applying to, for example, domestic cats and dogs. Yet, without clarification, that is exactly what the current drafting could result in.
Our constituents want to be confident that there is consistency in the Government’s ambition for improving animal welfare. They want to know that gene editing cannot be used as some kind of techno-fix and that it will not entrench intensive farming, with its inherent environmental and animal welfare shortcomings. If my amendments are a step too far, I would urge Ministers, as a form of compromise, to bring forward an amendment of their own in the other place that will at the very least limit the scope much more explicitly to farmed animals. In the meantime, my amendments 1 and 2 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill.
Let me move on briefly to a few other amendments in my name. New clause 7 is about informing consumers about what they are buying. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the labelling of this new class of GMO and to do so in consultation with key named stakeholders. Clear labelling is something that we know consumers want. The Food Standards Agency found that:
“Consumers wanted transparent labelling…if genome edited foods reach the UK market.”
My new clause does not prescribe what form that labelling should take; the groups and organisations that it lists for consultation are much better placed to determine that. They include the FSA, food producers, retailers, consumers and anyone else the Government think appropriate. In other words, it would allow for co-operative, sensible, well-informed approaches. I hope Members will back new clause 7 on that basis. Finally, labelling—in either the form set out in my clause or some other form—could represent a step towards resolving the differences with the devolved Governments, which we have already heard about, for whom, for example, alignment with EU standards is a major priority and a current source of disagreement with Westminster.
Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are a group designed to ensure that regulation is sufficiently robust when it comes to authorising activities involving so-called precision-bred organisms. They seek to convert the powers afforded to the Secretary of State into requirements. In addition, amendment 8, alongside amendment 7, would require obligations relating to supply chain traceability. Without amendment 7, the Bill fails to mandate any such traceability for the new category of precision-bred organisms.
That would be inconsistent with the current long-standing requirement for mandatory traceability for GMOs and would create significant trade barriers for organic businesses in the UK wanting to export products to, for example, the EU or Northern Ireland. The UK organic sector is worth £3 billion, so it makes no economic sense not to amend the Bill and ensure mandatory supply chain traceability. Traceability of genetically engineered organisms is also essential to support recall in the event that novel allergens or toxins, or other safety issues emerge after release.
I believe the Bill is badly conceived and badly drafted. My amendments are all designed with one of two things in mind: to bring either clarity or robustness to the regulatory framework for precision-bred organisms. It is with that intention that I lent my name to a number of other amendments, on behalf of the official Opposition in particular. I hope that they might support mine in the same spirit.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is a passionate advocate for the environment and animal welfare issues.
I firmly believe that this Bill is an important piece of legislation. I first declare an interest: as a veterinary surgeon, I am passionate about animal health and welfare. I also represent Penrith and The Border, a huge rural constituency with a huge farming footprint. We have the most fantastic farmers in Cumbria, and across the UK, who farm to the highest animal welfare standards. I firmly believe that we do not have anything to fear from this legislation, but I do understand some of the concerns that have been raised, and I will speak to some of the amendments and new clauses.
It is important to reaffirm from the outset that this Bill is to do with gene editing, which is very different from genetic modification, where genetic material from an exogenous species is potentially inserted. That is not the case with what this Bill is concerned with. Gene editing is very different from genetic modification. When the Government move forward with this Bill, it is important that they keep articulating and communicating that to the public, to try to alleviate some of those concerns.
I firmly believe that there are huge benefits to be gained from this legislation to animals, plants, the environment and the human race. I respectfully disagree with amendment 1, because I firmly believe that it is important that animals are included within the scope of the legislation. I will try to articulate why I believe that. There will be huge benefits to animal health and welfare from the development of animals and potentially birds that have more resistance to diseases, as colleagues have touched on. As a veterinary surgeon, I firmly believe that is a good cause, because if we can reduce the incidence of disease, that is an animal health and welfare gain.
We have talked about birds becoming more resistant to avian flu, and we have seen how this country is being ravaged at the moment by avian influenza. Technology that helps us to mitigate that is to be welcomed. In addition, in the pig world, pigs with resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, PRRS, will be another good development. Anything that can reduce morbidity and mortality in the animal world is something to be welcomed. As some Members have touched on in interventions, ultimately that could also lead to a reduction in the use of veterinary medicines. That will be of benefit to the animals, but it will also be of indirect benefit to humans. If we can reduce the amount of antimicrobials used, that will mitigate the blight of antimicrobial resistance that is affecting the whole world. I firmly believe that there are indirect benefits to the human race as well.
As I have touched on, we are seeing widespread cases of avian flu across the UK, which leads me to stress to the new ministerial team that we really need DEFRA to adequately fund the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Certainly, the Weybridge headquarters in Surrey is in urgent need of refurbishment, which has been estimated at £2.8 billion. The Public Accounts Committee has looked at that, as has the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I really push the Government to invest in the APHA to try to prevent diseases and outbreaks in the future. That is very important.
I firmly welcome anything that can reduce morbidity and mortality in farming. I speak as a vet with a lot of first-hand experience through the patients I have treated, but also through my experiences in the foot and mouth crisis of 2001. The trauma that infectious diseases can create for rural communities is something that we are still living with in Cumbria and other parts of the UK. When a farmer who is farming his or her stock gets the vets involved to treat disease, that has a toll on the vets and on the farmer. No one working there wants to see animals suffering from disease.
I firmly believe that if we can improve animal health and welfare with such technology, that will have an indirect benefit on human mental health. We on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have looked at that in our rural mental health inquiry. If we reduce the amount of medicines, that will help animals and people.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He brings much knowledge to the debate and I thank him for sharing that with us.
I welcome the Bill and I declare an interest, as I must, as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and a farmer in Northern Ireland. The Bill will bring great benefits, not just to England but to the whole United Kingdom. In my earlier intervention, I mentioned the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which I will touch on later. I welcome the Minister’s response.
I live among farmers, who are incredible people. They love their animals and the job they do. They are very efficient. Near me, they have high-quality dairy herds, beef cattle, lamb, pork and poultry. My farmers want the best, and that is what I want for Northern Ireland. It is no secret that Northern Ireland’s high-quality produce is some of the best in the world and is much envied. Northern Ireland leads the way, but we want to be part of the Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, however, does not enable us to do the same as the farmers here.
As the Member for Strangford, a strong agricultural constituency, legislation to unlock new technologies to boost food production, support farmers and grow more productive crops is certainly of great interest to me and those I represent—my neighbours across Strangford and across Northern Ireland. As always, one of my first ports of call was to see what the farmers thought about it. They were clear and quickly explained to me that gene editing is different from GM and gives us an opportunity to be more efficient and farm better. It does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species and creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced more slowly by natural breeding processes. It will potentially provide a greater yield and better farming practices.
Crucially, precision breeding technologies will help to develop foods with direct benefits to the public, such as products of better quality, increased nutritional value and a longer shelf life. Those are things that we are all striving for and we should all try to make those ambitions happen, so the technology can only be a good thing as long as it is safe and has farmer buy-in. From my discussions with farmers, it clearly has that buy-in.
We must be realistic and say that farmers have been gene editing for generations but did not have a fancy name for it; they knew it as splicing. I am old enough to remember my grandmother splicing the peas and beans to make bigger and better varieties of peas and beans. That goes back to the ’60s—it was not yesterday—but even in those early days, perhaps my grandmother was a bit of a pioneer in doing such things. Today we do not call it splicing but genetic technology. That is a much fancier name, and much greater, because it is about more than that, which is why the Bill is important. Through trial and error, science has allowed us to go to the next level, yet we must be mindful of the difficulties that can come by decimating the wonderful structure of nature that God has put in place. I believe that the Bill provides safety and security, and a way forward to UK food security.
A fortnight ago, I had the opportunity to meet a constituent, Stephen Alexander, who keeps 130 Dexter cattle—an almost-unique herd across Northern Ireland. He takes 60 acres of land at Orlock in North Down, he has some land at home in Greyabbey, and he takes other land just down the road. He made a deal with the National Trust, which was that he would not use fertilisers or bring anything new on to the land—it all had to be natural; the grass was natural—which was quite unique. Along with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister Edwin Poots and others, I had a chance to see how that works. It does work: it is an organic farm in every sense of the word, yet all the cattle are exceptional.
That is another reason why it is essential to bring in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as a matter of urgency. As Edwin Poots outlined:
“The introduction of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in England will not apply to Northern Ireland. The Protocol requires alignment to EU rules so gene-edited crops developed in England under the Bill”—
that we could take advantage of in Northern Ireland—
“would not be available for cultivation in Northern Ireland.”
We need parity of opportunity and of legislation. When the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill returns to this House from the other place, we need to see that we will have that opportunity.
The fact is that for any British gene-edited crops we would have to apply to the European Food Safety Authority for approval before they could be sent to Northern Ireland, which imports, among other things, grain for animal feed. Even then, the crops could still be banned by Dublin, and that is what this really is: the EU and Dublin, with their hand—their dead hand—upon us on many occasions. That would present a fresh headache in ensuring the affected plants did not cross that invisible Irish border.
It is clear that while this Bill is a stand-alone one, the fingerprints of European intransigence are all over it. I again make the point that it is not this Bill, but the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, whenever it comes back, that will give us in Northern Ireland the same chance as the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. I would ask the House and the Government to reinstate their support for us whenever the Bill, which I think is going through the other place tomorrow, comes back to us.
As someone who loves the land and always supports the farmers, I trust those who have farmed for generations when they say that this is an enhanced version of splicing and that there is a need to be open to all possibilities. I say the Bill is the right way to go to ensure that the facility is there and so suits the farmers and food producers, and allows Northern Ireland to play a crucial and important role to advance our markets across the world. It will also ensure that we can grow and provide more jobs and a stronger economy, and that we can determine this for ourselves, rather than have the unelected EU, with no Northern Ireland voices, dictating our food security and farming practices.
That is my bid for the Minister about what has been brought here tonight. I really do support this, and I think it is the right thing to do. I will say in advance that amendment 4—perhaps the Minister can clarify this for me at the end, if possible—while it has been put forward by the Labour Opposition, has I believe been done in the best possible sense. I understand that the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), was going to put forward something similar, and we were apt to support that. So if the Opposition move amendment 4, which would ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account animal welfare in relation to Northern Ireland, that is the one on which we will probably disagree with the Minister, unless clarification can be given to us. However, on everything else, I fully support the Minister and the Government as they bring this Bill forward.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I think we have had a very thoughtful and good-humoured discussion. It is clear that animal welfare is a key feature for both sides of this House. I just want to mention amendment 7, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, but I will not be supporting it because I think the question of labelling needs to be looked at in a much wider context. I would very much urge the Minister, within that wider context, to look at consumer information, which I think is a really important issue.
Last week, I spoke in the Chamber on the national food strategy and food security. Much has changed since Henry Dimbleby published his recommendations last summer. The cost of everyday staples continues to rise as the war in Ukraine pushes food price inflation to its highest level in 14 years. So this is the right time to consider alternative ways that our Government can strengthen the nation’s food security.
By removing barriers to precision breeding, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill will open the future to developing crops that are more resistant to pests, disease and climate change, reducing the need for fertilisers and pesticides. Genome editing provides the opportunity to achieve the outcomes of plant breeding, which has been so successful in controlling diseases and improving yields, but in a much more precise manner.
In encouraging this innovation, placing UK researchers and commercial breeders at the forefront of exploring what these technologies have to offer, we can use science to move away from chemical use and make land more productive, both reducing the cost of food and restoring the balance of nature. However, the UK’s world-leading animal welfare standards must be upheld, so I support the step-by-step approach to legislation, with a focus on plants and maintaining our high standards in animal welfare. I am sure that the Minister has listened to some of the concerns that have been expressed, and that will probably be reflected in looking at the wording of the Bill.
This Bill is a real opportunity to make a positive contribution to a more sustainable food system. For instance, by reducing the spoiling and browning of foods and increasing their shelf life, we can help reduce food waste. It could enable us to improve the nutritional profile of foods—for example, by increasing antioxidants, phenols and tannins in fruit and vegetables, or improving oil and carbohydrate profiles, delivering foods that benefit consumers and reduce the burden on healthcare providers.
Precision breeding represents an opportunity to develop crops with modified macronutrient status, such as increased resistant starch, which naturally reduces the calorific content of food, but increases the level of fibre. Through agritech innovations, farmers around the world will have the opportunity to make better use of their land, fight off harmful pests and better regulate the nutrients in their soil, while removing unnecessary barriers, and helping the world grow more and strive towards a greener tomorrow. In that spirit, I think the Bill is the right step forward, and I just hope that we can all get behind it.
Mark Spencer
Can I say how much I have enjoyed the comments from across the Chamber? I will seek to give colleagues some reassurance.
I will start with the comments from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who spoke to new clause 9, in the name of her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). The mutual recognition principle in the UKIM Act means that goods that comply with the relevant legislative requirements in one part of the United Kingdom can automatically be sold in other parts of the United Kingdom without complying with any differing relevant legislative requirements in those parts. Consequently, should UK Government legislation allow precision bred plants, seeds, animals, food and feed to be placed on the market in England, such products would be able to be placed on the market in Wales and Scotland. However, this would not be the case if a UKIM exclusion was put in place for precision bred products.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North may recall that when this matter was raised in Committee, my predecessor explained that there is an established process for considering exclusions to the application of the market access principles of the UK Internal Market Act in the common framework areas. This process has been agreed by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. No formal request for a UKIM exclusion has been received from the Scottish Government in the context of ongoing intergovernmental discussions on the Bill between DEFRA and devolved Administration officials. As a result, we do not consider amending the UKIM Act itself to be appropriate, but rather that the UKIM exclusion process would be the appropriate route to consider the rationale and potential impact of a UKIM exclusion.
Turning to amendment 13, which is in addition to new clause 9, the hon. Member may once again recall that this was discussed extensively in Committee, and my predecessor explained that the common framework covering GMO marketing and cultivation was within the scope of the common frameworks programme. However, all four Administrations agreed that a common framework in this area was not required because the administration and co-ordination of this policy area was already provided for through existing intergovernmental arrangements under the GMO concordat.
In addition to engagement between DEFRA and genetic technology officials in the devolved Administrations, it is worth noting that the precision breeding policy interacts with four provisional common frameworks: animal health and welfare; plant varieties and seeds; food and feed safety and hygiene; and food compositional standards and labelling. Engagement among the respective officials is ongoing through these relevant frameworks.
We will continue to engage with our devolved Administration counterparts to address their specific concerns in connection with the Bill, but I encourage the hon. Member to embrace the opportunity that the Bill presents to unlock the benefits of science and research and development in this country, and ensure that the UK continues to invest in innovation in the agrifood industry. It would be a tragedy for Scottish farmers not to be able to embrace this new technology and I urge her to come with us on this journey and not to disadvantage Scottish farmers.
On amendment 3, we are very much aligned with the intentions of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and his colleagues to embed public interest into the Bill. We want precision breeding technologies to secure real benefits. I believe that they are a vital part of our toolkit to secure benefits for our food and environment. The amendment applies to release into the environment, which principally covers field trials. These are crucial in building our understanding of how genetic changes impact organisms under field conditions, and they are an integral part of the pure research as well as for breeding programmes. It is not necessary to place restrictions on research using these technologies, and we have no evidence to suggest that developers are doing anything other than what occurs in traditional breeding or in nature by creating new, stronger varieties that allow us to grow better and harvest better.
We also recognise the need to safeguard animal welfare, which is why we intend to take a step-by-step approach to implementing the Bill. We intend that precision bred animals will remain regulated under the GMO regime until the regulatory system outlined in the Bill is developed, to safeguard animal welfare. Delivering public good is what we strive for across Government and we are fully committed to developing a new, sustainable, resilient and productive food system, and I hope Members see that our interests and those of researchers in the UK are aligned.
On amendment 5 and environmental principles, the hon. Member for Cambridge and his colleagues have made it explicit that regulations made under this Act must be made in accordance with the environmental principles and the policy statement in the Environment Act 2021 and article 391 of the trade and cooperation agreement between the UK and the EU. Section 19 of the Environment Act provides that Ministers must have due regard to the policy statement on the environmental principles. DEFRA has already published and laid a draft version of the statement before Parliament for debate. Parliamentary scrutiny of the draft policy statement concluded in June and we are considering the feedback received from Parliament and will publish a final statement in due course.
As we are making good progress in this regard, it is unnecessary to amend the Bill with a provision that will be unnecessary by the time the regulations under the Bill come into force. Of primary importance is the advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment that the provisions in the Bill do not have the effect of weakening or reducing environmental protections. The esteemed independent experts who sit on ACRE have provided the Government with this assurance, and it is this guidance that gives the Government the assurance to take the legislation forward. I would emphasise that Ministers before me have found that the Bill is consistent with our non-regression commitment to the EU and does not reduce our environmental protections.
On the debate about aligning with the EU, as some Members want, we recently closed the consultation on a potential new regulatory framework for precision bred plants. Some 80% of people considered the current regulations not to be fit for purpose. The EU intends to reform its own regulatory system as early as 2023 and we await the details on that.
Amendments 1 and 2 caused a great deal of debate and clearly many colleagues have concerns, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for this opportunity to address this area. As with plants, there are potential benefits in enabling precision breeding in animals to improve the health, welfare and resilience of those animals, and we have a real opportunity to harness the great research taking place across the UK. Ensuring that these technologies are used responsibly without compromising animal health and welfare is vital. That is why we intend to take a stepwise approach in implementing the Bill, with regulatory changes to the regime for plants coming first, followed by animals at a later date. We want to ensure that the framework for animal welfare set out in the Bill is effective and workable, and we will not bring the measures in the Bill into force in relation to animals until the system is in place.
We are also clear that the system to protect animal health and welfare in the Bill will work with our existing animal welfare regulatory framework for protecting animals. We want to maintain and build on our strong record of animal welfare. If we want to drive investment in new research with potential for innovation and precision breeding in animals, we need to move forward with this Bill. It provides a clear signal that the UK is the best place to conduct research and bring products to the marketplace.
Building on this, and turning to amendment 4 in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge and his colleagues, I recognise the level of concern about animal welfare. The suggestions outlined in the amendment represent issues that we will make sure are explored further as we develop the technical details underpinning the system for safeguarding the welfare of relevant animals and their qualifying progeny. That is why we have commissioned a research project to gather the evidence required to develop the health and welfare assessment. We have published an update note on animal welfare to explain our approach. I do not, however, consider this amendment to be necessary. Clause 13 will make sure the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will need to be satisfied with the animal welfare declaration before issuing a precision bred animal marketing authorisation. This goes to the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) was concerned about. Further, the power in clause 25 allows us to set out in regulations what constitutes an adverse effect on health or welfare, including parameters needed for assessment.
The welfare declaration and the welfare advisory body’s assessment will be based on the principle that precision bred relevant animals will need to be kept in conditions that satisfy existing requirements on the keeping of animals set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. I understand hon. Members’ concerns but reiterate that we have welfare-led legislation in place and this Bill is intended to work alongside it to enable responsible innovation.
I will take the opportunity of turning to amendment 12 to expand on the process set out in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have the necessary information to determine whether it is appropriate to issue a precision bred marketing authorisation. An application for such authorisation will have to include a declaration, with supporting evidence, that the notifier does not expect the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny to be adversely affected by any precision bred traits. Any adverse effect could cover any direct or indirect effect and as such specifying this is not required in the Bill. The Secretary of State will need to refer the welfare declaration and all required accompanying information to a welfare advisory body with independent scientific expertise, which will report its conclusions to the Secretary of State.
These steps will provide a rigorous and proportionate basis for ensuring that the Secretary of State’s decisions on whether to issue precision bred marketing authorisations are appropriately informed by scientific evidence. As set out in our recently published policy update on animal welfare, the power in clause 25 could include consideration of any known health or welfare issues in selective-bred animals. I hope that gives my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet the reassurance he seeks.
Amendment 8 would require provisions in regulations for securing traceability of precision bred organisms in food and feed through supply chain auditing. The Bill proposes powers to introduce specific traceability requirements for food and feed produced from precision bred organisms placed on the market in England. That will be in addition to general rules on traceability that apply to all food and feed and to specific traceability rules that apply to particular food products regardless of the production method used. The Food Standards Agency will develop and design evidence-based options on how best to secure traceability of food and feed from precision bred organisms placed on the market in England. Any options on traceability must be sufficiently future-proofed and strike a proportionate balance between ensuring food safety and enabling innovation. Additionally, any new measure to secure traceability of precision bred organisms will need to build on existing infrastructure for general traceability, which food businesses already have a statutory obligation to secure.
The Food Standards Agency will advise on proportionate measures for securing traceability, making use of the advice from its scientific advisory committee, and will ensure that proposals are subject to a public consultation before any specific measures are implemented. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion would not allow for that process to happen as it would restrict traceability to supply chain auditing.
Daniel Zeichner
I do not have much to add and do not want to detain the House. All I will say is that I am slightly disappointed that the Minister does not feel able to join us in looking for a stronger regulatory framework. We really think that would help, and some contributions from colleagues on the Government Benches indicated that there are concerns. Ultimately, the Opposition will support the Bill tonight, but we would much prefer it if it came with the amendments that we have proposed, which would much strengthen it. We do not propose to press new clause 1, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms
‘(1) Schedule 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 11 insert—
“Marketing of precision bred organisms
11A The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any Act of the Scottish Parliament, or any subordinate legislation made under or by virtue of such an Act, relating to the marketing of—
(a) precision bred organisms, or
(b) food or feed produced from precision bred organisms.”.’—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mark Spencer
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I put on record my sincere thanks to the fantastic officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who assisted with the drafting and delivery of the Bill. I also thank previous Secretaries of State: my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who put an enormous amount of work into the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena). I pay tribute to a series of Ministers who assisted at various stages of the Bill: my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who are present; my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who assisted with the Bill when he was a Whip; and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), the Whip who is assisting today.
The Bill is a fantastic example of the opportunities we now have outside the EU. I am delighted that we have got to Third Reading. I wholly commend the Bill to the House, and I look forward to its progress in the other place.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I welcome the new Secretary of State back to her Department, as well as her team, some of whom are new, and some of whom are recycled; obviously, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that is a good thing. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words as this important Bill completes its passage through this House.
We are pleased that the Bill is finally before us. The continual leadership crisis in the Tory party has meant that environmental and animal welfare legislation has been pulled, delayed and ignored, and we learned on Friday that the Government have missed today’s legal deadline to set clean air targets. The lawbreaking just goes on. This Bill was an opportunity to tackle one of the great issues of our time, but instead of rising to that challenge, I am afraid that the Government have flunked it. We may have got a new Prime Minister last week, but it is the same old Tories.
Labour Members are pro-science and pro-innovation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) stated. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system, and address the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused. Our United Kingdom has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others will follow. That is what we would do in government. The public need assurance that new technologies are being used for the public good, not narrow commercial advantage.
Labour is the party of food safety; we established the Food Standards Agency. Different approaches to food production must be respected, and there must be proper safeguards for organic production. The issues covered by the Bill require us to take a long-term view, and to have an understanding and appreciation of the wider public good, but this Government stagger on from day to day, focused only on how they can get to the end of next week without yet another change at the top.
Labour Members have no doubt about the possible benefits of gene editing. We understand the pressure that it puts on farmers when we rightly say that they cannot use neonicotinoids because of the harm they cause to pollinators, but there are so many questions still unanswered as the Bill travels on its journey. Do we want to use gene editing to modify an animal to allow it to tolerate more cramped conditions? No. We want a regulatory system that ensures that technologies are used for the right purposes. We fully understand that the laws designed 30 years ago for genetically modified products do not reflect advances in understanding and technology, and many countries recognise that gene editing needs to be treated differently. Labour Members want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK. Over the years, traditional crop development and innovation has brought us all significant gains.
But as we enter new territory, we need a strong regulatory framework to get it right, and this Bill badly needs strengthening. Far too much is being left to secondary legislation. Although we understand that this is attractive to Ministers, it largely means “trust us”. That is increasingly difficult to do, because we all know that it means a blank cheque on an issue that requires trust and public acceptance, and that is not a good starting point. We needed much more detail on the face of the Bill.
That detail is necessary because the Bill covers both plants and animals. That makes the legislation much more complicated and difficult, and important too. The Government originally said that they would introduce new measures for animals only after looking at plants and after extensive consultation on the right regulatory frameworks for animals had been established. So far as we can see, there is nothing in the Bill to make that happen. Frankly, it is the wrong way round. We need to sort out the preferred regulatory framework first and then put it into law, not the other way round.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I wrong in thinking that Third Reading is about what is actually in the Bill, rather than what is not? The shadow Minister seems to be referring to what is not in the Bill. My understanding was that on Third Reading we are supposed to talk about what is actually in the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I must say that the hon. Lady does seem to be making rather an extensive speech, but I am sure she will be coming to her point shortly.
Ruth Jones
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; yes, of course.
I want to acknowledge all the animal welfare organisations that have expressed their concern—indeed, the RSPCA says in its brief that it is “incredibly concerned”. I say to them and all those following the passage of the Bill, now that it is out of Committee, that we require stronger animal safeguards.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for leading on the Bill and to the folks in his team—Milly, George and Jenna—who have worked on it. I thank Rob Wakely and Adam Jogee, who have worked to support me too. I also thank the officials in this House and in the Department for their work on this important Bill. As it now moves on, we on the Labour Benches wish it well and hope that it will be strengthened and given the detail that it so desperately needs.
Tim Farron
Briefly—I promise—I thank the many, many Ministers who have helped to lead this Bill through Parliament. Let me say on behalf of farmers in Cumbria that we would be grateful if this Government did not take us for granted in the transition to the new payment system, which has been botched so badly, or any indeed in the trade deals that have thrown so many of my farmers underneath the bus.
Science has an important role in farming. That includes GM, and there is no doubt in my mind that the European Commission’s stifling position on GM was massively regrettable. It is good to have a debate on it in this place and to try to move forward with it. GM and science in agriculture can reduce harm to the environment, reduce the reliance on damaging and expensive pesticides and fertiliser, increase productivity and help to meet global food needs, but to achieve those advances the Bill would need to provide proper detail and regulation, to protect animals and consumers and to protect farmers from being sold out and their livelihoods placed at the mercy of multinational businesses. We must not replace the European Commission’s knee-jerk opposition to science with a reckless lack of detail. I fear that that is where we are.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I rise to support the Bill, which we will of course be voting for if there is a vote on Third Reading.
It is important in modern farming that we look for ways of increasing productivity and breeding out some of the imperfections and difficulties and, in doing that, improve animal welfare. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out earlier in the debate, this is not something new. In fact, his granny practised it, with the splicing of beans and peas to improve their productivity, size, disease resistance and everything else. It is important that we find ways of applying science, especially as agriculture is such a big part of our economy.
Of course, one of the good things about being out of the European Union is that we have the opportunity to break away from some of the stifling rules that were imposed as a result of our being attached to the European Union.
I noticed that the Minister avoided responding to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford made. Although farming is important in Northern Ireland, and although exports, and therefore competitiveness, are important to our farmers, when this legislation is passed and its fruits begin to be seen, they will not apply in Northern Ireland. The Minister pleaded with the Scots Nats, who appear to want to keep their economy in the stone age so they can have devolution and defend their devolution settlement—that is the price they are prepared to pay for independence and for safeguarding the role of the Scottish Parliament—not to be backward looking, but the Government, through refusing or being unable to remove the impact of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, will do exactly that in Northern Ireland.
I hope that there is some joined-up thinking in Government and that they recognise that as we change laws in the United Kingdom, that must not be seen to drive a wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, constitutionally or economically. We will support the Bill, but I hope that events and developments will ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland benefit from it as much as farmers elsewhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill: Programme (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26 January 2022 in the last Session of Parliament (Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 25 May 2022 (Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 17, 1 to 16.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stuart Anderson.)
Question agreed to.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Tuesday 1st November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 31 October 2022 - large font accessible version - (31 Oct 2022)
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Monday 21st November 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 31 October 2022 - large font accessible version - (31 Oct 2022)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open the Second Reading of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. I declare my interests as a farmer.
Science, research and development are at the heart of igniting the United Kingdom’s economic recovery, boosting productivity, creating new jobs and improving people’s quality of life. The United Kingdom is a world leader in genetics and genomics. With this Bill, we are supporting scientists to harness the huge potential locked within the DNA of plants and animals and will make sure that plants and animals developed using precision breeding are regulated proportionately to risk. We will also introduce a new science-based authorisation process for the food and feed produced from them and ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place to regulate precision-bred organisms.
I am proud to present the exciting and vital opportunity that the Bill offers farming and the environment. It will give farmers options for greener, more resilient and more productive farming in the face of climate change and global challenges to world markets. Precision breeding has the potential to develop plants and animals that are more resilient to weather and resistant to disease and less reliant on chemicals such as pesticides and antibiotics.
This year we have seen England endure one of the hottest summers on record, leading to drought declarations in many parts of the country. Farmers have faced lower yields, higher fertiliser costs and challenging conditions for animal welfare. We do not have time to hesitate when it comes to ensuring that the right varieties and breeds are available to farmers to help them face volatile markets and a changing climate.
I will give noble Lords an example of how the Bill could help increase food production from a crop on which 2.5 billion people are dependent. At the John Innes Centre in Norwich, leading researchers have used precision-breeding techniques to identify a key gene in wheat that can improve traits such as heat resilience while maintaining high yield. This development could help address issues of rising temperatures not only at home but abroad.
The genetic technology Bill will create a new proportionate regulatory environment that will encourage innovation to help us adapt to the impacts of climate change. Many would say that this is long overdue. It is not an overstatement to say that precision-breeding technologies such as gene editing have the potential to revolutionise farming. Science has moved on from where we were 30 years ago, and this should be reflected in our legislation so that we can harness the benefits of these technologies.
I know that some noble Lords may have concerns regarding the safety of precision breeding. On that front, I hope to provide reassurance. For thousands of years, we have been breeding crops and animals to domesticate them and select desirable characteristics. Using the potential of animal and plant DNA in breeding programmes has resulted in safe and trusted products. Precision breeding is the latest in this line of breeding techniques which utilise this same resource. Under the Bill, an organism will be considered precision-bred only if it could have occurred through traditional or natural processes. Therefore, precision breeding allows us to introduce beneficial characteristics that could have occurred through traditional breeding, but much more precisely and efficiently.
In putting forward the Bill, we are choosing to follow the science. The scientific advice from independent scientific experts and our expert Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, or ACRE as I shall refer to it, is that organisms produced through precision-breeding technologies pose no greater threat to the environment and health than their traditionally bred counterparts.
The Bill sets out four key policy objectives which would enable the proportionate and science-based regulation of precision-bred organisms, while still making provision for appropriate safeguards for precision-bred plants, animals and the food and feed derived from them. The first objective is to remove plants and animals produced through precision breeding from the regulatory requirements governing the environmental release and marketing of genetically modified organisms, also known as GMOs. The key difference between precision breeding and genetic modification is that genetic modification produces organisms containing genes from a sexually incompatible species that could not occur naturally or by traditional breeding. The current GMO legislation will continue to govern these organisms.
Secondly, the Bill will introduce two notification systems: one for precision-bred plants and animals used in research trials, and a second for the marketing of precision-bred plants and animals. The information collected from these notification systems will be available on a public register on GOV.UK, which I hope will give noble Lords confidence in the transparency that the Bill provides.
The third objective will be to establish a proportionate regulatory system for the marketing of precision-bred animals to ensure that animal welfare is safeguarded. I understand that some of your Lordships may have some concerns regarding the inclusion of animals in the Bill. The Government are committed to maintaining our already high standards in animal welfare. That is why we are planning to take a step-by-step approach, facilitating the commercial use of precision-breeding technologies in relation to plants first, followed by animals later. We will work closely with industry, animal welfare NGOs, scientific advisers and other stakeholders to design the next steps.
To ensure that animal health and welfare are safeguarded, under the Bill anyone wishing to place a precision-bred vertebrate animal on the market will have to submit an animal welfare declaration, which will be assessed by an animal welfare advisory body. These measures are designed to safeguard animal welfare and ensure that the health and welfare of relevant animals will not be adversely affected by any trait that results from precision breeding.
I hope noble Lords are reassured that the measures in the Bill will not only safeguard animal welfare standards but have the potential to improve them. For instance, in research by Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute and the Roslin Institute, we have seen the potential to use gene editing to produce chickens that are resistant to avian influenza—a disease that noble Lords will know is currently having a devastating effect on wild birds and poultry farming in this country.
The final policy objective will be to enable the establishment of a new science-based pre-market authorisation process for food and feed products developed using precision-bred organisms. The Food Standards Agency will design a new framework that is more proportionate to the risk profile of precision-bred food and feed products. This authorisation process will build on five key principles: safety, transparency, proportionality, traceability and building consumer confidence.
The Bill has the potential not only to unlock benefits for the economy, as the size of the global market for technologies such as gene editing is predicted to rise to over £7 billion by 2026, but to unlock benefits for farming and to address the impacts of climate change and to reduce food waste. Tropic Biosciences is an example of the innovative, smaller bioscience research companies that the Bill will benefit. It has recently developed a non-browning banana using precision-breeding techniques. Given the fruit’s high perishability, this innovation has the potential to reduce waste, which helps both the environment and consumers. It is exciting to think that the Bill will support investment in both Britain’s leading research institutions and SMEs such as Tropic. As we move to align with our international partners and harness the benefits of these technologies, we are enabling the development of foods enjoyed at home and abroad.
I am looking forward to what I am sure will be an enlightening debate. I beg that the Bill be read a second time.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Well, it was a real pleasure to hear the Minister open this interesting debate, and we are very grateful for the way he has done it. This is a Bill whose importance we should not underestimate. Although the amounts of money the Minister declared were quite small, the actual commercial value of these technologies in the longer term is massive. He has carefully, and very reasonably, understated the potential advantages to the environment: in a world that is increasingly suffering from crop pests and drought, this is a very serious issue. It has been estimated that, across the world, one-fifth of all cereal crops is lost by processes during storage, so this is massive in terms of starvation. Anything that can be done to make plants resistant will therefore be very important. Clearly, plants and animals have different consequences, and that is one thing we will need to discuss in Committee.
In addition to drought resistance, I have listed a few other things I think are important. The fact that you can make better flowers and improve the appearance of plants sounds trivial, but it is none the less part of the marketing. Certainly, for economies such as Ecuador’s, it is probably one of the most important money-spinning exports. In addition, pathogen resistance generally will be very important. Making plants that have greater nutritional value or bigger fruit will certainly be hugely valuable to a lot of people. There is a whole range of other things we might come to during this debate, which I will not go into in great detail now.
The challenges, however, are quite considerable, and before I come to that I will mention my own experience with gene insertion, transfer and modification of various sorts in animals. My experience goes back as far as when I first visited Jon Gordon in New York, about 40 years ago, and saw the giant mice he was trying to make. At the time, that was almost one of the first possible mutations, and he was very proud of the fact that he had done this. I was amazed to see what he was doing down his microscope and thought, “I have to get into this technology myself”. I did not, really, because by that time I was already involved in in vitro fertilisation, which uses some of those technologies but not all.
What was surprising and horrifying was going down to the animal house with him afterwards and seeing the mutations he had not talked about, which had occurred as a result of the manipulation of gametes and embryos. There was no doubt that some of the animals were unexpectedly blind and had limb defects and a whole range of other things—skeletal defects of different sorts—as result of whatever it was: whether it was the DNA being inserted or the method of manipulation was not at all clear.
That has been a constant problem. In the early days, raw DNA was injected, and gametes and embryos have been soaked in DNA, from whatever source. We have made DNA, of course, using instruments, and various ways of incorporating DNA have been used, with greater efficiency. Until recently, the main way of doing this was using viruses that were piggybacked as a kind of Trojan horse into the nuclear DNA of the organism. Now, of course, we have CRISPR-Cas9. I wonder whether the Minister, when he sums up, might apply himself to how often that will be used, or whether it is involved in this legislation. To my mind, it is not entirely clear from the Bill what techniques will not be permitted. The idea of natural sources seems to be a bit blurred.
I know from our own experience of all kinds of gene expression, we get lots of surprises—it is variable. Certainly with CRISPR, although that is probably the most accurate targeting at the moment, we often do not get any kind of gene expression at all and sometimes we do not get insertion. It is well-known, as I am sure the Minister knows, that you occasionally get off-target mutations, which may cause problems to the organism, added to other abnormalities that are completely unexpected.
With any gene insertion or any kind of gene manipulation, there is a risk that in some species there will be different attitudes. There is an issue of whether or not the genetic modification that you want will be maintained and continue to be expressed in the way that you want. I see that multiple repeats will be allowed in the Bill, which may help to increase the amount of gene expression—I imagine that is why that was considered—but all these unfortunately quite technical issues are things that we will need to discuss in Committee.
Without going further, one of the clear issues as a result is that a lot of people will be concerned about the welfare of the animals. One might make large animals. The biggest animals that we have been involved with in my own laboratory have been pigs, which are pretty big, but some people have modified cattle as well, and that may be something that we need to discuss. We do not always treat our farm animals as well as we should, and in many parts of Europe there are very heavy-bred animals that I would have thought suffer considerably because of the breeding or interbreeding that is dictated. When I do any kind of animal research myself—I did it in the past but do not do much of it now, although my team still does—we have to have strict animal licences from the Home Office. I do not see anything of quite that calibre in the Bill, so maybe we need to look at that in Committee.
The issues for a lot of people will be, for both plants and animals, those of diversity. I remember clearly Dolly the sheep, which was a very different issue but there were some similarities. When that paper was produced in Nature, I was surprised to see Dr Ian Wilmut justifying the procedure of cloning on the basis, he said, that we would be able to make better farm animals that would be used for herds. That may be true, but if you reduce diversity in a herd then you may increase the risk of that herd suffering from unexpected organisms or different traits that you have not yet identified. That is an issue that we need to look at in detail when we examine the Bill in detail.
I suggest that, apart from diversity, we have to look at how reliable the technique is. I am quite concerned by the use, in the Title of the Bill, of the phrase “precision breeding”. I know it is coming into the literature—I see it increasingly in scientific papers—but in biology there is no such thing as precision. We do not know what is precise or entirely predictable. One of the reasons for being interested in genetics is that it is not completely predictable. It is that issue that may cause concern, along with animal usage, which is something that we need to look at. I ask the Minister to address that issue.
Without going into a huge amount of detail, I am still not clear what we do when there is a high abnormality rate in any animals as a result of these techniques. Do we just cull the animals? Do we treat them in a different way? What kind of disposal of livestock will be used? That will be important. With plants, as everyone knows, one of the great issues that have dogged this technology from the very beginning is changes in the surrounding habitat: changing the environment for both insects and other plants, and the risk of plants overgrowing areas. With an unstable environment in some countries, the real question is: might you then end up destroying crops that you really need or reducing the value of crops that you already have?
These are some of the issues I am quite concerned about. The Bill continuously deals with the issue of marketing and profit. I remind the House that that was one factor in sinking Monsanto when it produced its initial modification, which was then marketed. The marketing was so aggressive. I think the marketed seeds would not reproduce so farmers could not then use them as their own technology in countries which were developing economies. That is one issue we need to look at.
All these technologies are controversial, as the Minister and the Government have certainly accepted. They should not be controversial, but no doubt the controversies will be raised in this debate. We have to be absolutely clear, as the Minister said from the Front Bench, that everything we do with these organisms has clarity and proper accountability. We must be absolutely sure that we are not causing harm but trying to do good.
That brings in the issue of how you manage to run the regulation of this technology, which is focused on a considerable amount in this Bill. However, I am not sure it is adequate. In particular, perhaps we ought to be looking at the long-term effects—particularly in animals when looking at epigenetic effects which will not be expected at the time of the modifications or changes in DNA we are looking at—to the fate of the animal.
That will be very relevant because one of the great advantages of these plants is that they are not only good for nutrition but for making chemicals and medicines we want to use in human care. To some extent, this information will be valuable to human medicine as well when it comes to animals.
There is a great deal to be discussed, but we need some clarity over some of the terms used, particularly “precision” because I do not believe anything in life is really precise. Certainly, my expectation from biology is that it is imprecise, which is one of the reasons I probably got so interested in embryos.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I strongly support this Bill. I would like to acknowledge my colleague in my department in Oxford, Jane Langdale, and her post-doc Dana Vlad. They spent a lot of time explaining the details of gene editing to me and showing me their work on rice.
It is widely acknowledged that current agricultural practices are unsustainable. The green revolution of the second half of the last century was a miracle. While the global population doubled between 1960 and 2000, per capita food production increased by 25%. This was a result of a combination of genetics, the application of agrochemicals, irrigation and mechanisation. But that miracle came at a cost: the loss of habitats and biodiversity, depletion of soils and water, contribution to greenhouse gases and pollution of the environment. Here in the UK, this impact is dramatically illustrated by the fact that populations of farmland birds have more than halved in the past 50 years. The simple fact is that, as we have squeezed more out of the land for ourselves, we have left less for the rest of nature. Furthermore, the gains of the green revolution are slowing down while demand is increasing. Many experts estimate that we will need to increase global food production by at least 50% by 2050.
This is why many have called for a doubly green revolution of producing more with less: more food with less environmental damage. This does not mean returning to pre-industrial, low-intensity organic farming. It means combining the best of new technologies, including GPS, IT, and genetics, to help us sustainably manage soils, habitats and water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while producing more food from the same amount of land. Precision breeding can play an important role in this doubly green revolution. We have already begun to hear of some of the benefits it can bring, including reduced use of pesticides, perhaps better nutritional properties, increased disease resistance, resilience in the face of climate change and increased yields.
Nevertheless, as we heard, a bit over 20 years ago, the application of a different advance in genetic technology—namely, transgenic modification of crops, or “GM crops” for short—stalled in this country because of objections, and I hope that that does not repeat itself. Of course, the Daily Mail’s coining of the term “Frankenfood” was a key catchy slogan for the objectors. I personally bear the scars of that campaign because I was head of the Food Standards Agency at the time. GM crops were subject to regulatory scrutiny for safety under the novel foods regulation on a case-by-case basis. But, because the FSA concluded that herbicide-tolerant soya or Bt maize, for example, was as safe as its conventional counterpart, I earned soubriquets such as “Professor Bullshit” and “The man who put the ‘con’ into consumer protection”.
There may be lessons to be learned. One is that, although the objectors in the anti-GM campaign often presented their worries as being about human health or environmental safety, they were also concerned about other things, such as the role of agribusinesses—the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to Monsanto—the further intensification of agriculture or simply this being playing God with nature. This meant that scientific arguments about the rigour of regulatory scrutiny by expert committees gained little traction. So we have to be aware of that, as we think about introducing this form of genetic technology.
Another factor was that the benefits of the first generation of GM crops accrued primarily to farmers in North America and South America, rather than to consumers in the UK. Perhaps the direct consumer benefit contributed to the uncontroversial acceptance of GM human insulin—which many, perhaps most, diabetics take—or GM rennet for making cheese, including organic cheese. When I talked about this to then US Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, he responded—I will not do the full American accent—by saying, “So you mean that, when we have a tomato with the Viagra gene, consumers will lap it up”. Perhaps, in this case, precision breeding will produce products that have a direct consumer benefit, which might help to get over the hump, so to speak.
I now turn to a few specific points and questions for the Minister. The definition of precision breeding in Clause 1 is deliberately—I assume—broad, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned. For instance, gene editing can be used to delete a gene, to modify a gene within the existing genome or to replace a gene from within the same species. Could the Minister confirm that all three of these are included in the definition of “precision breeding”? Could he also perhaps elaborate on what he said in his excellent introduction about the relationship between precision breeding, as envisaged in the Bill, and transgenics—GMOs—as considered in earlier legislation? Is the aim to draw a clear line, or put clear blue water, between transgenics on the one hand and gene editing or precision breeding on the other? Alternatively, is it seen that, once accepted, precision breeding is a stepping-stone to the wider deployment of modern genetic techniques? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
I turn briefly to residual exogenous DNA. Although the aim in gene editing is to modify genes within a species, part of the process of doing that involves the DNA from other species. This may be the agent that brings the gene into the cell, which may be the bacterium Agrobacterium, or an antibiotic-resistance gene that is used in the selection process to find out what you have gene edited. The question that some people have raised with me is: if residual bits of exogenous, or foreign, DNA remain after gene editing, is this not transgenics by the back door? However, importantly, the Bill points out that, if there are residual fragments of DNA, they would not be able to code for a protein, and they would therefore be non-functioning. In this way, even if there are a residual bits or fragments of exogenous DNA a few base pairs long, gene editing is quite distinct from transgenics. I hope that the Minister will confirm my interpretation.
How can we deal with these residual fragments if people are worried about them? In theory, whole genome sequencing could be used to search for these tiny fragments, but on the other hand it may be difficult to distinguish exogenous fragments from somatic mutations that have occurred during the process of a gene-edited organism growing up. However, it is important to note that the techniques of gene editing are not static; they are developing rapidly. In a recent paper in Plant Physiology, Yubing He, Mudgett and Zhao point out that it is already possible to gene-edit plants without any residual transgenes, so perhaps this worry will disappear in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to animals. The Bill takes a very broad definition of “animal” as meaning any metazoan—in other words, all eukaryote multicellular taxa of animals. This, I understand, is designed to future-proof the Bill. While it seems unlikely that scientists will, in the near future, wish to market gene-edited tardigrades or onychophorans—your Lordships should look that up on your smartphones—the Bill could, for instance, open the way to gene-edited companion animals, such as cats and dogs. It could be a new way to create the best in show at Crufts. Given that this will be an additional cause of worry, I wondered if it might be more appropriate to proceed in a stepwise fashion and, in the first instance, restrict the Bill to farm animals. That is just a question.
Some people have argued that if we are going to have gene-edited products, they must be labelled. This seems a bad idea for a very simple reason: the gene-edited product will, on the whole, be indistinguishable from a comparable product produced by conventional breeding, so labelling could become a potential cheat’s charter. That is why I think the Food Standards Agency’s proposal of a public register of gene-edited products that have been put on the market or have applied for approval would be a good alternative to labelling to provide transparency.
My last comment relates to the Food Standards Agency’s two-tier regulatory approach, which is still under development, for approval of food and feed. The threshold for entering the higher tier, requiring more detailed regulatory scrutiny, is that the change brought about by gene editing is deemed to be “significant”. I can see this becoming a recipe for boundary disputes, and I wonder whether a single continuum might turn out to be an easier approach. That is really for the Food Standards Agency to consider as it refines its approach.
I end with a quote from Jonathan Swift. In 1727, he wrote that
“whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would … do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.”
In the 21st century, Swift needs to be updated for gender equality: the co-discoverers of gene editing, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna—both female and Nobel prize winners for chemistry—have done more for humanity than probably any of us will ever do.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my farming interest in the register. Like others who have spoken, my first comment is to welcome the Bill. I agreed enormously with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, when he said—I have put it into my own words—that we are doing what we should have done years ago. More years have passed than I am prepared to admit since I graduated in agricultural sciences. The teaching of genetics then, which had of course moved on some way from Gregor Mendel, could be described as the foothills of the science, practice and application of genetics compared with the towering peaks of genetic knowledge and application today.
Mercifully, however, I have had a number of refreshers in genetics since those days—the first was in the 1980s, when I was Minister of Agriculture. Noble Lords will remember that, in those days, the European Commission was faced with horrific surpluses of almost every agricultural product, which we could neither eat at home nor sell abroad. The Commission’s Luddite reaction was to discourage any new scientific procedures which could make those surplus mountains and lakes even larger. It did its best to discourage developments, particularly entry into the food chain of products created by genetic modification or by things such as hormone implants in animals to promote growth. On the latter, it even suppressed scientific assessments which it had commissioned itself because those studies could see no danger in proceeding. So, in those days, little progress was made in applying the new technology and the potential benefit from the emerging techniques of genetic modification. Somebody once said—I am not quite sure where—that it has become technically possible, with the knowledge of applying genetic techniques, to cross an elephant with an oak tree; I will come back to that in a minute. In the 1980s, the Commission’s actions very much stifled the fruits of science.
I had a further refresher in 1998 and 1999—shortly after I first became a Member of your Lordships’ House—when I was a member of the European Communities Sub-Committee D under the most distinguished chairmanship of the late Lord Reay. We produced a report entitled EC Regulation of Genetic Modification in Agriculture. Having studied the Commission’s stranglehold on the progress in this area, we concluded in paragraph 203, the final conclusion of the report:
“GMOs need to be regulated, at least until our knowledge develops further, but it would be extremely damaging if Europe’s access to this technology was subjected to inappropriate impediments”.
We are now discussing this welcome Bill, which introduces these necessary regulations to ensure that foodstuffs which have been altered through genetic techniques are safe.
However, at that time, we discovered that, in spite of the Commission’s Luddite attitudes, large quantities of genetically modified soya beans, maize and tomato pulp were already being imported into the European Community, particularly from the United States and other places where regulations could be described only as lax. Indeed, in our Select Committee report published in 1999, we said in paragraph 15:
“The enzyme Chymosin is identical to rennet and is produced by genetically modified yeasts or bacteria. It was introduced in commercial cheese-making in 1991 and is now used to manufacture 90 per cent. of hard cheeses”—
so much for the Commission’s restrictions back then.
The Bill is a worthy step in ensuring that the introduction of gene editing and other techniques will happen only with proper safeguards, but I have some concerns about the Bill. We are told that it covers genetic changes that could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods. This clearly rules out our elephant and oak tree liaison, which I referred to earlier, but I can foresee some prolonged arguments as to whether the traditional processes or the natural transformations conditions apply. I think the noble Lord, Lord Winston, again, had the same anxiety as I have. So, will the Minister expand a little on the appeals procedure, because I can imagine many, many appeals about whether those conditions within the Bill are followed? For instance, modern wheats are created from mutations years ago, long before genetics was dreamed of—unlikely mutations, in those cases—which I can see could be the basis for arguments as to whether new products today are within the rulings of the Bill.
Finally, I recall a conversation I had in the early 1980s with Lord Rothschild, the former chairman of the Agricultural Research Council. He was wildly enthusiastic about the possibilities of using genetic techniques to attach to wheat plants the capacity of legumes—peas, beans and clovers, in this case—to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, thus providing nutrients for the wheat. On one hand, it would have dramatically increased wheat yields in exceptionally poorer land and would have had a massive effect on relieving poverty and hunger in less developed countries. On the other hand, it would also have reduced the demand for fertilisers and similar chemicals. I know that this particular research, which was entered into enthusiastically all those years ago, was too complicated to be fully developed and has slowed down, although I understand it still continues. I quote it as an example of a development that would or could be hugely beneficial to mankind.
I remember a similar development when I was Minister of Agriculture. Using public money, I bought—I cannot remember how many—perhaps about 10 Chinese pigs, much to the hysterical amusement of the Chinese Minister of Agriculture, because the department’s scientists knew that those pigs had an in-built capacity for very large litter sizes and they wanted to see if they could extract the gene and implant it into the traditional European pigs, which would have made them very much more productive. My point about this is that it seems a pity that the Bill gives no encouragement to these sorts of benefits because of the limits of the Bill, especially in Clause 1. Those rather glamorous developments, if I can put it that way, remain impossibilities. Will the Minister please comment on these sorts of possibilities and say some encouraging words about possible further steps in the future to embrace the influences for good that could lie ahead through much wider genetic modifications than those rather limited ones that appear in the Bill?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I should first declare an interest through my involvement with the Rothamsted Research institute, which is already carrying out authorised genetically edited field trials on wheat in an attempt to tackle some of the global food challenges that we collectively face today.
In previous debates in this House and in the Commons during consideration of this Bill, we on these Benches have made clear that we are pro-science and pro-innovation. We understand that laws designed 30 years ago for GM products need to be updated. It is a process of reform taking place in many countries, including the EU, which, as we know, is undergoing its own consultation process, so nothing we are doing here is unique. It is an opportunity for the UK to be at the forefront of technology, but this will be the case only if our legislation is respected globally as being robust and effective. Sadly, I do not believe the Bill as it stands meets that aspiration: it fails, in its current form, on a number of fronts.
First, as the Minister acknowledged in his letter to us of 1 November, the Regulatory Policy Committee gave the Bill’s impact assessment a red rating. Its reasons included: failure to assess the impact on business; failure to acknowledge and assess competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts; and failure to address the impacts from removing labelling and traceability requirements. The Minister’s response in his letter was to say that this rating was not terribly important and it was not a reflection of the quality or ambition of the Bill. I must say I beg to differ, because these factors, which the impact assessment ignored, are fundamental to the quality of the Bill, and hence the problem we have before us today in dealing with a Bill where much of the detail is missing.
Equally, the Minister’s solution to this red rating, as set out in his letter, was to create an enactment impact assessment to be delivered at the end of the Bill’s passage. I have to say that that is simply not acceptable, since it will not inform our deliberations as we scrutinise the Bill through its various stages. We need that information now. Has consideration been given to postponing the passage of the Bill, so that we can have all of the promised documentation before us in a timely manner when we consider the Bill?
Secondly, all the evidence shows that the public support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory regime than genetically modified foods, provided there is effective regulation, transparency and labelling. However, much of the detail in the Bill is left to secondary legislation, so we simply do not have that; we cannot measure it. It is not clear, for example, what information will be disclosed to the public about field trials or product labelling. We are being asked to take a great deal on trust, which has already been stretched to breaking point, given the delays that have followed the passage of the Environment Act, where, as we know and have debated before, all sorts of promised and statutorily required follow-up legislation has not been forthcoming.
That is why our colleagues in the Commons proposed a much more rigorous model of regulation, akin to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to oversee the process and give that consumer confidence, proportionality and environmental safety, and implementation of the legislation proper oversight. This would give both researchers and businesses confidence in the regulatory system, as well as cementing public confidence in and acceptance of the new regime. I am sorry that the Government did not see fit to accept that proposal; I hope that, even now, the Minister will feel able to reconsider it.
Thirdly, many of the benefits of the Bill highlighted by Ministers focus on the environmental and food security benefits. We welcome the prospect of, for example, creating plants that are resistant to extreme weather conditions and diseases, could reduce the need for pesticides or could create higher yields to address rising food insecurity driven by climate change. Indeed, much of the good work already being carried out in scientific institutions around the country addresses these very issues; I fully acknowledge the critical role that they are playing in addressing our global food challenges.
When we first debated the outline of the Bill, it was focused on crop research. However, a decision has now been made to open up the reforms to the genetic editing of vertebrate animals. I am much less convinced by the need for this provision or that the animal welfare protections currently in the Bill are sufficient. My noble friend Lord Winston set out the concerns better than I could every aspire to but, for example, there is a real danger that animal gene editing could be used to accelerate traditional selective breeding to produce fast growth, high yields and large litters, which we know are capable of causing suffering to farmed animals. The image of chickens unable to stand because their body weight has been steered towards excessive breast meat must be avoided in the future, not exacerbated. We need those guarantees. In the Commons debate, my colleague Daniel Zeichner quoted the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. It is worth repeating. He said that
“animals should not be bred merely to enable them to endure conditions of poor welfare more easily or in a way that would diminish their inherent capacities to live a good life.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/10/22; col. 678.]
One of the main examples cited for how animals might benefit from genetic editing is that it may cut down on antibiotic use; of course, we all understand the strong arguments for that. However, if the end result is that animals simply live in more confined spaces without infecting each other, it is an unacceptable outcome. In the Commons debate, the ex-Secretary of State, George Eustice, said that he had hesitated before adding animal research into the Bill but had concluded that you should not put off things that are too complex by kicking the can down the road. I am sorry that he did not kick this can down the road, because it is too complex and the Government still do not have the answers as to how this element of the Bill can provide robust animal welfare solutions. Again, we are being asked to take the details of how this will work on trust, as the Government have said that they will consult further on this issue. Meanwhile, the powers to introduce these changes via secondary legislation, without further scrutiny, already exist in the Bill.
So, I do not believe that the Bill is fit for purpose in its current form. It needs to be more clearly underpinned by clear public interest criteria for future research. It needs to have a more robust and accountable regulator. It needs to rethink the application of gene-editing freedoms in animal research. I look forward to the opportunity to debate these issues further in Committee.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, because of my interests as a veterinarian and as declared in the register, I shall confine my remarks to the impact of the Bill on animals, particularly in terms of disease resistance, the environment and animal welfare. These are overlapping issues for which, in my opinion, there is huge potential for positive effects with the adoption of new breeding technologies.
Notable recent advances in molecular biology relevant to the Bill include the increased speed and lower cost of whole-genome sequencing, as well as the precise manipulation of the genome by such means as gene editing. Against this background of scientific advances, although it has long been known that there is variation within and between species of animals in susceptibility to infectious pathogens, this has, by and large, not been exploited and emphasised in the conventional breeding of animals; conventional selective breeding has tended to concentrate on other productivity traits.
Now, with whole-genome sequencing, gene editing and using the range of genetic resources represented by a variety of breeds of livestock—rare breeds are a particularly valuable resource here—there is now a real opportunity to select for disease resistance relatively rapidly and very precisely. For example, using gene-editing technology, pigs have been bred with resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, a viral infectious disease of global importance that causes extremely high morbidity and mortality. In Europe alone, it is estimated to cost more than £1.3 billion per year.
With regard to avian flu, with which we are all now familiar and which is currently causing huge mortality in both wild birds and domestic poultry throughout Europe, it has been possible to gene-edit chicken cells in culture to make them resistant to the avian flu virus. This gives hope that poultry with genetic resistance to this pathogen could be developed.
With regard to environmental issues, by reducing disease morbidity and mortality, new breeding technologies have the potential not only to improve food security but to maintain output with fewer animals and reduced land use, while at the same time reducing drug and chemical usage—notably that of antibiotics and parasiticides—to help combat the global problems of antimicrobial resistance and environmental pollution.
A further major environmental benefit is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from both reducing morbidity and mortality—that is a major cause of emissions that do not lead to any productive benefit—and directly breeding animals, particularly cattle, with reduced methane emissions. We know that that is a heritable trait in cows. So, I would argue that, in total, there are some substantial potential environmental gains.
With regard to welfare—let us remember that disease is a major welfare issue—reducing disease is a huge welfare gain, as I have outlined. In addition, welfare could potentially be improved by reducing the need for certain potentially painful management procedures, such as disbudding calves so that they do not grow horns or breeding polled cattle. Sex determination could avoid the large-scale culling of, for example, male chicks from layer flocks of chickens.
Concerns about animal welfare, as we have already heard, are raised; they are sincerely held but I am yet to be convinced that they are well founded in that they seem not to be specific in any way to precision breeding or gene editing, which experts in the subject maintain mimic natural mutational processes and conventional breeding. As with the introduction of any new technology, it is important to weigh the benefit-cost ratio. In my opinion, in this case, it is very positive in favour of the technology—provided, of course, that there are appropriate regulations and safeguards.
Turning to that issue, the Bill sets out a number of requirements, which the Minister elucidated, that must be met to enable precision-bred animals to be developed and marketed. These measures are in addition to existing animal welfare legislation. I will illustrate that in a bit of detail, if I may.
This Bill does not change existing legislation safeguarding, for example, animals in research and development. They are protected by the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, world-class legislation which protects animals during the research and development of drugs and vaccines for humans and for animals. Also, the Bill does not change the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which protects animals in many other ways. I highlight two aspects of the Animal Welfare Act and subsequent regulations. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 state:
“Natural or artificial breeding or breeding procedures which cause, or are likely to cause, suffering or injury to any of the animals concerned, must not be practised ... Animals may only be kept for farming purposes if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health or welfare.”
Regarding dogs, which my noble friend Lord Krebs mentioned, the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 state:
“No dog may be kept for breeding if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype, phenotype or state of health that breeding from it could have a detrimental effect on its health or welfare or the health or welfare of its offspring.”
I suggest that these two pieces of legislation are relevant to this Bill.
Moreover, it is generally agreed that, where possible, welfare assessments should look at the outcomes of any given management or breeding procedure and should not, without evidence, presume certain systems are good or bad for welfare a priori. I am ashamed to say that current natural breeding and management practices can lead, and have historically led, to welfare issues. I cite double-muscled Belgian Blue cattle breeds, which initially had to be delivered by caesarean section, and brachycephalic—or short-nosed—dogs, which we have bred with increasing levels of deformity as a fashionable trade, but which suffer all their lives from chronic ill health.
This Bill introduces additional animal welfare monitoring and checks over and above existing animal welfare legislation. One might argue that if existing legislation was fully enforced, the sincerely held concerns about negative welfare outcomes of this Bill could be assuaged.
The Government have said that the application of this Bill to animals will not take place until a regulatory regime is in place. Is this regulatory regime what is currently outlined in the Bill, or does it refer to additional regulatory measures that might be brought in?
Finally, I have some concerns which I share with others about gene drive technology. Would gene drive technology implemented by gene editing be permitted under this Bill, or will gene drive be classed as GMO and subject to existing GMO regulations? Gene drive technology is being researched not only for use in insects in the tropics to prevent the transmission of disease but in mammals, for example, for the potential population control of alien species such as grey squirrels. It involves the release into the environment of gene-edited individuals, characteristics of which, such as producing male-only offspring, are naturally amplified through the wild population. This is essentially an irreversible process which, if applied to wild animals, has considerable consequences for biodiversity and the environment, and has international ramifications too. Will gene drive technology, achieved by gene editing, be permitted under the Bill? I will fully understand if the Minister wants to respond by letter.
In general, I support this Bill very strongly. It would allow exciting new technologies which have the potential to be a game-changer in how we control disease in animals, to improve animal welfare and to be beneficial to the environment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and to reinforce his concern about gene drive and his desire for a direct answer from the Minister at some point.
The House may not know that the term “genetic engineering” was coined by a pulp science-fiction writer, Jack Williamson, in the novel Dragon’s Island. As you would expect from a 1950s pulp science-fiction novel, it was an extremely lurid, overwritten and overblown expression of concern, but the concerns that arise from gene drives fit within that framework.
Returning to the framework of this Bill, your Lordships’ House is now used to Bills coming before us, from the Commons or directly from the Government, in a dreadful state. However, the Schools Bill was at least about schools. The Procurement Bill was at least about—you guessed it—procurement, however poorly drafted it might have been, as the Government acknowledged. Yet with this Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill we have hit a new low. Experts from across the field, including many in favour of the widespread rollout of gene editing, say that “precision breeding” has no technical or legal meaning. The phrase is a sales slogan, not a definition, making the tabling of this Bill extremely surprising. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, set out many other practical concerns from the Regulatory Policy Committee. I will not repeat them, but the red flags are flying.
Echoing and building on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, coming back to “precision”, how DNA works is far from precise, and the tools with which we manipulate it interact with highly variable genetic material in unpredictable ways. I will venture a little into the depths of the science because it is crucial. As with so many other issues within science, understanding is changing fast. Science often revises itself in deeply fundamental ways. I am afraid that your Lordships’ House as a whole has not truly grasped that. There are few people in politics with a scientific background, though many of them are here in the Chamber today, and some who acquired it many decades ago, while those understandings have since moved on, and sometimes have reversed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, outlined, genes do not operate in a deterministic way how an organism develops. Living beings are complex, ever-changing. They are not machines built to a blueprint. Picking up some of those technical points, copy number variation, the number of instances of a gene, can have widely varying effects. There are epigenetic changes: under different environmental circumstances the code of the genes can be read differently. Even the location of the same gene in a different place can result in widely different outcomes.
What I was taught in a science degree 30 years ago was junk DNA—about 99% of the total—is now titled “non-coding DNA”. We know, as we knew then, that it does not produce proteins, but it has widely varying impacts on the DNA that does produce proteins. I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about exogenous DNA, paraphrasing a little, that we do not really have to worry about it, but his junk DNA can have unknown and variable effects, so we really must think about it. However, I thank the noble Lord for putting “tardigrades” into Hansard, I think, for the second time, since the first time was in my maiden speech.
There is increased scientific understanding of how genetics and the environment interact. It is neatly, if somewhat cryptically, summed up in the phrase “genotype does not determine phenotype”. Plants and animals are products of complex, sophisticated, ever-changing interactions between their genes, the microbiome that, in effect, makes every complex organism in an individual ecosystem—including every Member of your Lordships’ House—the chemical and physical framework around them, and even pure chance. I point noble Lords to a fascinating article in New Scientist on 21 September on fascinating new research showing how there is a large element of chance in the way your brain develops.
The tools used for gene editing are not nearly as precise as has been claimed and there is a practical reality about how these studies are carried out. They often fail to check beyond the intended outcomes; they see if they produce what they wanted, but they do not see what else they have produced. To quote one careful academic analysis from this year,
“very few studies have used ‘unbiased’ methods and a systematic approach to detect genome-wide off-target mutations.”
That is where we look for the driving force, the commercial interests, behind so much of this research. People are very often not paid to find the results that they did not want.
I point noble Lords to an excellent briefing, which covers these issues in far more detail than I have time to, from the Alliance for Food Purity. There is a great deal of very detailed technical work in that briefing. However, the underlying problem is that the Bill is applying the language of engineering to biology, and they are not compatible. The outputs—the food that we might all eat without knowing it, if the Bill is allowed through in its current form—could see the appearance of unexpected allergens or even toxins. With the Bill in its current form, farmers could see genetically edited seeds planted in their neighbours’ fields and changing the genetics of their fields, without their being informed. That is a particularly huge issue for organic farmers.
That issue is played out on a national scale too. Both the Scottish and Welsh Governments have indicated that they do not want gene-edited crops, but there is no way of stopping the seeds or their genes at these borders. The issue extends beyond these islands. The Bill is likely to be in breach of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety—an international agreement that aims to protect biodiversity from the impact of genetic engineering.
The list of problems with this Bill—a familiar set—goes on. There are Henry VIII clauses, step by step, allowing changes by ministerial diktat at virtually every key point. To pick out just one, Clause 1(8) allows the Secretary of State to widen the definition of a precision-bred organism through regulations. That is a crucial part of this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, set out the issues around labelling and how it could be changed by regulation.
Many noble Lords have already covered the issue of whether animals should be excluded from the scope of the Bill. It has been very widely covered and the Minister, in a debate we had a couple of weeks ago on avian flu, almost made a concession in acknowledging that we have huge problems with pests and diseases in our factory-farmed animal populations, because they are enormous. This inevitably allows one disease to flourish but, if you tackle that one disease while leaving the system in place, another disease will arrive in short order.
I come to my final group of points. Various noble Lords have made implicit or explicit references to food security. If our standard approach is through gene editing, we are aiming for a silver bullet-type approach by continuing as we are now but looking to find magic solutions. But we know what we need to do to feed the world—to use that phrase—and, on occasions, we have heard an acknowledgement of this from the Government Bench opposite. We need agro-ecological approaches that work with the sophisticated complexity of nature, which we are just beginning to grasp, to truly cultivate the systems that have developed over hundreds of millennia, rather than to take to them like a toddler trying to put back together a clock that it has disassembled with a hammer.
In his introduction to the Bill, the Minister said that science must be at the heart of our national recovery. I absolutely agree with that statement. The 21st-century sciences of ecology and systems thinking understand that these complex ecosystems cannot be managed like machines. That is the science that we desperately need to feed ourselves and look after our natural world.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that the green revolution was a miracle that came at a cost. The COP 15 biodiversity talks are coming soon and we are starting to see that that cost has been enormous and unaffordable. We cannot afford to repeat today the same mistakes we made in the 1960s.
I will finally pick up on the Jonathan Swift quote used by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I give the noble Lord credit for making a gender update to it, but I am going to make a speciesist update. Noble Lords will recall that it talked about growing two ears of corn or two blades of grass where previously there had been one. Well, if you want those extra blades of grass or ears of corn, you actually need a healthy soil, with a rich ecosystem of fungi and bacteria working co-operatively with the plant. Then you will get a lot more than two extra ears of corn; you will get healthy, rich food, a healthy environment and security for all of us.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Since my wife is always accusing me of verbal pedantry, I suppose I should feel some sympathy for the noble Baroness’s opening argument, which seems semantic in essence—that the words “precision breeding” in the title of the Bill do not accurately describe genetic editing. However imprecise the wording may be, no one can doubt that gene editing is more precise than relying on random variations of natural breeding, let alone the radiative mutations that used to be permitted. I just suggest to the noble Baroness that a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, and that this Bill, under any other name, would be as good.
I cannot claim the expertise contributed by many noble Lords in this debate but, for 35 years, I have had the honour of representing Rothamsted agricultural institute. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has the even greater honour of being on its board. It is one of the oldest agricultural research institutes in the world and it is world-leading. It aims to bring the best of science into practical application. I spoke to people there this morning and gathered that they are immensely supportive of this Bill. Someone said it removes the roadblock that an EU legal ruling has provided, which has prevented the institute implementing and gaining practical benefit from scientific developments that have already been made. Only a couple of weeks ago, it planted the seeds in a second trial for gene-edited wheat. I am informed that normally when wheat is cooked it can produce acrylamides, which are potential neurotoxins. This variant will produce fewer acrylamides and will be less toxic; it will be safer and healthier for users if all goes well. That is an example of how this sort of technology can be good for the health of humans, as well as for plants, animals and the ecosphere.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, we are having to change the law because we inherited law from the European Union that was based on the precautionary principle. I only wish that Viscount Ridley were here to contribute to this debate. He has often analysed the precautionary principle in the past and said it boils down to saying that you must not do anything for the first time. The principle has been around in Europe since long before the European Union was thought of. When tomatoes were first brought from South America to Spain, people said, “They are obviously deadly poisonous. You must not eat them. That red colour signifies their danger.” For two centuries, no one ate tomatoes—they were grown only for decorative purposes—until a couple of old souls tried them and found them tasty and nutritious. They are now a major part of our diet.
We must avoid adopting the principle that we must not do anything alien, new and untested, particularly now that we are in a position to understand the science of what we are doing and to know that gene editing is not only essentially natural—doing what nature does but in a more targeted and specific way—but potentially safer. It focuses on benign and beneficial changes, which will increase yields; reduce reliance on herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and artificial fertilisers; and enable crops to adapt more to climate change. It will do so, I hope, with precision and without damage to the environment.
By contrast, nature is not benign. It does not produce only mutants that are naturally beneficial. They can be harmful and dangerous. They often harm the particular organism that has mutated. I am told that, if the potato were now introduced as a new, freshly developed artificial product, it would almost certainly not be allowed in any country in Europe and probably not here: when potatoes turn green, they produce alkaloids that can be toxic. Peanuts would certainly not be allowed if they had been produced by artificial means. However, with this technology, there is every chance that we will be able to produce variants of peanuts that will not produce toxic anaphylactic shock. This would greatly benefit the many people who are potentially allergic to them.
In the past, we have allowed radiation-induced variants. This involved putting seeds and plants into nuclear reactors and bombarding them, producing millions of variations and hoping that some would turn out to be beneficial. That is a far more random process than anything that we are talking about here. Golden barley, much loved by brewers, was produced by that process and contains literally millions of variations from the original, natural barley from which it was produced. We now have 25 years’ experience of various scientific approaches to genetic modification and editing, and no one has suffered or died. None of the fears and concerns that people have expressed has, as far as I know, been observed in practice. We can therefore proceed in the way that the Bill suggests that we should, and that way should give us all confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned how he had been vilified as a result of the Daily Mail campaign against “Frankenstein foods”, one of the most effective images ever conjured up. I am ashamed to say that, at that time, the party of which I was deputy leader played along with that and thought that there were votes to be gained from expressing opposition to those foods. I was certainly not supportive of that particular approach. I am glad that we—and the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—have accepted, in principle, that we should go along with the scientific approach of allowing gene editing.
One can understand that naturally people are concerned when something new, strange and unknown comes on the scene. However, I am sad that the hostility stirred up then by the Daily Mail and others was allowed to stop not just gene editing but genetically modified organisms over a generation. For example, it prevented golden rice, which was genetically modified to produce more vitamin A. If used in developing countries, it would have saved millions of people from blindness. However, until very recently, it has not been available—I gather that it is in the final stages of approval in the Philippines and one or two other countries. We should be ashamed of allowing such hostility to build up without examining the science behind it and reassuring ourselves that there was virtue involved, rather than risk.
I very much hope that the Bill will go through. Of course, it may require some of the amendments that have been suggested. I hope too that, when it has been shown to work effectively and not result in the things that people fear, it will pave the way for us to allow other forms of genetic modification as well, to the benefit of humanity and this country.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I do not suppose anyone in this House will be surprised to know that I support the Bill and everything it is trying to achieve. Some of your Lordships will remember that I moved the amendment to the Agriculture Bill that resulted in the consultation that has brought us to this point.
I declare my relevant interests. I am still loosely involved in a family farming enterprise growing crops and rearing livestock. I am also chairman of the trustees of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, where our mantra is helping people and nature thrive together. Furthermore, I co-chair the All-Party Group on Agriculture and Food for Development, whose primary purpose is to bring improved agriculture to the smallholders of the developing world, notably in sub-Saharan Africa.
It is with that latter interest in mind that I stress how crucial it is that we bring urgent help to the African lady farmers to enable them to plant improved seeds across a wide range of different crops. There is such a lot of work to be done. In Africa, we do not have time for the 20 to 25 harvests needed for the random chance mutations that traditional breeding provides. We urgently and desperately need to make multifaceted improvements to a whole of range of crops to avoid the devastating effects of climate change. Bear in mind that Africa has the world’s fastest-growing human population. Therefore, unless we act quickly, we will undoubtedly be responsible for human tragedy on a very large scale.
We have to ask ourselves: how do we breed plants that can resist the many different diseases and pests present in every country without having to put more chemicals into the environment? One of the problems in the developing world is that many farmers are only semi-literate and semi-numerate, so chemicals are often used far too liberally, sometimes to the detriment of the farmer’s health herself.
How do we breed plants for hot countries which can resist the droughts brought about by our climate change? Irrigation schemes are expensive and use valuable water. Seeds are much cheaper, so you can breed either a plant that requires less water or, more often, one that comes to harvest two or three weeks earlier, during which time its older counterpart might have shrivelled and died.
How do we breed a rice that resists the flooding of Pakistan or Bangladesh? Plants can be bred to stay alive underwater for several days or, when threatened by water, to spurt upwards to keep their heads above the flood waters. Both are being developed. How do we breed a maize that is salt-tolerant, or a cassava plant that does not have to be dried and processed within 24 hours, or a cocoa plant resistant to mildew or phytophthora? How do we produce crops less susceptible to the dreadful post-harvest losses you get in Africa? Perhaps more importantly, how do we breed crops that give children access to vital vitamins and minerals, such as zinc and iron, deficits of which can cause blindness, stunting and cognitive degeneration? We need precision breeding, without the dangers of too many off-target characteristics that are inherent in the random mutations of traditional breeding processes. We need it in both crops and animals.
Coming back to the UK, we also need our own new varieties of crops to combat our own climate change. We need new varieties that can hopefully be produced with greatly reduced, or even a total absence of, chemical applications, and which therefore can be grown in harmony with the biodiversity that we so desperately need. One of the major plusses about inserting gene resistance to pests is that it is better for biodiversity. Why is that so? It is because, unlike with chemical sprays, it does not kill the pest; it just protects the crop from the pest, which can go on thriving in conservation headlands or neighbouring habitats.
We can also, hopefully, breed new varieties which can give us the improved nutrition that so many of our population aspire to—perhaps a wheat with minimal gluten content to help coeliacs, for instance, or varieties that have a longer shelf life in our supermarkets and thus reduce the need for plastic. The advantages of such precision breeding are huge, and the disadvantages seem so much more remote than traditional breeding practices. All the projects I have mentioned are at various stages of development across the world, and in my view, are safer than the random mutations used in traditional breeding, and other forms of breeding, as other noble Lords have mentioned, such as using gamma rays and so on. For those, it can often be necessary to remove hundreds of plants with undesirable, off-target characteristics. The backcrossing in genetic breeding is quite limited, compared to normal breeding.
I turn for a moment to the gene editing of animals, because there is currently a slight weakness in the Bill in that area. First, I stress that, for the avoidance of suffering of animals, precision breeding is vital—not the cruelty that some people might think or imply. It reduces the off-target characteristics that other forms of breeding are more likely to produce, some of which might be harmful to the animal, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned. Genetically editing a salmon egg, for instance, is not cruel. Rather, if, for example, you can increase the mature salmon’s resilience to sea lice, as they are striving to do at Roslin, you will be doing both the salmon and its surrounding environment a heap of good as there will be no need for environmentally damaging treatments to remove the lice.
With mammals, you also take the egg, treat it, and then reinsert it into the mother— a process no crueller than IVF in humans. If, for instance, you thus increase resistance to PRRS in pigs, as again they are striving to do at Roslin, then you are actually reducing the enormous suffering and deaths from this appalling respiratory disease. Moreover, if you alter the genes of one animal, you should—and I agree that there is doubt about this, but the tests are going on—get hundreds or even thousands of their progeny with the same characteristics without touching them in any way. Breeding resistance to disease into future generations is much more sensible than the ongoing use of antibiotics, medicines or even vaccines as the best way to help animals live pain-free and disease-free lives.
Nevertheless, there is one point that I noted was raised in the other place, and was not, in my view, satisfactorily resolved there. The process for authorisation and licensing of new breeds of animals is, as yet, not very clear and probably not wide enough in its remit. Who or what is the animal welfare advisory body? Who is on it and how independent is it? What is its full remit?
I realise that, even before this Bill, the existing law insists that every single step of the process of holding and breeding an animal has already to be licensed, checked and inspected many, many times for even the mildest form of suffering on the part of the animal. That is all good and as it should be. As I said, that already happens and there is little need for us to reinvent the wheel. To my mind, however, there is too much responsibility, certainly in the latter stages of the proposed development process, for the notifiers themselves to keep the welfare advisory body informed. It appears that the notifiers are in the driving seat.
Clause 14 states only that regulations “may”—and, as the Minister knows, we tend not to like that word in Bills before this House—
“make provision for requiring the notifier”
to provide the Secretary of State with information about an animal’s progeny during periods prescribed by the regulations. I for one would like more clarity on those processes in the Bill.
What worries me more is who will determine whether the newly bred characteristic enhances the quality of life of the animal and its descendants on the farm. In other words, how far down the line does the welfare body’s remit extend? We do not want animals being bred, for instance, so that they can be ever more densely packed in inhumane conditions. Of course, there is nothing about precision breeding that makes this more or less likely than the traditional random breeding practices already in existence, but if we are going to make new trait developments easier, then we want to make sure that we get the right trait developments. So there is a small bit of tightening up to be done on the Bill at this point.
However, I end by repeating that I cannot endorse more strongly everything this Bill is trying to achieve. It has never been more important, as our UKCEH mantra says, for people and nature to thrive and prosper in harmony. If that is to happen, we must allow science and precision breeding to help us make it possible.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who gave us a further excellent example of the expertise brought to this House by so many noble Lords in support of the Bill. I also support the Bill and I very much welcome it. I look forward to the further speeches to come, not least the maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Roborough. I do not want to hold up the House too long, because I do not bring the scientific expertise that so many noble Lords do.
However, I have taken an interest in this issue since I was first elected to the other place in 1997, when I was involved in the Plant Varieties Bill, not least because of my own constituency interest. As with my noble friend Lord Lilley, in my constituency, when I was first an MP, we had the Plant Breeding Institute. We still have in my old constituency the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, and I thank the people there for the conversations that I have had with them over a number of weeks about this Bill and its implications.
In a sense, I approach this from the standpoint not of the science, but of the policy. I was very much against the view taken early in this century that genetic modification by its nature should be resisted rather than be embraced. The point was to embrace it and regulate it in ways that gave us great confidence. However, there is an essential point in this Bill that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—who is not now in his place, but he will doubtless read it—and I thoroughly agree with him. It is in Clause 1(2)(c), which says that an organism is precision-bred if
“every feature of its genome could have resulted from … traditional processes, whether or not in conjunction with selection techniques, or … natural transformation.”
If one thinks back to the point at which so much of our public debate about GMOs was distorted, the distinction was because that which is the result of gene editing, which is essentially adding pace and precision to what would otherwise be achievable through natural transformation or traditional breeding, was being conflated with transgenics. This Bill is absolutely right in principle because it separates those two things out so that we can look carefully to ensure that we are regulating proportionately.
That is why—if I may just add this point in response to the speech with which I otherwise agreed from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—I do not agree with the point made by Daniel Zeichner in another place and the Labour Party that we need a new and separate regulatory function. So far as I am particularly concerned with plant varieties, we have a perfectly acceptable regulatory mechanism with the specific authorisation requirements, broadly speaking, set out in this Bill, allied to the existing use of the recommended list—the national list—and the related authorisation. That should give people confidence.
It does not give people confidence to have a separate regulatory function and a separate regulatory body in order to arrive at a decision in relation to something that is, in fact, indistinguishable as a product. If people think there are two separate regulatory processes, they think there will be two separate, distinguishable products. In that sense, the Labour Party’s proposals, which were not accepted in the other place, were wrong. They would not have given the public confidence; they would have raised public concerns. That would have been a mistake.
My final point is very much to agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling about the importance of this in the context of our relationship with EU regulation. I am a remainer and I would have stayed and fought the argument, but we did not win this argument about genetically modified organisms with our EU colleagues. I remember in particular having debates with my colleagues and friends in the European People’s Party, who had what amounted to an ideological—one might almost say theological—objection to the use of GMOs, which, because of the conflation with gene editing, has prevented us making steps in this direction and having a regulatory structure for it.
As we change this, we should try to avoid regulatory divergence from the EU, which I want us generally to avoid, but in this particular instance we should continue to argue that we are doing things the right way. Frankly, it is time for the European Union to think about whether it, too, bearing in mind the advantages and the progress that has been made in gene editing, should distinguish between transgenics and gene editing of this character and should change European regulation.
Here we are, only a few days after the United Nations declared that there are 8 billion people in the world and that there are going to be 9 billion. If we are going to feed people, use fewer pesticides and synthetic fertilisers—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly said—and achieve the kind of progress that we need to make, not least in plant varieties, I very much support the Bill. I hope it will be of benefit not only to British industry, which is very important in my part of the world in East Anglia, but, equally, across the globe in terms of enabling us to feed the planet.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, in general I support the Bill. I am afraid that whenever the word “genetic” appears some people, organisations and supermarkets run a country mile. It is no good supporters of the Bill complaining and moaning about this. I remember my experiences in my early days at the old MAFF in 1998-99, when the issue arose. We all recall that, at that time, GMO tomato paste was on the shelves outselling non-GMO tomato paste 2:1. Then the anti-science, semi-religious zealots got to work.
That is the history, but there is a fundamental lesson regarding new technology and food that I took away and tried to use later at Defra and at the FSA, which is that the consumer is king and that the consumer benefits always need to be up front, rather than the producer benefits. I was always reinforced in that view by the late Professor Derek Burke, a former chair of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. His essay in 1998 in Consuming Passions: Food in the Age of Anxiety, published by Mandolin on behalf of the Times Higher Education Supplement, is worth a read by the Minister. Professor Burke’s four key points on new products were: that they must be technically possible; they must offer advantage to the consumer; the regulatory process must be rigorous, open and universal; and the consumer must be offered a choice, at least initially. It is worth putting on record the very last sentence of his essay:
“Technical skills will not be sufficient on their own to turn this exciting and powerful new science into products and processes; scientists will have to take the public with them.”
That is a key lesson.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that there is little wrong with GMO techniques. Some 250 million people in the United States of America have been our living experiment for about 25 years. As far as I am concerned, there has not been a single problem regarding food safety over that time. I accept that there have been some environmental issues, but I do not keep comparing the prairies of the USA with our tiny, people-dense island. They are not the same.
The science of breeding has never been more vital with climate change, as others have said. There will be new diseases in food crops and food production animals that we have not encountered before. Confidence in the current and proposed regulatory system is vital.
I am not in favour of gold-plating but, where food is concerned, the key aspects for consumer confidence are openness and transparency. In this respect, Defra blotted its copybook with the recent Public Accounts Committee report on Weybridge animal health laboratory, which has obviously been facing hard times since new Labour. That needs to be put in order PDQ, otherwise confidence in Defra and its scientists will be damaged.
Defra and British Sugar, whose submission I read, have all set out the potential benefits, which certainly relate to consumers. Not least of these is the use of fewer pesticides and fertilisers. In former days, if we could produce fewer pesticides and use them less, there would be less chance of residues in the final product. I have not checked recently, but I am not so sure whether we check for residues in products as quickly and frequently as we used to.
There is one other issue that I read about. The Royal Society sent a very short, readable one-page briefing on this, with some questions which I will ask the Minister to answer in Committee.
I am going to raise only three general issues. The first is with regard to animals being included in the first place. These concerns have to be satisfied. I can see the benefit for food production animals—I am less concerned about the others—but the fact is that we and our key trading partners have different rules on food of animal origin, and rightly so. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, raised the issue last week at Question Time after a Question literally about the benefit of the technology in enabling our food birds to avoid avian flu. There is quite clearly a benefit to the animals, but there is also a real benefit to the public. There is no question about that. There are also potential benefits to the pig industry.
Less disease in food production animals caused by either poor husbandry or climate change will directly benefit consumers, but we must not use the technology to cover up poor husbandry. That is the reason we do not want the material the Americans want to give us: because the washing of chickens in chemicals is only to cover up their poor husbandry. That is the reality. As my noble friend said, if this is all about ever faster-growing broilers on weaker and thinner legs, forget it; I am not going down that route. I have been in chicken sheds with 30,000 birds that were well looked after with techniques to find out whether they are ill. The techniques that can be used beggar belief. But if it is all about fatter, faster-growing birds on legs they cannot stand on, I for one am not having that.
My second general issue—and this is where I am going to fall out with some people—is traceability. To simply claim that “general food law requires traceability”, which is an excuse I saw offered by one scientist, is an unprofessional cop-out. As such, I am persuaded that, from a consumer point of view—remember that—labelling is a must. It is not only that consumers are entitled to know; we have to take direct account of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. Like it or not, we have devolution.
As far as I am concerned, the Food Information Regulations do not cover enough, because they do not cover methods of slaughter. I would add that in if I could, but I suspect that this is not the Bill in which to do that.
Innovative techniques which claim to improve foods have nothing whatever to fear from openness and transparency. If there is a sniff of less openness and less transparency, confidence disappears. We know what happens when that occurs: we get crisis after crisis, built on false evidence.
I looked at the FSA board papers because I have had no briefing from the FSA, which I am a bit sad to say, and neither has anyone else so far as I know. I looked at its board papers from September; this was discussed at the September meeting. Buried right at the end were the results of its 4,000 sample opinion poll. I will quote only one figure: 78% of consumers thought it important to know that the food was as a result of precision breeding. You cannot dismiss that—it is overwhelming by any stretch of the imagination. If those consumers think they are not being told information, confidence will go out the door.
My third issue is governance. Parliamentary counsel has again, at the Government’s orders, produced another Bill which removes powers from Parliament—not this House but both Houses—to give to Ministers. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which I serve, has not considered this Bill, but I am assuming we will do so before Committee starts. A Bill with three Henry VIII clauses and 28 delegated powers needs to be looked at very carefully. Some powers have no procedure at all; they are not even classed as negative resolution.
Of all Bills, a Bill that relates to new food technology should, on the evidence of the past, be one that gives Ministers no new powers in respect of food safety. We settled all this many years ago. If Ministers do not think it matters, or that because Ministers are elected they are more important—we were told that the other day—they have not looked at the history of why the FSA is there in the first place. It is there to remove Ministers from pontificating on food safety because we wrecked industry after industry in the 1990s due to people’s lack of confidence, and the system has worked incredibly well, by and large, in the past 25 years. That is important. Ministers should have no role whatever in food safety. They are not qualified or trusted. The Bill looks a bit like it is side-lining the FSA, and for the avoidance of doubt I would like to hear from the Minister about that.
I will come back to this in Committee. I am pro-science, pro-technology, pro-consumer and a supporter of the Bill, but the Bill will have to be changed.
The Earl of Stair (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in agriculture, forestry and horticulture. Like many others, I am pleased to see this Bill, which has been welcomed by many in the industry of food production and farming.
There can be no doubt that global warming is taking place at a far faster rate than natural evolution, and there are more and more climatic and disease stresses placed on our cropping and animal production. Many of them have been imported from other areas of the world, such as phytophthora, Chalara and of course Covid, which admittedly is not an animal disease. We also face climatic threats for which our crops are not prepared with the increased risk of drought.
This Bill will allow progression, but needs considerable caution. As it stands, it allows for change at a speed which I think is probably unwise. I am generally extremely cautious about GMO produce, and this is treading a fine line that could easily be overstepped—although I note that, as the Minister said at the beginning, this Bill is to separate gene alteration from modification. The principal purpose of this Bill is for the benefit of both producers and consumers. It should also benefit the environment through less requirement for chemical and medicinal intervention and, in the case of cropping, less fuel and therefore carbon production.
However, I am concerned that the Bill has reached this House without very much alteration in the other place and without the inclusion of what appeared to be several very sensible amendments. I very much hope the Government will be receptive to the amendments which will come forward and be introduced in this House.
The Bill covers a wide spectrum, which includes changes to both plant and animal. The Government are keen to emphasise that precision breeding will be scientifically based development. However, I am concerned that the Bill appears to permit the introduction of new genetic technology in plants in a period of under two years in some circumstances. Although I am very pleased that the scientific approach will be so important, there is little time to assess any practical or physical impacts in under two years.
Plants are more complex because a mistake in precision breeding could escape, as mentioned by other noble Lords, and pose a further risk to indigenous wild plant life. Scientific alterations to the genetics of animals may be easier to oversee because they are more closely controlled in the short term. However, I think it is worth noting that, in the development and breeding of dairy cattle, it takes at least four years to show genetic improvements.
It must not be forgotten that often an improvement on one side by genetic alteration may have a balancing detrimental effect on another side, so even three years is a short period of time to monitor any effect of change. I note that this Bill will bring us more into line with genetically enhanced techniques in other parts of the world. Perhaps the EU approach is slightly better, at a slightly slower pace.
This leads me on to regulation. As was highlighted by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Winston, British farming has a worldwide reputation for quality, welfare and standards. The Bill as it stands does not appear to allow for any form of independent and dedicated monitoring of what is being created or the methods used. This is essential to ensure that the line of genetic precision breeding does not become unauthorised modification. With livestock enterprises, there needs to be regulation, if only to ensure that the welfare management of housed stock, such as pigs, poultry and cattle, is enforced, and the monitoring and management of bacterial and viral infections, such as coccidiosis and pneumonia among other things, does not become lost because the animals are deemed to be safe due to precision breeding and standards are allowed to drop. I suggest that this new sector of science needs an independent regulatory body to oversee change rather than relying on regulations based on perceived scientific risk.
I also note that there is no requirement for any plant or livestock, including feed materials from precision-bred material, to be labelled as such. To my mind, this is a major omission, and I see an issue that needs to be addressed. However, my noble friend Lord Krebs’s proposal for a register may well be a suitable alternative. I do not understand why if vegan and gluten-free products can be labelled, genetically altered products should not also be, so that the end-user is aware of the process used to source the ingredients.
This follows on to traceability and where there will be further conflict with the stance being taken by the Scottish Government at present in this devolved issue covering the use of genetically altered materials. While the Scottish Government may be objecting to the use in Scotland of precision-bred products, albeit linked to other legislation, without a clear agreement on precision-breeding technology being in place there will continue to be unnecessary conflicts at all levels of use. This point was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Although the terms of this Bill relate to England only, surely before it becomes an Act there needs to be further work with the devolved authorities in Wales and Scotland. Surely it is sensible to have a consensus of agreement among all the Parliaments. Can the Minister update us at the end on whether there is still dialogue going on with the two devolved Parliaments? What would the consequences be for producers of cattle in Scotland or Wales who inadvertently marketed cattle fed on precision-bred cereals? It would bring them into conflict with legislation produced by their own devolved Parliaments.
In summary, I see the Bill as being progress in many ways. Less use of fuel to protect crops and less required use of medication for animals can only help to improve a producer’s bottom line and aid the production of food. Climate change is a sad fact of life, governed by how we have lived and are living our lives. It is unlikely to change instantly. As a result, we need to progress change, but without risk to or impact on the environment, and in particular without impacting on the welfare of animals. I see the need for independent regulation, labelling and sensible interaction with internal and external neighbours as essential. I hope the Government will be receptive to the inclusion of new amendments in this House.
Lord Roborough (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for this Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which has driven me to speak for the first time. I will begin by expressing my thanks, first to noble Lords from all parts of the House who have gone out of their way to introduce themselves with great warmth and encouragement, and, secondly, to the doorkeepers, clerks and staff, who have been generous in their welcome and unfailingly helpful with advice and directions.
This Bill is a natural place for my maiden speech, as it is a subject on which I have a little knowledge and in which I declare an interest. I grew up on a dairy farm in Devon. In 2015, we restructured the farm to move away from high yield and high input to a more regenerative, lower-yielding system. The results have been positive for animal health and longevity, working conditions, soil health and profitability.
My family have been Members of this House or the other place for the last seven generations. We arrived in the United Kingdom in the 18th century as an immigrant Jewish family with Portuguese roots. Our prior background was in trade and finance, which we continued and became landowners and politicians. I have followed in that tradition despite the dilution of that genetic inheritance over two centuries of imprecise breeding.
I hope that there are areas other than agriculture where I may make some contribution. I have worked within financial services for the last 30 years as an investor in companies across the technology, manufacturing and commodity industries. I hope this gives some perspective on where this country’s threats and opportunities lie now and in future. I was also a designated senior manager, as defined by the Financial Conduct Authority, and so have experience of the City’s regulatory environment.
For the last four to five years, every meeting with senior management of companies around the world included a discussion of their emissions reduction strategy. The evidence of increasing atmospheric carbon and consequential global warming is irrefutable. While we cannot know with certainty how much the world will warm, or even what the precise outcomes will be, a substantial part of that forecast range could have severely negative consequences for our species. We have a responsibility to take action to reduce and remove those possibilities. My own response has been to focus on large-scale afforestation and to cofound a global trading platform for not just carbon offsets but all aspects of natural capital. As much as 25% of the required global reduction in atmospheric carbon can come from re-evaluating land use, and I am playing an active role in that.
That brings me to the genetic technology Bill. This legislation enables faster development of a technology that will deliver valuable benefits. Greater food security is the ultimate prize. That in turn will allow us to focus more on rebuilding the stock of carbon that has been released from harvested forests, damaged peatland and degraded soils.
Global food consumption has grown at close to 1% per annum for several decades, on a broadly static amount of farmed land. Those demands have been met through technology. The largest contributor is the selective breeding of crops and animals to enhance desirable traits and eliminate harmful ones. This Bill encourages the acceleration of the rate at which and the precision with which we can focus on the traits we desire and will allow for less land to be used in agriculture.
If I look to my own herds, were all my cows blessed with similar genetic traits to my best cow, I could raise my milk output by 23%, without material change to land use or carbon emissions. While we breed every year to increase the prevalence of those best traits in our herd, it is an imprecise and slow iterative process. Precision breeding offers the potential for others to help us accelerate that process dramatically, using DNA that is already present within the species.
Prioritising animal welfare is central to any livestock farming business. We care about our animals and also know that no livestock farming system can be successful without putting animal welfare first. Standards of animal welfare in the United Kingdom are already among the highest in the world, and this Bill introduces a process for additional safeguards on declaration and ongoing monitoring to address others’ concerns. That makes this country one of the most suitable globally for pursuing precision-breeding technology.
It has been an honour to have had the chance to contribute to this debate. I look forward to making further contributions to the House’s work, hopefully with less trepidation in future.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, sadly the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, was delayed in his transport arrangements and arrived in the Chamber 16 minutes late. He is with us now but was scratched from the speakers’ list. It was his great task to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to this Chamber—so I will read out the first part of his speech instead of him. I also draw your Lordships’ attention to the noble Earl’s interests.
“It is a rare honour, indeed my first, to follow a dear friend as he makes his maiden speech. We have a new Member of intellect, integrity and good judgment, and what an excellent speech it was”—
I am sure we all agree with that.
“I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming him to these Benches. I am also grateful to him for clearing up one or two issues regarding his antecedents. With the name of Lopes, I now understand his Portuguese roots. For the last three decades, I had harboured the romantic notion that his family had been brigands or buccaneers who had been shipwrecked on the south Devon and Cornish coastline.
After completing a degree in politics at Durham University, he embarked upon a career in the City, about which you have been briefed. My noble friend is being modest. He worked at Goldman Sachs and more recently rose to become No. 2 to Crispin Odey at Odey Asset Management. Perhaps the most exciting part of his career is that which he has recently embarked upon: co-founding a global trading platform for carbon trading and all aspects of natural capital. The carbon markets are currently like the wild west”—
they are indeed—
“so Circular Algorithmic and Data Systems Ltd is a welcome and trusted entrant into this market, and I am sure will have a large and responsible part to play. Finally, I cannot emphasise enough what a thoroughly nice and decent man my noble friend Lord Roborough is. There is not a bad bone in his body.”
What a tribute to the noble Lord. Had the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, been able to contribute, he would also have welcomed this Bill—and, by the way, the noble Earl owes me at least one gin and tonic for that. I also add my welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I absolutely agree with the noble Earl’s assessment of his very impressive speech. I am sure he will be a great asset to this House and I welcome him.
I turn to my own contribution to this Second Reading. My interests are recorded in the register. I am no longer a practising farmer—but once a farmer, always a farmer. I welcome His Majesty’s Government’s progressive decision to introduce this Bill. It marks a key moment for agricultural science, which ought to be taken seriously if we are to attract investment in agri-food innovation and stimulate economic growth. Indeed, if we do not progress this Bill, we will find ourselves lagging behind other countries in the global food market which are willing to embrace this technology. The truth is that we are already lagging behind some of our global competitors in the application of science, for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.
I want to stress that I understand the concerns of those who have reservations about the Bill and the potential ramifications of precision breeding more broadly. I recognise that the debate requires a clear distinction between genetic modification and so-called precision-bred plants and animals, as we have already heard in contributions from other noble Lords. I am not a scientist, but I bow to the eminent scientific knowledge that exists in your Lordships’ House and look forward to the Minister’s response to the challenges from the noble Lords, Lord Winston, Lord Krebs and Lord Trees. What is clear is that the Bill has widespread support not just from the scientific community, which is understandable, but from a wide range of industry organisations which believe that precision-breeding techniques such as gene editing will be a time-efficient means of identifying important traits that lead to new varieties, compared to traditional breeding methods.
There is, of course, a need to ensure that breeding programmes have appropriate safeguards and standards embedded within them, as have been mentioned already, to ensure there are no negative consequences on animal welfare. I in turn welcome the Government’s step-by-step approach, which is set to create a regulatory system for plants first, followed by animals. Lots of questions have already been raised about the process, but I am encouraged by the positive comments of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in this respect.
Precision breeding offers an opportunity to farmers in England to advance and improve their economic performance and productivity. Such breeding techniques have the potential to produce crops which are resistant to disease and with far fewer inputs, including fertilisers and pesticides. By removing allergens and preventing the formation of harmful compounds in food, precision breeding can create safer and healthier crops, with higher yields at a lower cost for farmers. Globally, 20% to 40% of all crops grown are lost to disease or pests; this is a huge waste. The genetic editing of crops may then become vital in securing future food security for an ever-growing global population which, as we have heard already, reached 8 billion last week.
I know that there are concerns about the risk of cross-contamination of neighbouring crops. There are also requests for traceability and separate labelling, but I need to be convinced of the need for that. I understand from the many scientists who have briefed me already that the risk to neighbouring crops is no greater from genetically edited crops when compared to those which are conventionally bred. For this reason, the benefits may far outweigh the potential risks.
As we seek to move towards net zero and need to reduce the use of chemicals, along with emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture, the benefits of precision breeding are particularly significant. Gene editing will, I hope, help to produce crops that are resilient to the effects of the climate crisis, as has been said, and should reduce the environmental impacts of farming overall. This, in my view, is a huge prize.
However, I have two further issues that I would like reassurance on from the Minister. First, I too am concerned about the devolved nations, which are refusing to support this technology. As a separate point, there are important research institutions located in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which are global leaders in plant and animal science. Their scientific contributions have proved invaluable in the past in the Government’s mission to make farming more sustainable. Can the Minister confirm what he is doing to try to overcome the current objections from the devolved nations to this Bill? Does he believe that the Bill will exclude those institutions located in devolved nations from participating in the Government’s programme?
Secondly, there is a possibility, as we know, that, having been opposed previously to this technology, the EU may well adopt a similar approach. If this happens and the green shoots appear, will the Minister reassure the House that his department will monitor developments closely, so that, if possible, our legislative frameworks are aligned?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I echo his good wishes and warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Roborough. He may have claimed to be of imprecise breeding, but he demonstrated his knowledge of the subject and good humour. We look forward to having him on our Benches and making many such contributions in future. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing forward this initiative, but I am probably housed somewhere between the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Rooker, in that I think this is a good start to the debate today but it is a work in progress.
I do not entirely support the position taken by a number on our Benches, such as my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Lilley, as to why Europe was so cautious in pursuing the precautionary principle. A large part of that was demonstrated by those—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—who referred to the general concerns put forward by consumers. I will be the first to confess that I approach this not as a farmer or scientist but as someone who potentially would like to see more food produced, to a better environmental and higher animal welfare standard, and to have such technologies rolled out across the world. As a very young lawyer, I was involved in Brussels in the early 1980s with Monsanto as a client, which obviously had a great vested interest in this field.
The mistake that successive Governments have made is in failing to bring the consumer with us in this regard. It is difficult to understand entirely what the difference is in the law. In introducing the Bill, my noble friend pointed out that it would create a simple new regulatory regime for precision-bred plants and animals. It will also introduce two new notification systems, for research and marketing purposes, and enable the development of a new science-based authorisation process for food and feed products derived from precision-based organisms.
I am so sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, did not receive the letter from the Food Standards Agency. I am sure I am not the only one who received it but will gladly share it with him afterwards. One issue we have to resolve is whether it is sufficient to have a public register such as that proposed, which was endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I do not believe it is sufficient. I wait to be convinced, which is the purpose of this debate, along with Committee and the other stages of the Bill. If I am a consumer who does not understand the process, why should I have to go to a public register on a database and put myself through those paces?
It would be interesting to see how other countries do this. I do not know whether Denmark, where half my family are—I am also of imprecise breeding—is very keen on this, but I am a big fan of labelling. The Danes are very big on that in most consumer issues, whether it is food, medicines or even beer. I would like a very good explanation from my noble friend the Minister and the Government as to why we are resisting labelling at this stage. If it is so good, as we are hearing, and if precision-breeding technology has so much to commend it, then it is incumbent on us as legislators to ensure that the public and consumers are made aware of it.
I had the honour to serve with the noble Earl, Lord Stair, on the EU sub-committee on the environment when we were still part of the European Union. Another immediate problem which clearly arises, and to which he alluded, is that the Bill applies only in England. I entirely support the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl that further work with devolved Parliaments is required. I am not sure whether this was at Second Reading but, as those who follow the proceedings next door may know, the Scottish National Party has clearly stated that it would oppose the Bill as a result of its impact on Scotland. I am grateful to the House of Lords Library for its excellent briefing and for setting out this quote at page 13. The SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock, said:
“If the Scottish Parliament refused to allow gene-edited crops to be planted in Scotland, we would still be prevented from stopping GMO products from being sold in our shops under the devolution-violating United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 … The SNP is committed to ensuring that Scotland operates to the highest environmental standards, and that we protect and enhance the strength of Scottish agriculture and food production. If we end up with unwanted gene-edited products in Scotland, diverging standards with the EU could cause further damage to our sales, risking damage to Scotland’s reputation for high-quality food and drink.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/22; col. 384.]
My noble friend may well say in summing up that Scotland has got it completely wrong and that we are all getting unnecessarily confused between gene editing, GMO and precision-breeding technology, but that, effectively, makes the point for me. As soon as we keep changing the terminology, the public get even more confused than they might have been at the very start, in the 1980s, when this was first debated in the European Union.
I want also to draw attention to concerns raised by two other bodies, one of which is the British Veterinary Association, of which I am, I think, an honorary fellow or associate. My interest is listed in the register, and I stand by what I have declared there. The BVA has raised a number of concerns, to which I hope my noble friend will respond when he sums up. It accepts that gene editing has the potential to contribute to producing abundant, safe food and in doing so play a role in reducing the environmental impact of a growing global population. However, the BVA says that, as gene editing is relatively new, it is difficult to quantify the risks, particularly in relation to unintended outcomes and the longer-term impact of unintended changes. I hope to hear some more on that. In particular, will my noble friend agree to prioritise animal health and welfare, and food safety, through proper regulation of gene-edited organisms; to enshrine a reporting function in the Bill; and to provide for the transparent labelling of food derived from gene-edited organisms, to which I referred earlier? It is true that retained EU law requires that all gene-edited organisms be classified as genetically modified organisms, so I am not sure whether EU retained law being replaced is part of the forthcoming Bill, of if this is a stand-alone Bill in its own right.
Secondly, the BVA refers to the fact that the EU regulates gene-edited organisms based on process, rather than outcomes, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned. Moving away from what is a very well understood, highly regulated environment to one that involves light regulation or no regulation at all has to be done sensitively, and the public have to be kept informed. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response to the BVA’s concerns.
Then, there are the concerns raised by the Royal Society, which is generally recognised as being a relatively august body. It has two concerns with the approach adopted in the Bill, one of which is that it is perpetuating the technology-based approach to regulating GMOs, which is not justified by the scientific understanding of risk and is not future-proofed against new breeding technology. I should be interested to know how my noble friend and the Government respond to that. It also feels that the Bill’s approach leaves out genetic technology products that depend on the movement of genes between species, which could have major societal and environmental benefits—for example, nitrogen fixation in wheat—subject to the overly generous GMO framework. The Royal Society proposes that any future GMO regulatory framework should include greater scope for public deliberation on the acceptability of the purposes for which genetic technologies have been used.
I am adopting a cautiously optimistic approach to the Bill, but I look forward to my noble friend’s response to my concerns and those of others that I have raised. What may well not cause problems in large areas such as North and South America and Africa could pose very real problems for this country and the devolved parts of it.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I note my interests as listed in the register, both as a farmer and as an IP and technology litigator at a law firm that represents clients active in this space.
I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to this House and congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech; I am glad to have another Devonian in our midst, particularly one who is so close to the cream and who brings such a wealth of expertise in markets of natural capital.
While welcoming one new Member, I regret the retirement of another. Viscount Ridley would have contributed significantly to our review of this Bill, and his absence will be keenly felt. I hope his rebellious backing of my conservation covenant amendment last year did not contribute to his departure.
As a committed environmentalist, farmer and cross-border IP practitioner, for me, this is a significant and exciting Bill. It promises considerable benefits to our food supply, to animal welfare and to our national well-being; it can contribute to our net-zero ambitions, our climate resilience and our restoration of biodiversity; and it also provides great prospects for our innovative bioscience and agritech industries.
It is the last of these benefits that is probably the most exciting. Generally as a nation, we flatter ourselves in thinking that what we do on our very small island will move the needle much on global climate change, food supply or biodiversity; we simply do not have the land to make a significant difference. But with excellent universities and research centres, harnessing a structured and internationally accepted regulatory framework, we can make technological advances that have a significant impact on a global scale. That is the gold standard for which we must strive.
The Government are therefore to be congratulated on bringing forward this Bill, but they must also be wary that these bright and shiny opportunities do not blind us to the dangers that many fear from the technological developments being considered. For those comfortable with biotechnology and its regulation—and plenty of eminent speakers today fall into that category—these fears about gene editing and the use of precision breeding may seem misplaced, but they may indeed be fed by unreasonable suspicions and a certain amount of hyperbole and misinformation. I note that certain briefings mischievously describe gene editing as a form of “deregulated” or “exempt” genetic modification. However, we need to be mindful of public sentiment and bring consumers with us by openly developing robust safeguards, transparent regulatory processes and proper parliamentary oversight. The Government must temper their tendency to introduce critical policy through secondary legislation that sidesteps oversight and engenders mistrust.
There is a major public relations element to this Bill, and the Government must strive to educate in order to overcome the worrying statistics revealed by Defra’s public consultation. In our post-pandemic, social media-mired world, we cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of individuals and businesses disagree with regulatory liberalisation for genetically edited organisms. Can the Minister please provide any insights into the public information efforts that will be introduced to support the aims of this Bill?
Public information leads us to the question of traceability and labelling. It is important that consumers are conscious of where their food comes from and how it was grown, and universal traceability of our diet is an important goal, particularly as we seek to shorten supply chains and ensure producers are answerable for the manner in which our food is produced. But I do not think labelling is the answer here, as gene-edited produce that presents no additional risk to health or well-being should not be forced to compete unfairly with non-GE alternatives. If, as suggested, such produce actually improves health and animal welfare, or saves resources, then producers would undoubtedly extol those virtues in their own marketing.
I have already referenced the international export opportunities presented by this Bill, particularly for technology that can be developed. However, can we be certain that it presents no risks to our existing agricultural export business? Both the World Trade Organization and the European Commission are considering the regulation of gene-editing technology. Can the Minister please assure us that, by being an early adopter and taking a lone path, we will not unwittingly exclude ourselves from these international markets? In particular, what mechanisms are in place to ensure we maintain equivalence with future EU or WTO regulations?
I note some uncertainty regarding definitions and the market sectors impacted by this legislation. Briefings I have received focus largely on animals and plants for the food chain, but I trust the Bill will be equally applicable to silviculture and particularly the crucial development of disease-resistant and climate-resistant tree species, which are essential to the fulfilment of our extensive net-zero tree-planting commitments. Equally, I note that the legislation applies only to multicellular organisms. I wonder whether we are missing out by not addressing the opportunities presented by microbial proteins, which are single cell and an important alternative animal feed.
I agree with the concerns raised in the other place over animal welfare, and the fact that gene-editing technology must never be used to create animals able to withstand lower-standard living conditions. That said, it is a complex issue; for example, if we can help to create native breeds that survive in our inevitably hotter climate, that would surely be a good thing, even though some might say it enabled them to endure harsher living conditions.
The Bill asks much of the Food Standards Agency. I hope the FSA is prepared, and will be fit, for this important purpose.
I would be interested to understand the intellectual property implications of this legislation. Considerable intellectual property resides in the technologies developed to achieve gene editing, as seen in the extensive recent CRISPR technology disputes in the United States. Jurisdictions around the world remain uncertain and divided about the patentability of edited genes themselves, particularly where they are not otherwise naturally occurring. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have considered that issue? It would be significant if gene-edited organisms were themselves protectable by the intellectual property regime, providing potential monopoly power to multinational agritech firms that would prohibit open access to the important public goods that should be created by the Bill.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and to working with noble Lords to deliver, I hope, a better Bill.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and congratulate him on his excellent and amusing maiden speech, and look forward to many such contributions in future.
The development of new cultivars through rapid and precision breeding is a necessity, both in order to reduce crop management burdens such as disease and drought but also for the challenges and opportunities of meeting the demands of the supply chain, and of course changing consumer preferences in relation to product quality—the non-browning banana, which the Minister mentioned, is a good example.
For many crops, including horticultural crops, the conventional breeding cycle usually takes eight to 15 years, according to Frontiers, which is the third most cited research publisher in this field. Technology tools are urgently required to reduce the length of that breeding cycle. Techniques for precision genetic manipulation, such as targeted gene editing, can significantly increase breeding efficiency, particularly for those elements, such as resistance to pathogens, that are genetically controlled by a few major genes. All this must be accompanied by necessary and proportionate regulation to ensure product safety and consumer confidence.
The message therefore comes across loud and clear that every effort possible should be made to reduce the length of the breeding cycle so that we can cope not only with changing consumer demands and growing populations but, more importantly, with the effects of climate change and political events such as war, all of which put new pressures on land use. In this country and many others there is a new policy direction aimed at using what for many years has been purely farming land for the provision of energy, biodiversity and woodland or forestry, leaving aside the changes to farming practices in the shape of using less artificial fertiliser and fewer pesticides. Hence, innovation in agriculture that leads to lower water, spray and fertiliser use is essential. A wonderful example of what can be achieved was given in an article on this subject in the Financial Times on 11 November:
“There has been greater progress in gene editing to improve yields. Inari, a US agritech company set up in 2016, has been working on gene editing to increase yields on wheat, corn and soyabeans as well as reducing the necessary water and nitrogen fertiliser … Inari is targeting yield increases of up to 20 per cent in corn, wheat and soyabeans, with input reduction targets of 40 per cent in water and nitrogen fertiliser for corn.”
All that cannot be done with conventional technology.
Drought tolerance and yield increases using smaller amounts of inputs are complicated issues, and need addressing now if we are to be able to adequately address the challenges. Happily, there are many universities, research institutes, agribusinesses and SMEs out there to complement the research and development being undertaken by the big chemical and other agriculturally focused businesses. We are therefore able to take advantage of developments in the gene-editing world, as long as it is adequately regulated, so that the consumer can buy gene-edited products in full confidence. However, care needs to be taken that the industry is not overregulated to the extent that innovation is discouraged, becomes too expensive or takes too long to reach the rollout stage. Hence, overregulation may be as bad as too little regulation. It needs to be proportionate, risk-based regulation with science at its core, rather than bound by the innovation-strangling precautionary principle that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, mentioned—and which I am sure Viscount Ridley would have mentioned. For that reason, we need to look closely at Part 3 of the Bill to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
Fortunately, despite the claims of some scientists that this is an industry that pays too much attention to vested interests, particularly in the agriculture sector, there is an increasing body of opinion that the science has moved on and, in the words of the European Food Safety Authority in November 2020, also quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Curry:
“Genome editing techniques that modify the DNA of plants do not pose more hazards than conventional breeding”.
That was confirmed by the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council at its recent meeting in Prague, when it concluded with the statement:
“Ministers agreed that the EU must react as quickly as possible to the development of modern trends and not hinder innovation. It is therefore important to change the outdated legislative framework by which the EU regulates the use of modern plant breeding methods. This framework not only restricts European farmers, but also leads to an outflow of top experts to countries outside the European Union, so the damage is extraordinary.”
Let us hope those scientists come here.
Luckily, regulation is already out there as the issues are not new, so it is not a case of reinventing the wheel. More than 15 major countries have set rules that are open to gene editing in crops, and several of those do not differentiate gene editing from conventional breeding. Surely we can learn from these countries and their regulatory systems so that we can introduce best practice in this area to the already formidable Food Standards Agency. No one scientist—not even any group of 100 scientists—has the monopoly of wisdom in this complicated area of science, but, in order to progress such important innovation, let us look at and learn from our friends, who in many cases have a great deal more experience than we do, along with the resources of other world-class scientists.
The more we can work together in this area, the easier it will be to identify any weaknesses in the regulatory system and to develop the all-important confidence of consumers, at home and abroad, to accept precision breeding and gene editing. I ask the Minister to describe the level and depth of consultation with other agencies at the forefront of food regulation such as Health Canada, the European Food Safety Authority and similar regulatory bodies.
It is good to observe that the mood on gene editing in Europe is changing and GMO regulation is being re-examined, as we have heard. It is even possible that some gene-editing technologies will be authorised in 2023. I hope that despite the attitude of elements of the ruling coalition in Germany—and, no doubt, other parties—that may happen soon, as elements of the farm-to-fork strategy involving lower pesticide and artificial fertiliser use, and the lowering of methane emissions from farming, will be hard to achieve without the new technologies.
Farmers require innovation to both maintain and increase productivity in the face of multiple challenges. The Bill will give them considerable confidence in the future.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, when genetic technology is mentioned, many of us still get alarmed because we associate it with GMOs and remember our press in an unedifying moral panic using dramatic headlines such as “Frankenstein foods”. However, with precision breeding, we need to look deeper than the headlines and the shroud-waving, shrill screams of the “anti” campaigners, which are more often semantic than scientific. I believe many are playing on popular misconceptions and a general lack of knowledge about the science of genetic improvement or breeding.
What is breeding? My noble friend Lord Roborough called it “imprecise”. At its most basic, it is the random recombination of literally hundreds of thousands of genes of living organisms. There is nothing new to us in that; us humans have been doing it for 10,000 years. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified now. Thus, there is nothing particularly natural about farming. For example, wheat is not a natural food. It is a wheat grain that has been genetically modified from grass. Equally, my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s guide dog is a genetically modified wolf. There is nothing new in it.
As it involves such a random recombination of genes, I have heard breeding described as like playing a fruit machine—not with three or four reels, but with several hundred. Over time, as our understanding of plant genetics has increased, the process of breeding has become more sophisticated, with each new advance improving the plant breeder’s chances of hitting the jackpot. Much of the success of plant breeding, for example, is based on invasive laboratory-based techniques such as protoplast fusion, doubled haploidy or somaclonal variation, to name but three. All of them, it could be argued, are as difficult to understand as “precision breeding”, if not more so. All the questions the noble Lord, Lord Winston, raised about precision breeding could equally be asked about what is happening now.
Despite these advances, plant breeding remains a lengthy, research-intensive process. It can take up to 15 years to develop each new crop variety. Precision breeding techniques such as gene editing allow scientists a tool to control adjustments to a living organism’s existing DNA, when these changes could occur in nature or in traditional breeding. That is worth stressing. The Bill is absolutely clear and precise that the changes could occur in nature or traditional breeding. As my noble friend Lord Jopling reminded us, it does not permit the introduction of a new gene from another species. That is why the result is not a GMO. Its great advantage is that it speeds up the process considerably by many years in the same way that keyhole or minimally invasive surgery has transformed the ordeal of a full-blown surgery.
By taking products which would equally have been bred conventionally out of the scope of the GMO rules we inherited from the EU, the Bill will realign our regulations with the mainstream approach taken elsewhere in the world. Countries such as Australia, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and the United States do not treat the products of these techniques as GMOs but rather as conventionally bred products. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was right that there are now strong indications that the EU will revise its position and follow the example of this Bill.
Some argue that precision breeding is unnatural. Many of us enjoy a glass of craft brewed ale. It is often made from golden promise barely, as was most Scotch whisky in the 1970s and 1980s. This excellent barley was created by bombarding seeds with gamma rays from cobalt-60 isotopes in a nuclear reactor to introduce random mutations, then picking out the seeds with a desirable character. What is natural about that? I have not found a beer drinker or a Scot who likes a 40 year-old malt who has changed their mind at all when I mention the origin of their beer or whisky.
Exempting gene-edited products from GMO provisions does not mean that they are no longer subject to regulation. I welcome that the UK has well proven and robust regulations to improve new plant varieties, underpinned by the general requirements of food safety, novel food and environmental protection laws. However, we will need to look closely at Part 3 of the Bill, as the current performance of the Food Standards Agency in regulating GM feed import dossiers does not inspire confidence that implementation of these provisions will be either light touch, low cost or proportionate.
The first tranche of GM feed import applications approved by the FSA lagged behind the EU by more than 12 months. What action is my noble friend the Minister taking to ensure that the FSA is not allowed to stifle the good intentions of the Bill through bureaucracy and drive up costs so high that it is uneconomical for the smaller seed merchants producing less popular crops such as vegetables or for farmers to grow new varieties competitively? We do not want to be in the hands of only the international firms and to have to import seeds when we could produce our own.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that precision breeding will benefit our environment hugely, as it will help minimise our environmental footprint by enabling increased and better production of food. It was very useful for the House to hear the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about Africa. Everybody and every country in the world stand to benefit from properly regulated precision gene editing, but will my noble friend the Minister confirm that in Defra precision breeding will not be regarded as a single, silver-bullet solution? It needs to be adopted as part of a broad toolbox of technologies and management approaches incorporated into farming systems to encourage sustainability, increase food production under climate change challenges and protect unproductive areas for the benefit of conservation. It should not allow farmers to farm more productively yet shirk their responsibility to farm sustainability or dedicate more land to nature and to maintain the high animal welfare we already have.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, was right to say that this Bill is a game changer. It deserves our support.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my current interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet and past interests as a trustee of several international development charities and as Minister of State for what was then MAFF for two years, with responsibilities for the issues with which this legislation deals.
All those interests lead me to support the policy development the Bill embodies. As the Minister explained in his clear and cogent introduction, it is a narrow and considered approach dealing only with gene editing and not with the wider issues of genetic modification. Most importantly, it sets out processes for risk assessment, scientific scrutiny and appropriate regulatory regimes. Those issues have all been discussed in this debate. They are all issues where I am sure there will be proper deliberation in Committee and where there may well be room for improvement.
This Bill gives us the opportunity to get it right this time. We did not get it right 20 years ago, and that has meant that we have not made the progress we could and should have made in areas of real importance.
So I hope that the Minister responsible for the Bill does not come out of his time in office with the scars on his back that were described by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and that I certainly still feel, from the days when the atmosphere was so febrile in relation to GMOs that it was almost impossible to have rational debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is not in his place, said, the media coverage and the manipulation of language—I cite the famous “Frankenstein foods” phrase—made it impossible to step back and debate important issues. I remember the day that I had to order the destruction of 1,000 hectares of oilseed rape because of the “contamination” of a tiny amount of GM oilseed rape that would have been admissible for any other sort of seed. The day started with John Humphrys on the “Today” programme and ended with Jeremy Paxman on “Newsnight”, and those were never good days if you were a junior Minister.
What was awful was the sense that the debate was out of control and that it was impossible to have an argument in which different points of view could be expressed and some sort of synthesis of them could come together. Part of the problem was a focus on technology as being, in and of itself, a force either for good or for evil. There was also a lack of concentration on, and therefore of a proper assessment of, the risks of the application of that technology in particular circumstances, and a lack of focus on a risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis of the application that was being considered. I was reminded of this when the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, spoke about the precautionary principle, which could be invoked to stop absolutely anything. This is the only time in my life that I have made up a joke: “Why did the chicken cross the road? Because it had never heard of the precautionary principle.”
Baroness Hayman (CB)
This is first audience that has ever laughed at that joke. I have only ever told it to my children, who thought I was completely mad. But this is seriously important. On these issues, my vision is that of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington: given the potential benefits, it is so important that we get it right this time and that we find a way of having a regulatory framework and a prudent approach that allows us to evaluate and manage potential risks.
I take seriously the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who had his own experiences in this field. I note the importance of being open with the public about that cost-benefit analysis of particular processes. But this was, and continues to be, difficult when the fundamental understanding of the scientific issues is so often absent or misrepresented in certain elements. Like other technologies, genetics can be applied for benign or malevolent purposes, and I note the painstaking work of examining its benefits. We were always told not to mention vaccines that relied on genetic modification because public health physicians were terrified that they would be contaminated in some way. We heard the example of human insulin, where the same thing applies. Equally, I always felt that there was something of a conspiracy of silence among those who opposed GM about the enzyme that allowed the production of vegetarian cheddar. It was a torrid and difficult time.
So I have a great deal of sympathy for the approach adopted by the Royal Society in its briefing to us. It argues for an outcome-based rather than a technology-based approach to regulation. However, given where we are, we need to take this limited step now and consult broadly on the much wider regulatory framework later—that is the correct and prudent approach. Who knows, perhaps the EU may even have taken its own steps in this area by then. But even this limited measure offers the prospect of real benefit in areas of urgent need, be that the sugar beet crop in East Anglia, the possibility of drought-resistant wheat or the Tomelo tomato created at the Sainsbury Laboratory. We have in this country a wonderful bank of expertise in this area of plant sciences. We also have a very good reputation and experience of appropriate regulatory frameworks, and I believe that these can be put together to create something that is important for the future.
My views on this were formed 20 years ago when I visited the John Innes laboratory in Norwich, where I met scientists and agronomists from Africa who were passionate about their work with UK colleagues to develop crops that would survive in adverse conditions and provide nutrition for their growing populations. In the intervening years, those populations have grown even more substantially, and climate change has intensified the challenges and made the need even more urgent. What matters to me is heat-resistant wheat, which is resilient to climate change, and non-browning bananas that would cut the current 50% wastage, as a staple crop for millions of people.
There is a growing understanding that, as well as working to limit further climate change, we need adaptation to respond to the changes already baked into the global climate. The people most at risk and in need will benefit most from adaptation in agriculture that allows them to feed their populations without pollution. Supporting the research and development that will help them do so through gene editing is the fundamental reason why I support the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I would not have chosen to speak in the gap, but it has certain advantages. It is certainly a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who chairs a group with which I am involved in an advisory capacity: Peers for the Planet. Of course, there is a risk that what you will say has already been said, but I do not think that that should trouble me so much: had things worked out better, I would have been on the speakers’ list. It was also a delight to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Roborough, who is not in his place—I suppose he, like the rest of us, has been worried about how to get some nourishment during this debate.
I have some interests to declare. As noble Lords will know, I am involved with a family farming and horticultural business. I am also very grateful for the briefings I have received from the Library—just one of the excellent documents it produces—the NFU, Science for Sustainable Agriculture, the British Society of Plant Breeders, British Sugar and many others. Among other things, I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture, which has long campaigned for gene editing to be facilitated. I have a particular interest in the Bill, and I will concentrate on my area of knowledge, which is, of course, plants rather than animals. It may interest the House to remember that, 10 years ago, I was the Minister in the Home Office responsible for licensing animal experiments. It would be interesting to know whether the Home Office is likely to be involved in any way in the regulation that will follow from the Bill.
I have long been interested in horticultural research. I had an early encounter with it at school, when my form master, who was also my botany master, somehow got hold of some irradiated tomato seeds. I was the pupil required to grow these tomatoes and see whether they had changed in any way, and whether there was anything remarkable about the genetic stimulation that irradiation had produced in them. I was also a founding member of the Horticultural Development Council. Some of the institutes available to us then have disappeared, but we do have research institutes in both the public and private sectors in this country that are second to none. Mention has been made of NIAB, the John Innes Centre and Rothamsted Research, which are all centres of excellence we can rely on.
The Autumn Statement provides for increased investment in research and development work, and this is just such an area where British excellence can be a huge advantage. The advantage of gene-editing technology takes us a step further to healthy, productive cropping, with disease resistance, an efficient use of plant nutrition and an awareness to adapt to climate change.
I support the Bill. In an increasingly hungry world, the technology we are able to use has opportunities way beyond our own needs in the United Kingdom. As the Minister said, we are world leaders in genetic technology, and this Bill should be welcomed in every way.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak from the Lib Dem Benches. Sadly, my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville is in hospital today, but she hopes to be back fighting the good fight in Committee.
These Benches are not anti-science. Although the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is not in his place, I was surprised but delighted that he knows so much about Lib Dem policy to confirm that we are not against gene editing. We are not anti-science, and we see that there are benefits to gene editing. We accept that it is happening now and that there are clear benefits. However, the point of a regulatory process is to manage those benefits and risks in an appropriate way. That is the starting point of good regulation. While we can say that where we were 20 years ago is no longer appropriate, in this House we need to make sure that this new piece of legislation does the job of managing risks and benefits appropriately.
My starting point was to look at the Explanatory Notes to understand the Government’s thinking and why they are doing this. The overview of the Bill boldly and simply states:
“This Bill intends to reduce the regulatory burden and financial barriers in place for researchers and commercial breeders using precision breeding technologies.”
There is nothing about the best system to manage the risks and benefits. If one was to be unkind, one could say that it was driven by a deregulation agenda and nothing more. However, our concern on these Benches is that we have a process to manage those risks and benefits.
We have heard a lot about the benefits, which I accept. We have heard less about the risks, but they are out there. From the environmental side, the speed with which organisms can be bred means that they could be out of sync with other environmental factors, and indeed the landscape and the soils in which they live. However, it is particularly among animals where those off-target mutations—in the phrase the noble Lord, Lord Winston, used—are most common. Indeed, the Government’s own advisory committee, ACRE, says that the unintended DNA introductions are found predominantly among animals. That is the area of particular risk where I have concerns that this proposed regulation does not go far enough.
Let me start where the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, did: with the issue of consumer choice and ensuring that they are involved in this process. Whatever we think about gene editing, it will have profound societal and environmental system changes. As a liberal, I believe that the public should be consulted and should have their say on changes that concern the food that they eat and the environment in which they live and work and which they enjoy. I think it would be fair to argue that, so far, the Government have been sleeping on the job when it comes to involving the public and having the conversation about what gene editing will mean for their food and environment. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to the SI that was introduced last year, and he rightly identified that the majority of people and businesses were overwhelmingly opposed: 88% were opposed to changing the regulation of gene editing from what it is at the moment, which is analogous with GMOs. So, the public have not been persuaded, and the Government, to my mind, have not done a good enough job of making the case.
Equally, as others have said, the FSA did a piece of research which showed overwhelmingly that the public wanted this produce to be labelled, yet its response is that it will be on a register. I feel sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who faced such opprobrium many years ago when he was in charge. If there is any opprobrium out there, it should be for coming up with the idea of a register when the debate about where we are with our food and society has moved on to such a degree that Defra itself is looking at introducing a labelling system next year that will look at a whole raft of issues of concern to the public. However, we are not accepting that, in this instance, labelling is absolutely fundamental to giving the products credibility and giving people the confidence in them that they need. As other Members around the House have said, if there are benefits—and there are benefits to gene editing—there should be no worry about putting labels on the products. The fact that the Government are removing that traceability and labelling from the current regulations is one of our fundamental concerns with what is being proposed.
Secondly, as a number of noble Lords around the House raised, we do not want to deregulate the system in such a way that allows the further suffering of our farm animals from further intensification. We need to make sure that that does not happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and its very clear position that we should not allow a regulatory process which bakes that in. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, the way to overcome that is to have a really strong animal welfare advisory body, which is clear about who is on it and what its remit is. At the moment, we do not know who is going to be on it—that has been left to secondary regulation—and its remit is very narrow. All it can do is ensure that the developers have taken what they argue are the necessary steps to identify the welfare traits. That is absolutely not strong enough; we need much greater clarity on the face of the Bill around the animal welfare advisory body. That will give us some of the assurances we need that the Bill will not bake in further unnecessary suffering in terms of animal welfare.
Another really important point that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, raised was about reporting and monitoring. The analogous piece of legislation, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, identifies the reporting mechanisms there are for people to say what the adverse traits of these activities might be, both for the individual animals and their future progeny—it is included in the Act. I think that is analogous and that we should be arguing for something similar in the Bill. Indeed, the British Veterinary Association—I am very grateful for its briefing on this—are particularly concerned about the need for clear reporting and monitoring and the fact that it is not in the Bill. That is certainly something that we will be seeking to amend in Committee.
I will make another point about animals. We may have views about how appropriate it is to use gene editing to fashion our animals and various other things. I would prefer the Bill to be limited to farm animals because I am extremely worried about some of the impacts for wild animals, including highly mobile fish and insects. I feel that it would be far better for us to concentrate on farm animals, as the Minister knows. He very kindly gave a briefing to a number of groups, during which I asked him who had actually asked for any extension beyond farm animals in the scope of the Bill. He confirmed that nobody had asked for it, but that—as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—this is about future-proofing. That is not good enough; you cannot just future-proof when there is such uncertainty around this use of animals. So, at the very least, we should be constraining this back to agricultural animals.
The third issue—which I will discuss briefly to limit my speech to 10 minutes—is on trade. A number of other noble Lords have mentioned this: our biggest number of exports are to Europe. While the Europeans are of course looking at this issue, my fairly sure understanding is that the French and the Germans are still opposed at the moment, so we are not there yet with them. But, even if they were to move forward, there will be two issues. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, they may not have exactly the same situation or one that is analogous, so how can we ensure that we do not put barriers for our trade in advance by having a system which is out of step with what Europe is doing? We might come to an agreement within the next year; it is possible. The second point, which nobody has raised, is that the Europeans are not looking at animals at all; it is off the table. Therefore, all the people producing British meat, dairy, yoghurt and eggs will face friction in their trade, delivered to them by this Government, because Europe is not going to allow it. So a Government who have prided themselves on cutting red tape—I applaud them for the sentiment—if they go ahead with allowing gene editing for farm animals, are not going to be able to sell into Europe in a frictionless way. This is because the Europeans are not looking to change their proposals around gene-edited animals.
Equally, on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Stair, the devolved Administrations are really uncomfortable with this proposal, to put it mildly. Therefore, labelling, in addition to being an answer for consumers, is an answer for trade, because that gives traceability and certainty for producers, both to our major export markets and across the devolved nations.
I said that I would stick to 10 minutes, so I will conclude by saying that we are not against gene editing, but we need a system which balances the benefits and the risks. This is going too far: it is too light-touch, it does not have the reassurances for consumers, animal welfare or trade, and it needs to be amended by this House or it will be repented at leisure.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and congratulate him on his maiden speech; we look forward to his future contributions.
There were a few references earlier to Jonathan Swift, and I recall that he also wrote an essay suggesting that the poor could eat their babies if they were starving, so we should not assume that everything he said is always a good suggestion.
I begin by confirming that the Labour Party supports the principles of scientific development that this Bill embodies. However, to reassure the public and to provide the right environment for research and investment, we believe that the right regulatory safeguards must be in place, because good regulation is the key to both innovation and investor confidence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, this is our opportunity to get this Bill right. My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch referred to the impact assessment from the Regulatory Policy Committee, which is, as she said, pretty damning. It says that the Bill is “not fit for purpose”, and that the Government’s analysis of the impact of deregulation was “weak”. It further added that the Government has not adequately considered
“the full range of potential impacts arising from the creation of a new”
category of genetically modified organisms. We agree with the questions that my noble friend asked the Minister about these concerns.
The NFU provided a very helpful briefing, stating that precision breeding has the potential to deliver major improvements in the productivity and environmental footprint of farming, to address pest and disease pressures on crops and farm animals, to reduce fertiliser and pesticide use and to increase resilience to extreme weather events, such as flooding and drought. Many noble Lords have spoken in support of these aims, and we support those aims. But the Bill needs to be well drafted, and safeguards need to be in place. Proper regulation and safeguards are important because this is about our food. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly said that current agricultural practices are unsustainable, so we must change the way we work.
There is huge potential to deliver benefits by helping us not only to grow our food more sustainably and efficiently but to tackle the challenges of the environmental, health, economic and social harms that our modern food systems cause. My noble friend Lord Winston mentioned the potential advantages for the environment, but he also demonstrated to noble Lords the considerable challenges.
So, while the Bill brings opportunities, we believe that substantial improvements are necessary. We have heard a lot about potential, but we think that the regulatory regime intended to implement and to monitor these technologies is completely inadequate. Good governance must be at the heart of the Bill, including full supply-chain traceability and transparency. My noble friend Lady Jones explained that, in the other place, we proposed establishing a robust, independent authority, which would be modelled on equivalent provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. I am very sorry that it would clearly not get the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but it would appear that the noble Earl, Lord Stair, may well be interested in that proposal.
We want to draw attention, as other noble Lords have, to the risk of unintended consequences: these must be recognised and addressed, and we do not believe that the Government have done this. When they were giving evidence, the Francis Crick Institute and the Royal Society said that they felt uncomfortable with regulation based on techniques rather than outcomes—in other words, that the purpose, and not the technique, needs to be paramount. Gene editing should not just support commercial interests but be directed at outcomes that support public good.
We have heard that the greatest concern is around animals. At this stage, I declare an interest as the president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. We are extremely concerned about the inclusion of animals in the first place, as well as the lack of protections to ensure that if, such technology is used, it will be done ethically and with due regard to animal welfare. I was glad to hear the Minister talk about the step-by-step approach in his introduction, but I am sure that he has heard from other noble Lords that there are many outstanding concerns in this area. The RSPCA has said that public consultation and dialogue have been about farm animals, and it is concerned about ethical issues around animals, including sporting, companion and wild animals, as other noble Lords have said.
We are very concerned that this is a step change in breeding and in how people perceive animals—they could now be regarded as mere things to be modified for human convenience, contrary to the recognition of animals as sentient beings in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act. The BVA is concerned that the Bill is progressing without proper consideration of the regulatory frameworks needed to ensure animal health and welfare and food safety. We believe that, unless we get this right, it is a missed opportunity to create a world-leading, scientific, well-regulated and robust approach to gene-editing which would benefit animals, consumers and producers. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington asked, where is the detail about the advisory body? The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also looked at this. I am concerned about Clause 12; if we are not careful, it looks as though it will have been drafted to put the applicant in the driving seat.
The Minister reassured us that gene editing is simply a more precise version of selective breeding, with little to worry about. However, selective breeding has prioritised fast growth, high yields and larger litters, and we know that sometimes this causes suffering. The Nuffield Council does not believe that conventional breeding is inherently benign while precision breeding is not. Indeed, we have heard that conventional breeding can lead to both acceptable and unacceptable outcomes which have not been mitigated by existing regulation. Defra has said that the Bill will enable the development of precision-bred plants and animals that will bolster food production and drive economic growth. This gives us concern that gene editing will be used to drive animals to faster growth and higher yields, exacerbating the severe welfare problems that have arisen through selective breeding. If the Minister can provide reassurance on how the Bill can be tightened up to ensure this does not happen, we will be very pleased to hear it.
Defra has also argued that gene editing will be used to improve disease resistance in livestock, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, discussed this at length. This certainly could be beneficial in the case of diseases that do not arise from the way in which animals are farmed. However, there is scientific evidence that keeping livestock in crowded, stressful conditions contributes to the emergence, transmission and amplification of pathogens. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, the proper way to reduce diseases that are generated by keeping animals in poor conditions is to improve the conditions.
The Minister may say that there is little for us to be concerned about, but too much of the detail of the Bill—how it will work, what it will cover—is, as we have heard, dependent on secondary legislation. That does not give us confidence and, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, it does not necessarily encourage public trust and confidence in government intentions and outcomes either. So it is really important that the discussion we have had around labelling is also taken on board by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talked about the importance of public confidence, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talked about why labelling is critical. The Nuffield Council’s report also recommended that the labelling of such foods should have advice on safety, nutrition and health.
The fact that the Government do not intend to label products raises concerns about a lack of transparency. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised particular concerns about this. We know that many British consumers have concerns. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, if we are using new technologies, we have to take the public with us. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, explained exactly why this is so important, because of what has happened in the past.
On plants, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke passionately about the benefit for crops and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, talked about how this can be used more widely in the developing world. These are really important ways we can move forward. However, the Landworkers’ Alliance, which supports smaller agroecological farmers and organic groups, has raised concerns about an increased risk of contamination, so it would be very helpful if the Minister and the Government could explain clearly how that is not going to cause the organic sector any problems.
I have one final question for the Minister. Noble Lords have raised the issue of Scotland. Can he reassure the House on this and the potential for divergence? Harmonisation on trading gene-edited products more widely is a real concern. Whatever position you come at the Bill from, it is going to need to be addressed.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the Opposition support the Bill in principle. A positive statement from the Minister about the precise purposes for which precision breeding might be used, including confirmation that it will be directed towards a just, healthy and sustainable food and farming system, would be very welcome.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their insightful and engaging contributions to today’s debate. It undoubtedly shows this House at its best when it draws together scientists, former Ministers, farmers, leaders of the veterinary profession and many other insightful contributions on this very important legislation.
I broke a self-denying ordinance in my opening remarks when I said that we were going to follow the science. I always promised myself that I would never use those terms again, because after many years in the department in which I now serve, I have been given conflicting scientific advice on so many issues. Others who have been Ministers there will know that, if you are a layman, as I am, you can sometimes find scientific advice prayed in aid by polar opposites. I find a much more united scientific body of opinion in support of this legislation than on anything else I have done, which is why I broke my self-denying ordinance.
Others have spoken of scars on their backs. I really appreciate the insight given by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others into how the arguments on this issue were in some ways traduced—that is perhaps not too strong a word—by others to create the impossibility of having rational debate. What we are trying to do here is bring this down to a proportionate measure, grasp the benefits of this technology and regulate out the disadvantages and malign effects. If we just concentrate on this and are too cautious, we will lose all the precious advantages that noble Lords have spoken about today with such eloquence.
It is clear to me that the exciting potential of precision breeding will of course ignite passions about how we should grow, buy and eat food, as well as about how we should care for our crops, the animals on our farms, biodiversity and the planet. This Bill complements the great work that Defra has been doing in these areas. I assure noble Lords that I know that precision breeding is not a silver bullet—the very words used by some—but it will be another tool in our toolkit as we adapt to climate change and a turbulent global environment.
Jonathan Swift seems to have come in for quotation, so I will give noble Lords another quote. He said:
“Proper words in proper places make the true definition of style.”
With this legislation, we are trying to use proper words in proper places. I am happy to debate this tonight—and, of course, in Committee and at other stages of the Bill—to make sure that we are getting that right. I understand that views may differ on some of the finer details of this legislation, but I will take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords on some of the concerns raised in this debate.
I start by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Roborough for his excellent maiden speech. He brings to this House wide experience: that nexus of an understanding of agriculture, finance and natural capital can be incredibly powerful in our deliberations. What he said about climate change, echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others, reminded me of an incredibly moving conversation that I had at COP with a Minister from the Maldives. She was talking about the salination of the atolls that make up that low-lying country. The point has been made about trying to create opportunities in countries where, for example, salination is becoming a problem, such as by making species of crops that can be resistant to that, thus giving us an opportunity to help some of the most vulnerable people in this world.
People like me sit at the foothills of understanding of this issue when people such as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, speak. That was brought home to me in an analogy from the chairman of the Food Standards Agency, which I, as a layman, found really helpful. What we are talking about here is a paragraph in a book. We are taking out one or two words from that paragraph and replacing them with other words from the same book. That is totally different from what we were being accused of 20 years ago: taking out the entire paragraph and putting in a paragraph from another book. I know that that probably does not stack up when it comes to exact scientific examples—the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is shaking his head, which makes me think that I got that one wrong—but the point is that we need to explain this and communicate it to a wider group of people; the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is absolutely right to try to do that. I will come later to some of the other points that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made an incredibly powerful speech. He referred to Jane Langdale; I am going to see her when I visit her laboratory to really immerse myself in the details of this. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that point, and the point about the consumer benefits that will undoubtedly flow from this.
My noble friend Lord Jopling gave an interesting historical perspective on this. He referred to a number of issues where there can be enormous benefits; I will come on to the animal welfare possibilities. His point about the nitrogen-fixing nodules on wheat—indeed, many of things he talked about—may not be within the exact confines of this legislation, but undoubtedly he spoke about there being great possibilities with the technology within the confines of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wants me to delay the Bill. I hope that she listens to the scientists she works with at Rothamsted; as my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, they are in favour of this Bill. We can kick this can down the road if we so wish, but we will miss out on an opportunity about which many noble Lords spoke so eloquently. However, like other noble Lords, the noble Baroness was absolutely right to point out that this should not be a substitute for bad husbandry. We should not create a pathway towards types of farming activity that we are moving away from. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world; that is something that we should be proud of and where we should continue to push boundaries. I will come on to talk about that in a minute.
Many noble Lords spoke on issues which I will come to in a moment, but in response to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, regarding allergens: no, that will not be the case. The Food Standards Agency has a very clear remit and success in protecting people from allergens. All the transparency issues relating to labelling which people may be concerned about will exist and the current food safety legislation will still apply regarding the chance of an allergen finding its way into a foodstuff. What I do agree with the noble Baroness about is an ecosystems approach to food production. This was echoed by my noble friend Lord Caithness. Britain has signed up to, and will be consistent with, the Cartagena protocol, which she may not be aware of. It underlies what we are talking about.
My noble friend Lord Lilley apologises for no longer being here. He spoke about the precautionary principle. I am fully signed up to this being front and centre in the Environment Act and many other areas. I am sad enough a person to have read the EU guidance on its use and implementation. Sometimes I must remind parts of Defra and its agencies what the precautionary principle is and what it is not. He is right to point it out. The analogy of the chicken was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
A number of noble Lords talked about polling and public opinion on this. Of course, it depends on the question that you ask. If you ask people a question in a way that makes them feel unsafe, they will give you a negative answer, but if you ask it in a positive way, perhaps reflecting some of the exciting possibilities in terms of vulnerable people around the world, Britain’s ability to grasp this technology and be a world leader, and all the other things, you get a different answer. I have been a politician long enough to respect that perceptions are reality in the game that we live within. We perhaps need to do more to get the message across.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the midwife of the Bill, and his appeal for the urgency of it. That is why kicking the can down the road is not an option. There is a requirement to tackle this now. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is a former Minister for whom I have great respect. I will talk about virus yellows in sugar beet as a possibility for this technology. Often, we have fearsome debates in this Chamber about derogations for the use of neonicotinoids on sugar beet. So far, we have not had to use them, but if we can breed out virus yellows and continue to produce sugar in this country, that is good for so many different reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, was one of several noble Lords to raise the concern about the use of the words “precision breeding”. As the changes that we are considering are similar to natural breeding, it is not misleading to use “breeding” within the definition of a qualifying plant or animal. Meanwhile, “precision” reflects the specific, targeted nature of changes which can be introduced by such technologies and which we are considering in the Bill. By not naming the products of such techniques after the technology used to produce them, we futureproof the Bill against developments in this area. For example, genome editing is currently the most popular technology that breeders are using to make the kinds of changes that we are considering in the Bill. However, this may change, so naming qualifying plants and animals “gene-edited organisms” or similar would not be appropriate.
Whether this is a move to GMO by stealth has also been raised. Precision breeding is different from genetic modification, where modern techniques are used to insert genes from one unrelated species to another, for a desired trait or beneficial outcome. Precision-bred plants and animals will have only genetic changes that could occur through traditional breeding.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting at this late stage of the debate, which has been really thoughtful and helpful.
The Minister might want to consider the difference between DNA that is naturally produced and is what the Bill is talking about and DNA that is produced in a gene sequencer, completely chemically. An issue here is that there is not really any difference at all. We must consider that very carefully.
Do not forget, too, in spite of your spelling, that if three base pairs are missing, for example, you end up with cystic fibrosis, which is a killer. One base pair will do with many diseases, so there is a real problem with these definitions. I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting; I do not expect an answer, but it is something we will need to consider during the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am not going to debate with the noble Lord, because he knows much more about this than me, and I know that I would sound even weaker if I just read out a line that has been written. But I value his contribution and I hope to tease out some of these matters as we go through the remaining stages of the Bill.
In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—I hope I have got this right—in some cases, transgenic organisms will be used as an intermediate step in the development of precision-bred organisms. However, for the end product to be classed as a precision-bred organism, genomic features that could not have occurred naturally or resulted from traditional breeding must be removed from these organisms. For example, this would include removing CRISPR-Cas9 genes from gene-edited organisms.
DNA fragments from sexually incompatible species are naturally present in many organisms. This is in line with what could occur naturally—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is on board on this. Therefore, we are allowing for foreign DNA to be present in precision-bred organisms only so long as this DNA does not serve any function and is within the range achievable through natural processes.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also asked why companion animals are in the Bill, and a number of other noble Lords referred to this. Independent scientific experts advise that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk to the environment or health than traditionally bred organisms. This applies to companion animals, as well as farmed animals. We are aware of precision breeding research that is already taking place on animals that could lead to positive welfare outcomes, such as increased disease resistance. Although there is less research taking place on companion animals, there is early research on the use of precision breeding—for example, in improving hip dysplasia in dogs. We do not want to restrict the potential benefits that can be achieved to improve the health and welfare of these species. That is why they are included in this Bill. I would say that that is not a priority, but it is definitely important that we future-proof the Bill.
We are not aware of the specific project to which my noble friend Lord Jopling referred and I would be interested to hear about it. A project that may be relevant was recently authorised by the Secretary of State for a field trial of GM and gene-edited barley. This is related to the concept about which my noble friend spoke. It is being undertaken by the Cambridge Crop Science Centre and is investigating the potential to increase yields by altering the interaction between the plant’s roots and the soil micro-organisms with which they are associated. We are not aware that any research group has yet succeeded in developing wheat plants in the laboratory that can fix nitrogen like legumes can.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that disease is a welfare issue. I cannot put it better than he did. The Government are committed to maintaining our already high standards in animal welfare, and we want to improve and build on that record. I assure noble Lords that this Bill will not lower the standards set by current legislation. He refers to zoonotic diseases and there is a human health element to this. This Government are very much signed up to the “one health” concept, so there is a wider benefit from this.
I will address the questions about why we are including provisions for animals in this Bill. Precision-breeding technologies such as gene editing have the potential to improve the health and welfare of animals, and improve the sustainability and resilience of farming systems. Such technologies can enable new traits to be developed more precisely and more efficiently than traditional breeding. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made a really interesting point about genetic diversity. I cannot remember what percentage it is, but many of our dairy cows are descended from a very small number of bulls. It could be that in the future, because of recent trends, something occurs that endangers the health of many of them—I am not saying the whole dairy herd—because of their genetic uniformity. We want to be able to correct circumstances such as those as quickly as possible, and this legislation should allow us to de-risk that situation.
Research in farmed animals is already leading to the development of animals that have increased resistance against some devastating diseases. A number of noble Lords have spoken about the great organisations we have in this country: for example, the Roslin Institute and others such as Genus have developed gene-edited pigs with resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, or PRRS. It is a disease that causes mortality and major welfare issues in pig populations globally. This has been referred to by a number of noble Lords.
Whilst there is great potential for increasing innovation, we recognise that there is a need to safeguard animal welfare in the new regulatory framework. That is why, as I have already said, we are taking a step-by-step approach, facilitating use of precision-breeding technologies in relation to plants first followed by animals later. The measures in the Bill are designed to ensure that the health and welfare of relevant animals will not be adversely affected by any trait that results from precision breeding. To provide some further reassurance, I would also like to take this opportunity to expand on what the system for protecting animal welfare will look like. I am mindful of the time, but I will be as brief as I can.
Before marketing a precision-bred vertebrate animal, developers will need to provide assurances to confirm that the health and welfare of the animal will not be adversely affected by any trait resulting from precision breeding. This will be in the form of an animal welfare declaration and accompanying evidence. The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied with the declaration before issuing a precision-bred animal marketing authorisation, after which point a precision-bred animal can be marketed. This process will also involve an independent scientific assessment of the declaration by a welfare advisory body. We have also commissioned a research project to help us design the animal welfare declaration process and will work closely with a wide range of stakeholders as this work progresses.
I hope my words, the ongoing research project and engagement on these issues will provide noble Lords with some assurance that we fully acknowledge the importance of animal welfare, and we will continue to protect the high standards that we are proud to uphold.
I turn to labelling and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others. The Bill will provide the Food Standards Agency with the ability, through regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, to introduce a new proportionate and science-based food and feed authorisation process. This will include a pre-market risk assessment for food and feed products developed using precision-bred organisms. The FSA’s role is not being diminished but enhanced—we could not be doing this without it—and it has produced some really interesting work in support of what we are doing.
I will address the points on traceability made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others. To ensure transparency, there will also be a public register of authorised precision-bred organisms for food and feed uses. This will provide consumers, industry and enforcement authorities with information on the precision-bred organism authorisation date, product, developer, characteristics, and food or feed uses. This will give clarity on food business operators involved in the supply of precision-bred organism food and feed products and enable traceability back to source.
A number of noble Lords have raised concerns about the delegated powers. Let me assure them that this is not a skeleton Bill. The powers supplement the principal policy measures which are set out on the face of the Bill and are quite specific and technical in how they are intended to be used. Your Lordships will know that delegated powers serve a valuable purpose, and it is always important to assess them in context. Simply counting up the number of powers in a given Bill is not necessarily meaningful. There are Henry VIII powers, which I know that your Lordships are quite rightly keen to scrutinise. They exist in Clause1(8), Clause 10(2) and Clause 42(1). I am sure that we will discuss those if noble Lords give this Bill the boost that it needs to get into Committee. I will hopefully be able to satisfy your Lordships about the need for them and the proportionality with which they have been put in the Bill.
I am coming to the end of my remarks, but I must address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about trade. They quite rightly want to ensure that trade will not be negatively affected by this Bill. The international regulatory regime for precision-bred products is rapidly evolving. Many countries, as has already been said, have already amended their equivalent regulations, including the United States, Canada, Japan, and Argentina. Our proposed approach would help facilitate greater trade with those countries that have already adopted a similar approach to the regulation of precision-bred organisms.
With regard to the EU, this summer it conducted a consultation on legislation for plants produced by certain new genomic techniques, which is the term it uses for techniques such as gene editing. Some 80% of the respondents agreed that the existing GMO legislation was not adequate for plants, and more than 65% mentioned negative consequences if the regulations were not amended. These consequences included the loss of tools to tackle climate change, to develop more resilient crop varieties and to reduce the use of phytosanitary products. In response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lansley, we will continue to monitor the position of the EU on precision-bred products and on UK/EU trade implications for products developed using precision breeding.
As things stand, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is absolutely right. If we pass this Bill, some material produced through precision breeding and sold into Europe would be treated as a GMO there, but they are moving fast and we want to make sure that we are too. The global market value for gene editing is estimated at £2.7 billion in 2020 and expected to rise to more than £7 billion by 2026. I therefore ask noble Lords to consider the impacts and missed opportunity that would be caused by not supporting this important transition and the scientific basis for it.
Concerns have been raised about the impact assessment. I reassure noble Lords that this red rating is not a reflection on the quality or the ambition of the Bill. The Government are committed to proportionate, science-based regulations and have carefully considered all views and evidence in establishing our approach. The main criticism of the RPC is that the description of the policy differed between the initial review notice and the final submission. It felt that the impact assessment had not adequately accounted for the potential impacts arising from this policy change.
We are clear that at no point has the policy changed. The final submission had small changes in terminology such as changing the title of the Bill from “gene editing” to “precision breeding”. In our engagement and evidence-gathering, researchers and developers were made aware of the policy intention, and that the name had not been finalised, and so our expectation is that the change of the name to precision breeding will be of no impact on researchers or developers.
In response to the RPC’s comments, work is under way to gather further evidence from stakeholders and additional consumer insight data to provide more detail on the impacts to businesses and to bolster the cost-benefit analysis. We are also seeking to provide information to give more clarity on the policy intention, the Bill’s objectives and the options appraisal. Defra is working closely with the RPC and will submit an enactment impact assessment which will address its comments, and this will reflect any amendments made to the Bill as it progresses through Parliament.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about pausing the Bill, the policy has not changed. His Majesty’s Government are absolutely committed to supporting proportionate, science-based regulation. Our engagement and evidence-gathering will, I hope, address her concerns.
We recognise that the devolved Administrations’ positions regarding this legislation differ. My department has had very good conversations with a number of people. I have meetings next week with the devolved Administration in Wales and we will be talking to the Scottish Government as well. The noble Earl, Lord Stair, raised the point that this is a devolved issue. The Scottish Government have declined to join the Bill but the Welsh Government remain open to discussions via the common frameworks. We also engage with leading research organisations: with the Roslin Institute and the James Hutton Institute in Scotland, and with Aberystwyth University and Bangor University in Wales. These are world-leading organisations and they are calling for this kind of legislation. The electoral dynamic will, of course, differ in different parts of these islands and we want to make sure that we are talking to and working with the devolved Governments, and that we come to the right conclusions. I hope that we can persuade them to come along with us.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, talked about the IP implications and whether precision-bred crops and organisms can be patented. The patent system exists to encourage inventions by offering time-limited exclusive rights in exchange for making the invention public, allowing others to further develop it. I am preaching to the choir; he is, of course, an expert on this. Patent rights are available in the UK in the area of gene editing, including plants and animals modified by such techniques. A number of patent applications have been filed and patents granted that relate to the genome-editing tool CRISPR.
The noble Earl and others also raised issues relating to the World Trade Organization. In 2018, a joint statement issued to the World Trade Organization signed by 13 countries stated that Governments should
“avoid arbitrary and unjustifiable distinctions”
between those crops developed through precision breeding and those developed through conventional breeding. The signatories included Canada, Argentina, Australia, Brazil and the USA. We are moving in that direction.
I have not had time to answer everyone’s points, even though I have been rather lengthy in my reply. It is important that we have open conversations. This has been an incredibly fascinating debate. I am encouraged by the level of support for the Bill. I hope we can progress it through the House. I beg to move.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Monday 12th December 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 64-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (12 Dec 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I should advise the Committee that, if the following amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments 2 to 9 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 1
Lord Winston
“(1) In this Act “directed bred organism” means a directed bred plant or a directed bred animal.(2) For the purposes of this Act an organism is “directed bred” if—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the appropriateness of the term “precision bred”.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, when this Bill was considered by the various powers that be in the House, including the Constitution Committee and the committee on the Bill itself, there was widespread concern from everybody who looked at it. They clearly saw that it was imprecise, not entirely intelligible and of a particular, difficult and complex scientific nature; I agree with that.
One of the problems I have in speaking to my amendments is that, to some extent, they must be probing, because my real problem is that the scope of this Bill is seen as one of the release of organisms into the environment. However, inevitably, the science behind that is of an essential aspect. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is answering for the Government, because I felt that his response to me at Second Reading was very helpful; it would have been good to discuss some aspects of this Bill, which we may still have time to do before Report.
To start, one of the really big issues, which I dealt with to some extent in my Second Reading speech, is the nature of precision breeding. As I explained, there is no such thing as precision in biology. Biology is not like physics, and it is certainly not like chemistry. It is a constant response to the environment in a way that does not apply to the other aspects of science. One of the issues here concerns the definitions that we are dealing with in this Bill and, to some extent, in my various amendments—forgive me for my very poor sight but I need to read the numbers; I cannot see otherwise—including Amendments 10, 11, 13 and 14.
One of my problems—it is a problem that many scientists have—is the nature of what is seen as gene editing and a genetically modified organism. There are many different ways of modifying an organism, be it animal or plant. I mentioned in my Second Reading speech that the first time this was done was by the injection of DNA into the egg by Jon Gordon. As we know, that resulted in many mutations and abnormalities in the animals, which were quite horrific to see; to some extent, that is one of the reasons for one of the later amendments that I have tabled for discussion. Moreover, with all the other methods that have been used since—whether it is gene insertion using electro-poration or gene insertion via various other methods, such as using viral vectors and other vectors to carry the DNA into the nucleus—you get very big disruption of the genome.
It is perhaps not fully recognised that gene editing is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, kindly suggested, like taking a large paragraph of text and just replacing it with three or four different letters to make a new word. In fact, it is calculated that there are some 6.4 billion letters in the human genome—it is vast—and what is extraordinary is that the mutation of one single letter in that genome can result in a horrific disease.
The commonest genetic mutation affecting humans is probably cystic fibrosis, which until recently was a deadly disease. All you need to get cystic fibrosis is a deletion of three base pairs in the delta F508 part of the protein. That leads to a mutation that results in children being very severely handicapped, sometimes not growing or not able to digest their food and, in particular, having serious problems with their lungs. Consequently, not many of these children have a full life; they certainly do not have a full length of life and are often severely handicapped—even today, with modern so-called precision medicine trying to affect the genes, which is not nearly as successful as we would like.
That is just three base pairs out of those billions, and it is a good example of a very common genetic mutation that affects perhaps one in 20 of the British population. That means a one in 400 chance of a child’s father and mother both having it, in a family who would not suspect that they had that genetic disorder. Most genetic disorders are not anything like that common; some of them are extremely rare. None the less, they generally cause pretty devastating disease.
I am not suggesting for a moment that this necessarily applies directly to the Bill, but it is a very good model for trying to understand that, even with CRISPR-Cas9, for example, which is probably the main technology we are currently using for this kind of genetic modification, the so-called genetic editing is not exactly free of the chance of causing mutations. It is much less likely—for example, with Cas9 in plants, which is widely used, it undoubtedly causes mutations occasionally in the plant, and sometimes we do not know what the results of this mutation may be. Most of them will be completely harmless but some of them may change the way a gene affects, often quite severely, and its expression. By the word “expression”, we mean how a gene works. For example, a gene which expresses growth means that the organism will grow, and so on.
With regard to animals, we know that different species are very different in how they respond to even minor changes in their genes. Although CRISPR-Cas9 does not actually introduce DNA into the cells, it facilitates the introduction of DNA through the process of changing the RNA. That is the difference, but it is not entirely free of mutations. Mutations can occur occasionally at the point where the DNA is cut—that is, with a double-stranded cut in the DNA—or it can occur remotely across the vast genome that animals and plants have. They can be anywhere. Most of the time, that disruption will not necessarily be in a coding protein, but that does not mean to say that it will be free of any effect on the organism.
That is one of the serious issues that we did not really get to in our Second Reading discussion, and nor was it properly discussed in the House of Commons. I read the Hansard report of the debate, and it was quite deficient in many ways; it was not a very good debate in terms of the science.
The fundamental problem is the uncertainty that you may cause genetic modification—genetic mutation—that is unwanted and unreliable, and is not uncommon in plants with Cas9, which is part of the CRISPR process, in most cases. There are other ways of doing this: there is a process called TALENs and there is a process using nucleases, but we do not need to go into the detailed science. They all present problems in different ways of getting the DNA into a cell.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I draw to the attention of the Committee that in the amendment we are about to discuss, the Marshalled List says,
“leave lines 4 to 6”.
I believe it should say “leave out” and that is what I propose. If I am wrong, I hope somebody will shout.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and, indeed, our very acute Committee chair. I will speak to my Amendments 11 and 86 in this group. It is a great pleasure to follow the House’s acknowledged expert, who set out very clearly the major problems with this Bill and, indirectly, made the arguments for the two amendments I am presenting here. It is perhaps worth starting with my Amendment 86, which amends the Short Title of the Bill, leaving out “Precision Breeding” and inserting “Genome Editing”. I am very happy to debate whether that should be “gene editing” or whatever, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Winston, clearly set out the reasons why we should not be debating a Bill called “Precision Breeding”. As he said, there is no such thing as precision in biology.
There are many areas of science in which “precision” is appropriate and extremely useful. We think about elements of physics and mechanical engineering, say, and talk about going down to millimetres, micrometres, nanometres. We can look at how those might change when the temperature changes, for example. All of those things will be eminently, entirely predictable. That is true of physical properties, but it is not true of biological properties, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, clearly set out.
I covered this issue extensively at Second Reading, so I am not going to go into it at great length, but essentially, precision breeding is an advertising slogan; it is not a legal description. I do not believe that an advertising slogan should have a place in the title of a Bill. Interestingly, when it was put to me that I should seek to amend the Short Title, a technical expert said to me, “You will never get that through the Clerks”. In fact, it went through without a murmur. I think there is a real awareness that this Bill is not properly titled.
Lord Winston (Lab)
On a point of information, the noble Baroness was a great deal luckier with the Clerks than I was, as I tried the same tactic and was told quite firmly that I could not do that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I do not know how that happened, but I think I might take that as a seconding of my Amendment 86. Noble Lords might say that it is only the title and it does not matter, but it is how people will identify the Bill.
I am going to refer a number of times to a Defra press release, dated 29 September 2021, which, all the way through, refers to “gene editing”. That is what it is telling people the Bill is about, drawing a very clear distinction, as it sees it, between gene editing and genetically modified organisms, an issue I will return to shortly. That is the case for amending the Short Title of the Bill. What we are talking about is not precision; it is not marked by exactness, and there are real problems if the Bill is not named clearly.
I come to something that is arguably very significant and considerably more impactful in the nature of the Bill. This is my Amendment 11, which would exclude the use of exogenous genetic material in the creation of, or remaining in, so-called precision-bred organisms. Here I need to venture into the depths of this a little, I am afraid; I apologise to the Committee for that. If we look at many of the definitions that describe gene editing, we see that they say this is simply removing genes from an organism or adding genes from a different variety of the same organism.
That is different from genetically modified organisms. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested that, 30 years ago, when GMOs were being debated, they got an undeserved bad name. But look at some of the things that have been done with GMOs: for example, a salmon that combines the genes from three different types of fish and grows unnaturally fast, reaching adult size twice as fast as its wild relative, to be released into the environment with obvious and potentially massive impacts; or, perhaps even more indefensible, the transgenic zebrafish, bred with genes from jellyfish or coral, which give them a glowing effect under certain light conditions. These genetically engineered animals were popular in aquariums and have now escaped into the natural environment, with effects we have yet to understand.
We are being reassured that gene editing is not like that; that it is a different kind of thing. Certainly, that is what the Defra press release of 29 September, which I referred to earlier, said in the name of George Eustice, the Minister:
“Gene editing is different from genetic modification, because it does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species”.
That is what the public is being told by the department.
We are going to hear in this debate a great deal about CRISPR, and I shall say this only once: CRISPR stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats”. This is the hallmark of a bacterial defence system which forms the basis of genome editing technology. It was first discovered in archaea, a branch of the tree of life that was itself discovered only in 1977—we are talking about very recent science here. The clue is in the description. This is using the bacterial system. The key element of gene editing is the insertion of genetic material from bacteria. That material may or may not be fully removed at some point in the organism’s development, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, set out very clearly, once we put something in, we do not necessarily understand what impact there might be in the current generation, or potentially in future generations.
I am going to borrow and excellent phrase from the joint Soil Association, Friends of the Earth and GM Freeze briefing on the Bill: it says that the genome is
“more like an ecosystem than a codebook.”
Personally, I tend to say that DNA is not a machine blueprint, because that is the metaphor—the idea of animals as machines—that dates back to the philosopher René Descartes, who has a lot to answer for and still dominates far too much of our discussion. We do not have the understanding of how biology and biological systems work. We think about them as machines and they are absolutely, definitively not.
This matters because mixing species, which is what we are doing here with gene editing, is not something that generally happens in nature. Certainly, there is horizontal gene transfer—which is of great concern in the area of antimicrobial resistance, an issue that I do a great deal of work on—but that is a far more limited occurrence and occurs mostly within kingdoms of living things rather than across different kingdoms of living things, which is what we are doing here. My Amendment 11, saying that we cannot introduce genetic material from other species, is doing only what the Government, in their own information about the Bill, say they want to do. That is why I believe we should have Amendment 11.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for raising the question of exogenous DNA, which I mentioned at Second Reading, as did she. I am sorry to say that, on this occasion, I disagree with the noble Baroness. I think her amendment goes too far, since, as she explained so clearly, the current techniques of gene editing require the use of exogenous DNA not only for the CRISPR-Cas9 construct but for the insertion mechanism—for instance, Agrobacterium—and for the antibiotic resistance filter used to check that the changes one intended to achieve have been achieved. Furthermore, at the end of the gene-editing process, there could be tiny fragments of this exogenous DNA left in the gene-edited organism. As I mentioned at Second Reading, although there are new techniques being developed that will obviate the need for gene editing with exogenous DNA, they are not yet ready for mainstream use. Hence, in my view, Amendment 11, if accepted, would in effect kill off gene editing for the near future.
Should we be worried about exogenous DNA? The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, clearly thinks we should. The Bill deals with the issue of exogenous DNA by stating in Clause 1(6) that any remaining exogenous DNA must not code for a protein if the precision-bred organism is to be considered as having been produced by a process equivalent to traditional breeding. Does that provide us with sufficient reassurance?
I am most grateful to Professor Wendy Harwood and her colleagues at the John Innes Centre, in Norwich, for their further advice. My initial thought in considering this problem was that the wording in the Bill could be tightened to say in Clause 1(6) that the exogenous DNA, if there is any left, should have no effect on the phenotype of the precision-bred organism; in other words, no effect on the appearance or biological properties of the edited organism. This would be a more stringent criterion than that requiring that the fragment of DNA could not code for a protein.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, so clearly explained to us in his excellent introduction, the principal way in which DNA is expressed in the phenotype is by genes coding for proteins that are the building blocks of life. However, there are also other ways in which nucleic acids can affect the phenotype; I am sorry if this is a bit technical. One example is RNA interference, a molecular process in which short strands of RNA can act to silence a gene. There are other examples of gene regulation by RNA strands that are not transcribed to produce a protein.
There are mechanisms not covered by Clause 1(6) by which exogenous DNA could affect the functioning of the precision-bred or gene-edited organism. Does this justify a change in the wording of the Bill? The view from the John Innes Centre is that it is unlikely that non-coding DNA could exert a phenotypic effect, although this is both theoretically and practically possible. It argues that these possibilities should be tested for in any gene-editing strategy before a product is developed. If this is the case, it would not be necessary to require it by regulation. Furthermore, the scientists at the John Innes Centre argue that the requirement of “no phenotypic effect” might lead to the conclusion that there has to be exhaustive testing for this in an unspecified range of environmental conditions.
I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, there is an argument for ensuring that any remaining exogenous DNA has no discernible effect on the phenotype of the precision-bred organism. That would be a more stringent criterion than Clause 1(6). On the other hand, one does not want disproportionate regulation that stifles innovation.
I do not expect the Minister to answer on the technical issues right now but could he—if not right now, before Report—put down in writing an explanation of why making the requirement in Clause 1(6) that any exogenous DNA should have no phenotypic effect would be disproportionate and, if it is disproportionate, whether other steps could be taken to manage the risk of non-coding effects on the phenotype of gene-edited organisms?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I rise more to inquire than to support particular amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for tabling his amendments. I imagine that they are probing amendments, and that is the spirit in which I wish to address them. I declare that I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, and I am grateful to it for the briefing that it has given today.
The first question I put to the Minister for my better understanding is what the difference is between cloning an animal and gene-editing an animal or animal product. I did not follow it that closely, but I was very proud that my alma mater, Edinburgh University, was the first university in the world, I understand, to clone an animal—Dolly the sheep. However, it was not entirely successful as I understand she had a very short life. Obviously, one has to ask whether the reason for her curtailed life was that she had been cloned and not produced in a normal way.
The BVA brief that I have received today states:
“Prioritisation of animal health and welfare is essential, as is the use of adequate product labelling to enable transparency and consumer choice”—
I know we will come to those amendments in a different group. In particular, the BVA states, and I support this:
“Breeding and genetic modification must be used in an ethically responsible way to improve animal health and welfare, increase efficiency, and support sustainable agriculture.”
It goes on:
“The Bill is misleading and proposing deregulation based on the incorrect premise that ‘traditional breeding’ results in characteristics which can be assumed ‘safe’, and therefore gene-edited organisms which produce the same outcome are also ‘safe’. This ignores the potential for mutations.”
The Bill has “precision breeding” in its title, but this group of amendments goes to the fact that it can never be precise, because we can never be sure of the consequences, so perhaps it should be called the “imprecise breeding” Bill.
The reason that I am tempted to support a number of amendments in this group, particularly Amendment, 1 is the very fact that it states that,
“‘directed bred organism’” means a directed bred plant or a directed bred animal.”
It is important to understand in what way that plant or animal has been directed and that there is scope for an imprecise outcome, an unexpected outcome. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for whom I am full of awe and praise, with his widespread knowledge and, even more, his experience, said, we could be creating something of which we cannot control the outcome. I am not saying that I stand in the way of that, but I would like better to understand what it is.
There was a news story last night about a little girl whose cancer had not been cured until they came up with a gene-editing formula. They edited genes and implanted them in her, and it looks as though she may now have a cure. However, we are at the very early stage of these procedures, as I understand it, and I believe that there is some sympathy still for the view that the European Union took, which is widely criticised in this House and the other place. Probably the reason that the European Union and its institutions overreacted was the widespread fear among consumers. I think that fear is still there. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has tabled a number of amendments which we will deal with in another group and with which I have a degree of sympathy. As I said at Second Reading, if this procedure, this form of breeding is so good, why can we not be told about it on labelling? Why should consumers have the barrier of having to go to a register? With those few remarks, I support the thinking behind some of the amendments in this group.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being present at Second Reading. I had a hospital appointment and, having waited some time for it, did not want to postpone it for what could have been another three months. I did, however, watch the debate on Parliament TV and will make a short contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made a very valuable and knowledgeable contribution in seeking clarification on the definitions within the Bill. It is important that we all understand completely what the Government mean by the various terms and what the outcomes will be, especially if there are likely to be unintended consequences. It is the role of this Chamber to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or mutations in the future, and that the quality of life for any animal so produced needs to be good. That was not the case with Dolly the sheep. It is important that the phrases used in the Bill are easily understood by those who will affected by its implementation. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, the results of previous debates on GMOs received a bad press, which did the science no favours at all.
In Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also seeks clarification. She wishes the Title of the Bill to be changed so that the somewhat anodyne phrase “Precision Breeding” would be replaced by “Genome Editing”. I have sympathy with this proposed alteration, as I believe that phrase is more accurate and more likely to be easily understood by the public than “Precision Breeding”. The Bill is, after all, intended to modify and edit the genome of plants in a shorter timeframe than would normally happen. Being married to an aeronautical engineer, for me, and possibly others, a phrase such as “precision engineering” conjures up an entirely different picture than the thrust and purpose that the Bill has. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this short group of amendments, which sets the tone for the rest of our debate today.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for introducing these amendments. This group explores why “genome editing” has been changed to “Precision Breeding” in the Title of the Bill and throughout it, when, as my noble friend pointed out, it has no scientific meaning. As he said, there is no such thing as precision in biology. He clearly, and in some detail, expressed his concerns about the implications of the Bill. As he also said, as yet there has been no detailed debate during the Bill’s passage around the science. I am sure that we will have that debate in your Lordships’ House, as there are some very eminent people here who know far more about the science than I could ever hope to learn.
My noble friend’s amendments quite rightly probe the Government’s thinking around the terminology. Importantly, he raised the fact that what we need as an outcome of the Bill is the breeding of plants and animals that are free of risk. Again, he talked about the implications of hereditary traits and the fact that the Bill’s focus is on releasing organisms. We need to think much more about how that is happening, and what the implications are as we put the Bill through into becoming an Act.
We know that in the Bill and during the debates—
Lord Krebs (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I want to make the point that when we talk about “free of risk”, we have to get things in perspective. In so-called conventional breeding, the parent seeds or germline are often irradiated to create a large number of random mutations and then a new cross-bred strain is produced. That often involves shuffling maybe 20% or 30% of the genome and is not regulated at all. When we say “risk free”, we know that conventional breeding is not risk free. The Braeburn apple was introduced 30 or 40 years ago as a new variety—a hybrid of two earlier varieties—without any testing, and that could have had detrimental consequences for human health or the environment. Nothing is risk free, so let us get risk in proportion.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his very important point. We need to think about where we want to go with this and how we want those regulations to come in as we go through the Bill. I am sure that we will be having some very interesting debates on that as we move forward. Clearly, the whole purpose of the Bill is about deregulating the law on gene editing so that we can actually move forward beyond the traditional breeding processes.
The purpose of this group is to look at the definitions as to how we move forward; what we mean by that; and whether the Bill has the right definitions in it. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about unintended outcomes, for example. The interesting thing for me is whether “precision breeding” is the right terminology. Why have the Government picked that terminology? That is something that a lot of noble Lords raised on Second Reading, and again now.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also talked about the EU. One of the things that I have noted is that the EU has quite a different term. I am not aware that the European Union is using the term “precision breeding”, but it is looking at “new genetic techniques”. How does what we are doing in this regulation fit in with what the European Union is doing? We will be talking about trade later on but, clearly, it is going to be very important that it all fits together and works together in the long term. It is going to be very interesting to look at how we develop as we go on.
A lot of the definitions are quite vague as well. It would be helpful if the Minister could, perhaps, explain some of the definitions in Clause 1. For example, in Clause 1(1), the actual definition of “precision bred organism” is very, very broad. Is it deliberately broad? Is it trying to capture something in particular? My noble friend Lord Winston talked about traditional processes and natural transformation, as well as referring to “stable”. Understanding what these actually mean and their implications for the Bill going forward are important.
Amendment 86, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, again refers to the title, coming back to what we have just been talking about. She also has Amendment 11 on exogenous genetic materials. There has been some work done by Defra to shed some light on this. The consultation, for example, that was carried out last year, states that
“this proposal does not apply to organisms which introduce genetic material from other species.”
However, that distinction, as we have heard, is not in the Bill. Does it need to be in the Bill?
It is not stated anywhere that precision breeding technologies are technologies that edit a single organism. I refer to Clause 1(7), which refers to
“somatic hybridisation or cell fusion of plant cells of organisms which are capable of exchanging genetic material”.
What does that mean? Does that open the door to transgenic exchange, for example? Some of it is quite weak on definitions, and some of the definitions could be stretched to include pretty much anything—so I do think that some kind of clarification would be very helpful.
The chief scientific adviser to Defra, Professor Henderson, giving evidence to the Commons Select Committee, said that the Bill was designed not to allow exogenous material. He also said, however, that this was something of a grey area. Particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—and he has a far greater understanding of this than I do—it is very important to get clarification on this area before we move further on into the detail of the debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for this interesting debate on this first section. I will start with, I hope, a note of humility: I understand that I am in the presence of people who have proved, in the introductions by the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, and others, that I sit at the foothills of knowledge compared with them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quoted Descartes—I think he said, “All I know is that I know nothing”. I hope I know a bit more than that, although my learning curve has been very steep. I am grateful to officials at Defra and others who have helped me through this process.
I am aware that the term “precision breeding” has been controversial in some quarters, although well received in others. I thank noble Lords for this opportunity to explain why we have adopted it. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested “directed bred” as an alternative term to “precision bred”, whereas, on this point, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested “genome editing” to replace “precision breeding”. Concerns have been raised about using the term “precision bred” to describe these organisms, because they can result in off-target changes to the organism’s DNA. Although off-target changes can occur using precision breeding technologies, the advice we have received from our Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—in relation to precision-bred plants is that off-target changes are significantly rarer than those produced during the course of conventional methods of plant breeding. This is also the view of the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU Commission.
On animals, ACRE concluded in its advice published in September last year that there is good evidence to suggest that the use of techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 in animals does not result in a greater number of off-target changes than the background rate for natural mutations—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to this. Indeed, many recent gene-editing studies on animals have reported no incidences of off-target changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. Therefore, although off-target changes may occur using these technologies, the scientific advice is that they are more precise than traditional breeding, both in terms of making targeted changes to the DNA of a plant or animal and in terms of the number of off-target changes they cause.
In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, used the term “genome editing” instead of “precision breeding”. The class of plants and animals we intend the term to cover will include some gene-edited organisms. However, it will not cover all gene-edited organisms; it will not include plants and animals that contain genetic features produced by modern biotechnology that could not have occurred naturally or by traditional processes. For example, plants or animals developed using gene-editing techniques to contain engineered gene drives would not be included in this new class of organism; they will still be regulated as GMOs. In addition, there are techniques of modern biotechnology other than gene editing that could produce plants and animals in this new class—for example, cisgenesis. It is important to note that the EU is also considering cisgenic, as well as gene-edited, plants in its plans for regulatory reform.
We considered using the term “gene edited” in the Bill but, for the reasons I have explained, we concluded that this would be more misleading and confusing. The purpose of the Bill is to more closely align the regulation of this class of animals and plants with those produced by traditional breeding, recognising that the genetic changes they contain will have arisen in a more targeted and precise manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, makes a very good point about the very important need to engage the public more on this case. The Government have tried very hard to do this, and the Food Standards Agency and wider organisations are doing some very good work. There is a big social science job to do to get the message out about what we are talking about—and, perhaps as importantly, what we are not—and the wider benefits, which we will come to in this and other clauses, about how we can improve the life of us here on this planet, protect animal health and make us more resistant to such factors as climate change. These are factors that we need to hold in our minds as we rightly debate this important Bill, line by line.
Amendment 10 would, in effect, remove the requirement that every feature of an organism’s genome must have been capable of resulting from traditional processes or natural transformation in order for the organism to qualify as precision bred. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention in tabling this amendment was to explore the meanings of the concepts of “traditional processes” and “natural transformation” that are used in this Bill. I hope to address his concerns around the terminology that we have used in this Bill and why it is appropriate. I will begin by defining what we mean by “traditional processes” and “natural transformation”.
For the purposes of this Bill, traditional processes refer to a number of methods listed in Clause 1(7). The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also referred to these. They are well known conventional breeding methods, some of which have been utilised for over 10,000 years, and therefore have a long history of safe use. The methods outlined in Clause 1(7) were not chosen to represent an exhaustive list of traditional breeding processes. Instead, they were chosen because they represent the full range of genetic changes known to occur naturally between sexually compatible plants and animals.
Scientific advice is that genetic changes that could have been achieved through traditional processes, as outlined, do not pose a greater risk as a result of being introduced by modern biotechnology. This is why we have included
“could have resulted from traditional processes”
as a criterion for obtaining “precision bred” status.
“Natural transformation” refers to the process by which DNA from a sexually incompatible organism may be inserted into an organism. In plants and animals, this is almost always the result of infection with a bacterium or virus. Often, the fragments of genetic material left behind after infection no longer serve a purpose or function. The material is non-functional and does not affect the physical characteristics, also referred to as the phenotype, of the plant or animal.
The effect of Clause 1(2)(c)(ii) and Clause 1(6) taken together is to ensure that, for the purposes of this Bill, DNA from a sexually incompatible species which is similar to that which occurs through natural transformation is allowed in a precision-bred organism. This is so long as it does not affect the physical characteristics of the precision-bred organism. This is supported by scientific advice that genetic features produced through modern biotechnology but which could have arisen in nature do not pose a risk as a result of the method of production.
DNA from a sexually incompatible species is critical in the intermediate stages of development of many precision-bred plants and animals. They enable the subsequent precise genetic changes to be made to these organisms. For example, CRISPR-Cas9 often involves insertion of the Cas9 editing machinery to enable the intended precise genetic edits. The Cas9 gene would need to be removed for the resulting plant or animal to be classed as precision bred. Clause 1(6) comes into play where, in some cases, small non-functional fragments of DNA from the Cas9 gene may be left behind. This would be allowed, provided the genetic changes created could have been introduced through natural transformation.
Taken together, the terms “traditional processes” and “natural transformation” ensure that precision-bred organisms are able to contain, in principle, changes that could develop in nature. It is this characteristic that makes precision-bred organisms and GMOs fundamentally different, and we believe that regulating them as such is a proportionate response to the growing body of scientific evidence supporting the safe use of precision-bred organisms.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the issue of international compatibility of terminology. I am sure the Minister is aware that the International Organization for Standardization, more commonly known as ISO—and many noble Lords are familiar with ISO numbers applied to all sorts of technical and practical procedures—earlier this year produced a genome-editing vocabulary. It provides a list of internationally agreed terms that will
“improve confidence in and clarity of scientific communication, data reporting and data interpretation in the genome editing field.”
There is no mention of precision breeding in that internationally agreed ISO dictionary of terminology. Picking up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: would it not be better if we used internationally acknowledged terminology?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The amount of time we spent in the department working with real experts in this field to get the terminology right means that I hope we can persuade other countries to adopt our definitions. I know that I am not going to find total agreement on this legislation with the noble Baroness, but I can try. As I explained at some length—and I apologise to noble Lords, but I think this is a really important part of this Bill—we have arrived at this definition in a coherent way. Of course, we are constantly looking at how other countries are doing this. We do not want to be left behind, but we want to keep this safe; we want to see what is happening in the EU, but we want to make sure we are giving our scientists and our businesses the right guidelines around which to develop a really exciting new area of technology.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his consideration of what I think are difficult areas in this Bill, which I think remain—we have not solved the problem yet. One of the things I really loathe in Committee is people who move an amendment then take a very long time making a long speech, which bores everybody because they have already heard it, but I feel I have to address a few points specifically. I will not do it again later in this Bill. I think I have views on every single amendment, but I will be careful not to mention them.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned Dolly the sheep. I think Dolly the sheep is a particularly interesting issue, because one thing which will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention is that Dolly the sheep had exactly the same DNA as wherever else she was cloned. Yet animals with the same DNA do not always express the same genes. For example, identical twins in humans are often quite different in many subtle ways, including their fingertips, brain functions, thought processes and so on.
We have to accept that there are many characteristics which are not necessarily demanded, essentially, by the DNA itself but by other things as well. In particular, one of the things we have not yet discussed is the problem of epigenetics; it does come into the Bill. We know that genes can express in different ways under different environmental conditions. That expression can be altered from the very beginning of conception—that is what we are talking about here—which could be, for example, in vitro fertilisation. Of course, that is mentioned in the Bill.
One of the concerns I have about IVF, having been involved with it since its very beginning, is that we still have no long-term follow up on what it means in terms of epigenetics—that is, how genes will express in the future. There are many examples where the progeny of a species—for example, a mouse—may show complete changes with regard to obesity, for instance, due to an insult four generations earlier. One has to accept that these changes occur very early; the mothers are fed with fats at the very earliest stages of pregnancy, and four generations later, we see a sex-determined link with obesity in the progeny. These sorts of issues are not teased out here.
Clearly, a great deal of doubt is encompassed in the Bill and in the science of it. As the noble Lord rightly said, we must all have a degree of humility in trying to work out what is best. He and I, and I think most people in this Chamber, would agree that we are mostly concerned about one thing: the environment. We are concerned about climate change and how we might adversely affect our environment. As we will come to later with the release of organisms, one thing that is very clear is that sometimes in the past—with natural causes—organisms have been released into the environment. We can think of the hornet in Britain, the Bufo toad in Australia, or the fungus which causes elm disease in England. Those things have all been produced by simply being involved in our environment, with colossal difficulties. Of course, we do not ultimately know whether this is a problem with modified organisms.
There is one thing which is not discussed here but which we need to consider. What we have forgotten, partly, is evolution. We are trying to evolve a species in one step, and that is a difficulty. If you take the human species, since Homo sapiens was first in east Africa 100,000 years ago, there have probably been about 5,000 families of humans—that is all. We have not evolved very much; the human brain remains very much the same. It takes a very long time for it to change even small amounts. What we are doing here is expecting rapid change for the benefit of ourselves and, we hope, of the planet too, but the problem is that we are dealing with an environment that is constantly balanced and balancing. We are at risk of damaging that balance with so many things that we do, and I regret to say that this is one of the reasons we have to be very careful when we come at the end of the discussion to the problem of balance and, therefore, how we release these organisms into the environment and control that. That is why the Bill is so important.
Without any further ado—I have already spoken for too long—I simply ask permission to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to probe how widely the Government expects gene editing technologies to be applied to plants, and whether the absence of any limitations may lead to unforeseen consequences for wild plants.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 2 and speak to Amendment 31 in my name. At the outset, I declare an interest through my involvement in Rothamsted agricultural institute, as in the register.
This group follows on quite neatly from our earlier debate, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Winston and others for setting out some of the risks inherent in this technology. It is the balance of those risks that we are struggling with as we go through the Bill, because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, nothing is risk free. We can all see the potential advantages of this technology, but we have to get the balance right.
Amendment 2 is a probing amendment which tests out whether the Government intend gene-editing techniques in plants to be used more widely than simply for agricultural purposes. For example, is it also envisaged that this could be used for ornamental horticulture—to speed up the shapes or the colours of flowers? Is this desirable? Is it really what we want the technology to be available for? Would that wider use of the technology make more work for the regulators? I am sure that it would. As the demand for authorisation soared, would we have the capacity to manage it properly? Do we really want the regulators to be bogged down in authorising the new shade of a rose? This is simply one example. Noble Lords could think of many others which would go beyond the very specific application of the technology to agricultural purposes.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch; I thank her for introducing both this amendment and the other one in this group so eloquently. Amendment 31 makes a modest and perfectly reasonable request. As I said at Second Reading and intend to go on in boring detail about, precision breeding has the potential to be an important tool in the toolbox for creating a doubly green revolution, producing more food with less impact on the environment. If we accept that proposition, we should be in favour of taking into account the wider effects of gene editing.
I do not need to repeat what the noble Baroness said so clearly, but we know without doubt that many of the changes in agriculture that arose during the green revolution were bad for their environments. Loss of habitats, overextraction of water, water and air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, loss of soil health, loss of biodiversity—those are just a few of the adverse effects of the agricultural revolution that we have enjoyed over the past 60 years or so. Amendment 31 makes the modest request that the advisory committee should take into account these kinds of effects so that, when we create precision-bred organisms, we do not inadvertently make things worse for the environment rather than better. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 31. First, for the purposes of this Committee, I declare my interests: I am still involved in a family farming enterprise, growing crops and rearing livestock; I chair the board of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; and I am the president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers.
Amendment 31 is similar to the two amendments that I put down in a later group on animal welfare, stressing the importance of following new strains of wheat, grass and maize—in my case, cows, pigs, sheep and dogs—down through many generations on to the farm, even into the home. As has already been said, the point is that we need to watch for the good effects, hopefully, but we must also look out for the possible unintended consequences that might arise. To be honest, I would hope that this already happens because, obviously, unintended consequences were even more likely to happen in the past under the random mutations of traditional breeding; if not, such measures should certainly be introduced now. It would be good to be reassured of that by the Minister.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, gave a very good introduction to these two amendments. Several of the speakers at Second Reading referred to the benefits of gene editing to enable crops to be hardier with regard to resisting drought and flood and the ability to repel insects. It is obvious to all that climate change is having a dramatic effect on crops; in many cases, it is devastating. Unlike the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, my technical knowledge on gene editing is woefully inadequate. However, I will do my best.
Not only in England but in other countries as well, farmers are finding their crops destroyed by the forces of nature, which they are powerless to combat. In many cases, this has led to a shortage of crops to feed indigenous populations, resulting in food loss and, in some instances, the starvation of large numbers of populations. Attempting to ensure that crops are more resilient is important. However, at the same time, it is essential that the natural cycle of our wild plants is protected. Both the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act focused on the loss of biodiversity in our natural habitats in fields and hedgerows. The environmental land management schemes are intended to help biodiversity recover so that natural species of plants, birds and small animals recover to a sustainable level. However, if the gene editing of crops and plants affects ecosystems to such an extent that it alters their natural cycle, this will undoubtedly have an effect on wild flowers, which in turn will affect birds and small mammals.
This comes down to the precautionary principle and ensuring that action taken as a result of this Bill is closely monitored and does more good than harm. When moving forward with technology, which although tested is likely to move more quickly than traditional methods in the past, the prevention principle should also form a part of the equation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke eloquently at Second Reading of the last time gene editing was debated and how the debate got bogged down to such an extent that it had to be abandoned. It is not our intention on these Benches to see this happen a second time. It is time to move on, but we are looking for safeguards for the future. Without the necessary safeguards, unintended consequences could be hard to reverse. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made very powerful points in their arguments, with which I agree. I hope the Minister will be able to give the reassurances which are sought around the workings of the advisory committee.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not speaking at the Second Reading of this Bill; I was not on the team at that point.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for tabling the two amendments in this group, which we understand to be probing amendments. As my noble friend said about Amendment 2, she is challenging how far technology is applied. Do we want to go beyond certain sectors? How far beyond agriculture do we want to go? Amendment 31 is about the wider environmental concerns and reporting on the potential disruption to the farming ecosystem, which could have adverse effects on other plants.
As several speakers noted at Second Reading, the use of gene-editing technologies in plants is far less contentious than in animals. There is not only a much larger body of evidence from research institutions, following years of trials, but that evidence points to the risks being substantially lower. However, even if the risks are lower and potentially easier to mitigate, we must remain mindful of them. Regardless of whether these technologies are used for plant or animal life, we are dealing with processes that accelerate natural events and which may have—we have already heard this phrase—unintended consequences. Indeed, I have heard that phrase in your Lordships’ House over and again during the process of many Bills this Session. It seems to point to an uneasiness with what is being proposed and a lack of thinking things through during the process of legislation.
One imagines that the bulk of releases and marketing authorisations under this legislation will relate to agricultural products. If we can produce certain crops in a more efficient manner, or make them less susceptible to increasingly frequent extreme weather events, that could be a good thing. But we must remember that agricultural crops live alongside wild plants—grasses, wildflowers, trees and hedgerows—all of which have their own important roles in the natural world and in the careful and precious ecosystem. These amendments allow us to consider how new gene-edited varieties of crops will live alongside and interact with other types of plant life
It may be that there is a place for these technologies beyond agriculture, such as making certain tree species less susceptible to disease. I remember well, as leader of Newport City Council, when we had to deal with the significant problem of ash dieback. Large areas of ash trees were felled, with a significant impact on local wooded areas. We had a policy of planting two trees for every tree cut down on land we were responsible for, so felled ash trees were replaced with other suitable trees. If technology could help prevent such drastic measures, that can only be a positive thing.
Regardless of the precise applications of the technologies, it is not clear that the Bill as drafted takes full account of the potential consequences of new plant varieties once they are released. The Government’s environmental land management schemes and other initiatives are trying to halt the steady decline in our biodiversity which has been caused in part by the loss of meadows and hedges and the habitats they sustain. These efforts are hugely important, and there is a role for gene-edited plant varieties as we seek to achieve that goal. However, concerns have been raised by experts in this Committee that seemingly minor changes to agricultural, forestry and other land management practices arising from the use of new plant varieties could inadvertently have significant impacts on soil quality and wildlife in the medium to long term. These amendments provide the Government with an opportunity to address these concerns and outline how they will ensure that this new regime fits into efforts to protect and enhance our natural environment. I urge the adoption of them by the Government.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for reminding me that I have not referred noble Lords to my entry in the register or stated that I have farming interests. I thank her for being on the board of Rothamsted, one of the great institutions of this country. Many of the scientists there have been enormously helpful to us in the development of this legislation, and I am grateful to them for that.
I thank the noble Baroness for Amendment 2. The focus of our discussion has been on crop plants, but there is potential for precision breeding to be used in the breeding of other plant species, such as in forestry and ornamentals. I entirely agree with that. There would have to be a market for them, and I do not think they would be a priority for plant breeders in ornamentals, but there are huge possibilities for this in areas such as forestry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who I welcome to her post in the team, mentioned ash dieback. She is entirely right that it is a scourge on our environment and anything that can help to protect our forestry, ecosystems and woodland environments is important, which is why there may be a future for precision breeding in some of these areas.
Precision breeding could be particularly beneficial to speed up the breeding process in species that take a long time to mature—for example, to introduce disease resistance and drought tolerance traits in trees. This could have benefits for the forestry sector and for trees that are particularly susceptible to disease. As such, the definition of plants in the Bill is necessarily broad to allow for precision breeding and for the benefits to be realised in a range of species.
Our scientific advisory committee, ACRE, advised that precision-bred plants pose no greater risk to the environment than traditionally bred counterparts. It also advised that crosses between precision-bred crop plants and any sexually compatible wild relatives are extremely unlikely to result in weedier wild populations. Precision-bred plants are unlikely to be more invasive or persistent in non-agricultural settings compared to traditionally bred equivalents. This is because precision breeding relies on the creation of the same type of genetic variation as is selected for in traditional breeding.
The Bill introduces two notification systems. They require developers to provide information about precision-bred plants before they are released into the environment. Our intention is that this information would be published on a public register before the plants are released. I assure the noble Baroness that this will be closely monitored by the Government and, we anticipate, by stakeholders.
This Government have a strong commitment to protect and improve the environment, and we are clear that environmental protections are not being reduced in this Bill. Existing regulations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 will continued to apply to protect the environment from the introduction of non-native and invasive species.
I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that precision-bred plants pose no greater risk to the environment than traditionally bred plants, and that the Bill provides for proportionate systems to monitor developments in how these technologies are applied. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, raised some interesting points. If he will forgive me, I will keep my powder dry until we get to the group beginning with Amendment 19, later in today’s proceedings, because that is where I can best address his concerns.
I turn to Amendment 31, which probes how the use of a precision-bred organism may impact on agricultural processes and systems. As I have previously outlined, we see precision breeding as an essential part of our toolkit to improve our food system. We are already seeing promising research in which precision breeding could positively impact agricultural processes, such as by reducing the need for pesticides and fertilisers and reducing water use.
In countries such as Argentina, where the use of precision breeding has already been regulated in a more proportionate and cost-effective manner, there has been an increase in the variety of beneficial traits being researched. We hope to see a similar outcome in England. This would enable our farming system to benefit from new varieties and breeds that have improved climate and disease resilience and pest tolerance, among other things. We do not expect one trait, product or company to dominate the market and shape agricultural processes in England.
Existing regulations related to plant variety registration, seed certification and seed marketing already deliver an assurance of quality and stability for most agricultural crops. For some agricultural crops, this also includes additional testing for value for cultivation or use. If such crops were to be developed by precision breeding, they would also fall under these regulations.
Precision breeding has the potential to bring positive impacts for farmers and the environment, and we want to encourage that. To encourage this innovation and investment, we need to create a more proportionate and science-based regulatory regime. That is what we are trying to achieve in the Bill. I hope that provides the reassurance that noble Lords require.
Lord Benyon (Con)
As I said, I can see this finding a use in forestry and in some ornamental crops. I think the early work will be done in areas that I outlined, including drought resistance and reducing the requirement for input such as fertilisers and sprays, but we want to include the ornamental sector in time. There are 30 million gardeners in this country, and we want to unlock their potential to be part of a great green revolution, but I do not think that that will be the priority here. The priority will be food.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Then why not restrict the Bill to agriculture and horticulture? There are, of course, mechanical engineering reasons for wanting some plants or indeed animals for non-food purposes.
Lord Benyon (Con)
With respect, I would not want to do that. In the same way that we are insisting that these measures can be achieved over a longer period of time through traditional plant-breeding techniques, if they are safe, it can be applied for food crops and in protection of our trees and woodlands, and it may have applications in other areas which will help our economy, particularly our green economy. I would not want to restrict it from those sectors.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I accept, as several noble Lords have said, that there is a role for gene-editing techniques in breeding disease-resistant trees. My noble friend Lady Wilcox gave the good example of ash dieback and we can think of other examples of such applications.
The Minister seems to be going gung-ho for all markets, if I could put it like that. I caution against that. As I said earlier, we need to do this step by step. We all understand the pressure to feed the nation more productively, but I am not sure that it is a priority to go beyond that to things that are more decorative, for example, even if there is a market at this time. I would have liked the Government to have had a more balanced view to this, but I will study what the Minister said more carefully in Hansard.
Moving on to Amendment 31, I do not think the Minister actually answered the fundamental question, which is whether the advisory committee will be asked to look at the wider implications for agriculture of these particular techniques. Will it be looking purely at whether the individual genome is safe or at how it might impact on the wider landscape, if it is planted in the wider landscape? All we were asking is whether the advisory committee will be given that role. The noble Lord mentioned other pieces of legislation, but we should not have to rely on them to make sure that the environment is protected. It would be nice to see that written into the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will just answer that precise point. That is very much what ACRE does. It would not just be restricted to looking at a narrow area of science but the wider implications of the release into the environment and any impacts that that could have.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and therefore wish to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes animals from the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, I shall also speak to the rather daunting-looking number of amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred in the first group to debate on the Bill in the other place being deficient. It is interesting that, last week, the Institute for Government released a study stressing how much better and stronger scrutiny of Bills needs to be in the other place. The debate we are about to have will perhaps set an example of what the other place could and should have been doing with the Bill, before it came to us.
We already introduced this in the last group with Amendment 2 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, but here we are looking broadly at the wide range of ways in which this Bill might be applied to different groups of plants and animals—or not, as the case may be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in responding to the Minister’s comments on the earlier group, said that it appeared that the Government were
“going gung-ho for all markets”.
That is a fair summary of what we are presented with on this issue, which is interesting, because the debates and the presentations we have heard from Defra have all been talking about food, farming, food security and dealing with the climate emergency. In those Defra press releases, we do not see discussions of prettier roses or more colourful plant foliage, yet it appears that that is being proposed. The detail of this Bill, except for in talking about marketing of food and feed, does not really talk about food and farming at all. We will come later to a group focusing on the question of inserting a clause about public good, which is one way that the actual claimed benefits of the Bill could be inserted, at least indirectly.
The single beneficiary of the Bill is—sometimes this sneaks out—the biotech industry. It is written to support the Government’s industrial innovation ambitions, not to support food, farming or the food security of our population. This is among the many faults that were picked up by the Regulatory Policy Committee; the Bill fails to understand where what it is proposing intersects with farming, food production, food businesses and consumer interests. These concerns are also echoed, in somewhat less clear language, by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for my late arrival. I set off from Scotland very early this morning, but, as noble Lords might imagine, flights have been heavily disrupted. I would be grateful to contribute, if that is allowed.
I thank the Minister for his reassurance about gene drive and that that will still be subject to GMO regulations—this was a concern that I and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, had at Second Reading.
I turn to this group. I very much welcome the inclusion of animals in the Bill. This is a valuable adoption of modern technology. It can be a game-changer in the way we control and prevent diseases in animals, and will have positive welfare and environmental benefits. In this debate, we really need to weigh up the benefit-cost ratio. There are certainly lots of downsides to conventional breeding, which we have used without demur for many years.
Regarding environmental benefits and controlling disease, we know that, if you can control enteric worms in ruminants—for example, sheep—with drugs, you can decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 10% per unit of productivity. There is every reason to believe that we are going to be able to achieve that and more, without the use of drugs, by targeted genetic selection in breeding.
We know that, in the control of diseases, while vaccines are a wonderful invention, there are still many important infections that we do not have effective vaccines for. Avian flu is a very good recent example. Of course, we use genetic manipulation all the time in developing the vaccines that we then inject into people and animals.
Drugs have their inherent problems. Although they have been a fantastic advantage for us—particularly antibiotics, to prevent animals and people dying of infections that we could not control before the 1940s and 1950s—they have downsides as well. In many cases, we have drug resistance. Release into the environment has environmental consequences, as with other chemicals—parasiticides, for example. Environmental pollution of the aqueous environment is currently a matter of considerable concern.
These genetic technologies obviate those downsides of our current technologies. We have known for many years that susceptibility to disease is determined by a number of factors but that genetics is a major factor. However, we have failed to make substantial use of that knowledge, because it is too slow by conventional breeding and too difficult to determine and achieve the results we seek. I emphasise the point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Krebs: natural or traditional breeding involves huge uncertainty, so one’s intended consequences may be extremely difficult to achieve. Conversely, unintended genomic consequences can and do occur, as my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington mentioned.
We discussed the wording in the Title of this Bill—“precision”. We can all agree that the techniques that we are discussing are certainly more precise than traditional breeding, in which we have no control whatever over the multiple mutations that occur when we hybridise animals. I therefore strongly support the inclusion of animals in the Bill, but I share a lot of the concerns about animal welfare and health. It is important for public confidence, as well as for the future monitoring of animal health and welfare consequences, that we monitor for adverse events post the achievement of the breeding of such animals, as we do for new drug introductions. That will be discussed later.
Finally, I will address the welfare issues which have been eloquently articulated. I do not want to repeat what I said on Second Reading, but we have laws governing the welfare of farmed animals. If we think there are problems now—as a number of people clearly do—the solution is to properly apply and enforce the laws we have. We do not need to invent new welfare laws because of a particular technique or technology that is coming along. Welfare laws, I would maintain, are already there; but if we feel they are insufficient, we should strengthen them, and that should apply to conventional and natural breeding as well as any modern technology.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Would the noble Lord be kind enough to answer one question? Does he not consider the possibility that the genetic modification of a herd of animals might make them more likely to be predisposed to a particular disease or infection that we did not expect?
Lord Trees (CB)
With respect, I say that that could be screened out in the development process. There may be indications, were such a risk likely from genetic linkages and so on, and that could be looked for by whole genome sequencing in the screening process and then perhaps by in vivo challenge experiments. But it could occur in natural breeding processes, too.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Lord referred to the possibility of using gene editing to tackle enteric worms. Would he acknowledge that there is some very successful work being done on using diet—particularly tree crops and more varied pastural swards—to tackle worms? That is a far more agroecological approach that is working very effectively and has lots of other environmental benefits as well.
Lord Trees (CB)
I acknowledge that work has been done on that, but it is not in widespread commercial use.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 3, and I support the consequential amendments. The Government’s relatively late decision to add animals into the scope of the legislation has made what would have been a more routine Bill into something we believe is far more contentious. As many of us said on Second Reading, this has been compounded by the lack of detail as to how the regulations will work.
The Government have themselves admitted that the understanding of the impact of these new provisions is not fully developed. In fact, I believe the chief scientific adviser gave evidence in the Commons that it would take at least a couple of years to enact the animal-related clauses. So there is no urgency in adding them to the Bill at this time, and it seems that the only reason this is being done is because Defra is not sure when it will next get a legislative slot. That does not seem a very good basis for making legislation, particularly when we have so little information with which to make a judgment. For example, the factors that the welfare advisory board will consider have yet to be spelled out. We do not even know who will be tasked with making those decisions. We will return to these arguments when we consider other amendments about the composition and terms of reference of the regulators.
On Second Reading, several noble Lords sought to highlight the potential benefits of gene editing for animal welfare, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has done that again. No doubt there could be benefits—for example, in breeding out male chicks or tackling pig respiratory disease. But for every advantage there is a counterargument for the disadvantages. We have heard some of them from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It could be used to enable more intensive livestock breeding or to create fashionable designer dogs with health defects.
The fact is that scientists have not always used their breeding skills to altruistic effect. Hence, as we have heard, we now have chickens whose breast meat is so heavy that they are unable to stand, and farm animals bred for fast growth and high yields at the expense of their welfare. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has also raised concerns about animals being created to live packed together in more crowded spaces—another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. So it is not surprising that the major animal welfare charities are sounding the alarm.
So far, the debate around gene editing has concentrated on crops and seeds, and it has received cautious public support. But the introduction of animals raises much deeper ethical and moral challenges, which have not been explored in the public sphere. We are therefore in real danger of a backlash when this element of the Bill becomes more public.
The British public deserve to have a proper, thoughtful debate about how we want to coexist with farmed and domestic animals and the extent to which we should manipulate their breeding for our own ends. So I believe that these clauses inserting animals into the Bill are premature. We are being asked to take too much on trust at a time when the Government’s own thinking is not clear, and we all know the limitations of the secondary legislation system and the inability of Parliament to make real change at that stage. It is not good enough to expect us to pass this authority back to the Secretary of State when we know so little within the Bill at this time. This is why I believe we need to pause these clauses until Parliament can have a full debate on the fundamental issues at stake. I therefore support Amendment 3.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Trees in welcoming the inclusion of animals in this Bill, but I have added my name to Amendment 6, which would restrict the animals in question in the first instance to those involved in agriculture. My main reason for proceeding cautiously relates to the point just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, of public acceptance. There is a risk that, if the net is cast too wide with the inclusion of animals, there could be a backlash, which would undermine the whole endeavour.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has said, Amendment 5, which excludes companion animals, is a helpful start. I agree with her that many people would be horrified at the thought that we might breed dogs with further flattened noses through gene editing and that they would suffer the consequences of that.
One can also ask: would the public be happy to see gene-edited wild animals? We discussed that in relation to plants a few minutes ago. One could conjure up examples where the answer might be yes. For instance, if we could gene-edit herring gulls to stop them stealing ice creams and chips at the seaside, that might perhaps be a popular move; but I suspect that, on the whole, people would not be happy to see our native animals gene edited outside the context of agriculture. As it is most likely that the early applications of gene editing in animals will be for agriculture, why not acknowledge this, start here and progress step-wise to widen the range of animals at a later stage if that is deemed advantageous?
The advantage of Amendment 6 over Amendment 8, which refers to farmed animals, is that Amendment 6 would allow for the gene editing of, for instance, a pest or parasite of an agricultural species while Amendment 8 would not. I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his expertise on this, but it may in some circumstances be easier to reduce the burden of disease on farm animals by altering the genome of the disease-causing organism rather than the genome of the farmed animal itself.
So, while I am in favour of including animals in the Bill, I think there is a case for proceeding cautiously and, in the first instance, restricting that to agricultural contexts.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 9 is in my name. I will be very brief about that, but I agree that we should be extremely cautious generally about animals at this stage. There is a lot of concern. From the example of dealing with pigs in a genome environment, I know that they are very different from some of the other mammals that we have been experimenting with. We may come to that issue later on when it comes to licensing.
With regard to Amendment 9, there is a strong case as well for limiting this to farm animals, if we go ahead at all—and if we do I would like to see equines excluded, for pretty obvious reasons. Some time ago, when I was working with an anaesthetist who was looking at equine metabolism, it was amazing how suspiciously the horse-breeding industry looked at our work—so much so that we could not share our data on their metabolism. It was very clear that we would have great difficulty with the restrictions that are proposed on that industry.
With regard to the great apes, it would be wrong to consider them in the same way as other mammals. It seems to me that these sapient creatures are so close to humans that they ought not to be included in the Bill. There are restrictions, of course, on the use of rhesus monkeys in research. I have worked with rhesus monkeys, not in Britain but in the United States. As a research worker, I always found that extremely distressing because I saw their response to even just a visit from us, when they knew we were going to do something which they thought would be unpleasant. I feel strongly that there has to be a very strong case for modifying sapient creatures, perhaps even to make them less sapient—so I propose Amendment 9 on that basis.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I realise that these are mostly probing amendments and, as ever, we await the Minister’s remarks with bated breath. But I cannot let the proposal to exclude all animals pass without comment because, like my noble friend Lord Trees, I believe that if we were to exclude all animals from the Bill, it would be an opportunity wasted to enable us to remove a lot of suffering on their behalf. My noble friend and I both mentioned the disease PRRS in pigs at Second Reading. It is a devastating disease for any herd, outdoors or indoors, organic or whatever. As a farmer, you just have to cull drastically to eliminate as much suffering as possible, and killing your herd is not a very pleasant thing to have to do. Breeding resistance to the disease is therefore a much more humane approach.
One of the great positives of the Bill is that if you alter the genes of one animal, say, to make them resistant to a particular disease, and succeed in making this a hereditary and stable characteristic—not always a given—you can get huge benefits for animals and even humans, because you will be taking more antibiotics out of our environment. Breeding resistance into future generations is so much more sensible than the ongoing use of antibiotics, medicines and even vaccines as a way to help animals live pain-free and disease-free lives.
The key to making the Bill work fairly and humanely for animals is to ensure that we continue to have the strictest monitoring and regulation every step of the way: in the laboratory and on the farm, and for plants and particularly with animals. We will obviously come to the tightening of some of these regulations later in our deliberations.
On the companion animal debate, I fear I disagree with my noble friend Lord Krebs, who I very rarely disagree with. I realise that they seem to present a slightly more unregulated environment than that of farm animals; people keeping pets are not subject to the strict regulations that exist on our farms—regulations that are, in theory, enforced by a variety of inspectors, not least those who come from the supermarkets, on which the farmers depend for their livelihoods. However, we are not debating how the pets are being kept: it is the ability of breeders to get the relevant licence and approval from the Home Office, and now from the welfare advisory body. If we had some form of guarantee that the welfare advisory body will have a remit—nay, a duty—to investigate in the home and on the farm the future quality of life of any relevant animal and its progeny, along the lines of my later amendments, I do not see it as necessary to exclude companion animals in total from this Bill.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, at the risk of appearing to be part of a Cross-Bench cabal, I would like to support the comments of my colleagues on the Cross Benches and include animals in the Bill.
This is a very minor point, but I would like to respond to the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on productivity. This is not, in my view, about ever-increasing yields of crops, the growth of animals, the yields of dairy cows or the growth of chickens, but about improving what is real productivity, which is reducing the cost per unit of production, and improving the welfare and well-being of the animals by reducing their susceptibility to disease. It is the cost of producing the unit of production that is the true measurement of productivity, not ever-increasing yields. I believe that to be able to use these techniques to do that will be of huge benefit to both the animals themselves and to those who farm them.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we have heard the arguments made by those who argue for the exclusion of all animals with great sympathy. We think that both noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made good points. Their arguments around the concerns that the public have are extremely well made. I merely add one other reason why their case is strong, which has not been referred to, which is the evidence that was produced from ACRE, which the Minister referred to. What he did not make clear in his remarks was that ACRE said that in terms of unintended consequences, and DNA being retained in organisms used through this process, the likelihood of that happening is far higher with animals than it is with plants. That is another strong argument for a slower approach to proceeding with gene editing. I do not think anybody is saying that gene editing does not have any benefits, but we should be taking that slower approach, both because of how the public have shown their concern over animals and because of the advice from ACRE that that argument has merit.
I understand where the Government are coming from and therefore I have proposed four amendments in this group that would limit gene editing to just farmed animals. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, may have concerns over the wording I chose. My wording was chosen merely because that was the defined use in a previous piece of legislation, so we would not have to argue about what the term meant. I think it is useful in Committee to be probing the Government on excluding farmed animals for a number of reasons. First, as a number of colleagues have said, when we look at other particular areas, such as companion animals, it is not just the welfare treatment of companion animals, it is the actual characteristics that are being bred. Let us think about cropped ears or short muzzles for dogs. Those are not the sorts of things the public would like to see this legislation being used to introduce.
Equally, in the area that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, there is the potential for an enormous number of unintended consequences if this technique is used for wild animals, not only for the animals themselves but for the biodiversity and ecosystems around them. There is a real worry at this stage, which causes me to feel that, if animals are to be included, it would be sensible to restrict editing to farmed animals. There are two other reasons why I think it is important. The first is that it is all the public have been asked about. The Minister talked about how the FSA and the department have been consulting the public; they have consulted with the public only on farm animals, not on the use of animals more broadly. The public have had no say in that at all, so I do not think it is right or proper that we should proceed with a piece of legislation with such huge implications for animals, given public concern that could threaten the capacity of this technology, which does have benefits, to be accepted by the public. They have had no say on companion animals or wild animals. Yes, they have had some say on farmed animals, but not more broadly. That is one concern I have.
My second concern is one that I raised at Second Reading, when I asked the Minister who else in the industry, in the scientific community, in the academic community and in the veterinary community had asked for anything other than farmed animals. The response was, no one. This is about the Government, in their terms, future proofing the legislation, but I do not believe it is appropriate to go beyond what people have been asked about, be it the public, the academics, the veterinarians, the scientists, business organisations, Rothamsted or anyone. No one has been making a case for anything beyond farmed animals, so I ask the Minister to address that in his summing up. On these Benches, we would prefer animals to be excluded in their entirety and to proceed more slowly. But, if that is not the case, we think there is an extremely strong case at the moment to limit it to farm animals. We are looking for a rather better response from the Minister than he gave at Second Reading as to why he thinks it is appropriate that anything beyond farmed animals should be included in this legislation.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, but many of them are consequential, so I will not go through them one by one. I have also added my name to Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I have supported other amendments in this group, such as the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The reason for this is that, whether we agree that animals should be included or not, there is a wider debate as to when they should be included, how quickly they should be included, and whether all animals should be included or just some. That is why I put down a lot of amendments in this group. It is an area on which we really need to have proper debate and consideration, because it fundamentally changes much of what the Bill is trying to achieve if you have not just animals but all animals within the Bill, and without any timescales as to when these are going to be included.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Winston, because this is slightly different from any other discussion that we have had. It states that the legislation should not apply to equines or rhesus monkeys, for example. He also stressed that he was very cautious about including animals right at the start of the Bill. We will be very interested in the Minister’s response to my noble friend, because it is a different area that he has raised.
I mentioned at Second Reading that I was concerned about the introduction of animals and how they have been included in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised an important point as to what was discussed with the public in the earlier stages that led up to the legislation in front of us. All the secondary legislation that preceded the Bill was really about plants, not animals; likewise, much of the Government’s language and discussion focused on plants, not animals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the consultation that was held by Defra referenced animals, but they did not seem to be the main focus of attention. Moreover, references to animals focused completely on farm animals. Many stakeholder groups were not expecting the Government to include animals in the Bill, which is partly why many are quite taken aback and have raised concerns.
If you look at the Bill, you will also see evidence of the lack of concrete provisions around timeframes: many of them are vague and noncommittal. Much of the preparation that we believe is necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been properly carried out. In many aspects, the Bill is a framework Bill, with little detail on actual intentions or provisions on its face. It also delegates a broad set of sweeping powers to Ministers, not only to bring in an awful lot of secondary legislation but to amend primary legislation with a Henry VIII clause, which I am sure that, at some point, we will get on to debate.
No one disputes that it would be a wonderful thing to be able to tackle avian flu or PRRS. Of course, if we can find a solution to these kinds of diseases, it would be hugely beneficial—not just in a financial sense, with much of the Bill focused on marketing, but also in terms of welfare.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about the fact that he strongly supports animals in the Bill. I believe that that is because he is looking at the welfare aspects of this. However, I am concerned that he may be a little gung-ho about how quickly we need to move forward on this. I agree with him that we need to strengthen animal welfare laws. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, talked about the importance of breeding to remove disease and produce resistance to disease. I completely understand those arguments, but I am concerned that we may be moving too quickly without the regulatory framework that needs to be in place and without the considerations that we need to have around the inclusion of animals.
The other thing I want to draw the Committee’s attention to is the fact that the European Union timetable also indicates plants, not animals. Have the Government considered the implications of the EU moving ahead just with plants at this stage if we have animals as well? A large number of animal welfare organisations have expressed concerns; I ought to declare my interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which is one of the groups that has said it is concerned about this Bill.
The RSPCA, which has already been mentioned, produced a particularly good briefing as to what these concerns are. Its thoughts are that, ideally, the Bill should not cover any animals but, if it does, it should be limited to farm animals only. We have heard a lot of arguments today as to why that should be. It also mentions, as one would expect the RSPCA to do, the impact of conventional breeding, particularly on dogs; a number of noble Lords have talked about that. It also says that gene editing in wild animals is done with the express purpose of altering ecosystems, with potentially unpredictable impacts, and that this should always be controlled by the GMO regulations; I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that particular comment by the RSPCA. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also expressed concerns about wild animals.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, the other issue is that we need to take the public with us. If we are not careful about how we legislate around the animal aspect, we will lose them. It is terribly important that we are very careful about how we bring in and implement any animal aspects of this Bill, if at all. The Nuffield Council also raised concerns about bringing animal welfare in, stating:
“The welfare of animals is not a characteristic, like growth rate or milk yield, but a consequence of the interaction of biological and environmental factors.”
That is a really important thing to take home with us as we look at how we can move the Bill forward. It also said:
“There is a risk that the focus placed on individual traits in the Bill could distract from this broader consideration of welfare.”
It is terribly important that that concern is built into the Bill.
In our debate on a later group, we will debate the welfare advisory body in the Bill; now is not the time to do so but the question of whether that group is adequate will be a really important part of the Bill, particularly in terms of whether we should amend it to support that concern. Compassion in World Farming also raised concerns about this issue; I will not go into the detail as we discussed this at Second Reading.
I am slightly concerned that it has been suggested that ethical concerns should not be part of the broader debate. I would say that, where animal welfare is concerned, they should be. We must not forget those ethical concerns either.
I mentioned Professor Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at Defra, earlier. I am going to mention him again, because I thought his evidence was particularly interesting in the Commons Committee debate. He said:
“The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals.”
He also said that the process of considering the evidence on animal welfare
“will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be”—
as referenced by my noble friend Lady Jones—
“something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.”—[Official Report, Commons, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee, 28/6/22; col. 18.]
Where in the Bill is that set out, so that we have that guarantee of two to three years? Neither the process nor the timescales are laid out in the Bill. If we need more time to get the provisions right, why are we not focusing on doing that rather than asking noble Lords, essentially, to allow them to pass and then ask all these questions and put in this detail afterwards? That, to me, is not good legislation. These are big decisions we are making.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, when I was in another place, there was a free vote on the smoking ban. I remember a panicked Back-Bencher coming towards the Lobbies and saying that he did not know how to vote, because he hated smoking but loved freedom—what was he to do? Someone just said to him, “That way for freedom from smoke; that way for freedom to smoke.” I mention that because it shows that you can look down two ends of a telescope and come at this from two directions. I entirely understand that people who want to oppose the Bill in its entirety will find hooks on which to hang that belief, and that others who see merit in this will try to see a path down which to go.
I will try to address the points raised. First, for clarity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that fungi are out of the scope of the Bill. I am sure she will be pleased to hear that. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that animals were not a late inclusion into the Bill. There was a consultation in March 2021 which included animals, and a response to that was published in September 2021, so I do not think the idea that this was a late entry into the Bill stacks up.
I am grateful for the opportunity to further build on the Government’s position on why we think it is vital that animals remain part of the Bill. There are many potential benefits of enabling precision breeding in animals, including, as we have heard, to improve the health, welfare and resilience of animals. We have a real opportunity to harness the great research that is already taking place in the UK. Noble Lords highlighted some of this great potential during Second Reading, but to reiterate, our leading scientists are already using precision breeding to develop resistance to a range of diseases that impact animals across the country.
We have already mentioned at Second Reading research focused on resistance to bird flu in chickens, resistance to sea lice in farmed salmon and resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trees—
Lord Winston (Lab)
I have been looking very carefully at the literature on gene editing for this debate, to remind myself. Although the Minister praises British research—of course we like to promote British research and British universities, being at one myself—I have to say that what I see is that the papers describing the risks of gene editing in detail largely come from other countries, including Asia and America. I do not think we can ignore the fact that there is a wide body of opinion that recognises that this is still a relatively dodgy technique, particularly so in animals, and therefore we need to go carefully before we start to implement it as a sort of service that we might be able to sell.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and will cover that point in a moment.
I was making a point about PRRS, but there are also developments abroad in producing cattle that are more heat tolerant and resistant to climate change. As was pointed out at Second Reading, there is potential to reduce methane emissions from cattle, which is vital for more sustainable agricultural systems.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that there are many examples that demonstrate the potential to bring significant health and welfare benefits to our animal populations and economic benefits to our farming industries. That is why we are looking at this down one end of the telescope. I hope I can persuade noble Lords that this a way that offers great potential, particularly in the area of animal welfare.
It is vital that we create an enabling regulatory environment to translate this research into practical, tangible benefits. This is a key objective of the Bill, and removing animals from the Bill would hinder us from realising any benefits of these technologies for animals. Ensuring that these technologies are used responsibly and enhance animal health and welfare is vital; I think we are all agreed on that. That is why we intend to take a stepwise approach in implementing the Bill, with regulatory changes to the regime for plants first, followed by that for animals. We want to make sure that the framework for animal welfare set out in the Bill is effective, and we will not bring the measures on precision breeding into effect for animals until this system is in place.
It is important we get this right, and that is why we have commissioned Scotland’s Rural College to carry out research to help us develop the application process for animal marketing authorisations. This will focus on the welfare assessment that notifiers will have to carry out to support their welfare declaration. This research will help us determine an appropriate welfare assessment for precision-bred animals and identify the evidence and information that must be submitted to the welfare advisory body along with the notifier’s welfare declaration. The research will involve experts from the Animal Welfare Committee and a wide range of organisations with expertise in animal welfare, genetics and industry practice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trees has noted, the Bill introduces additional animal welfare standards, over and above existing animal welfare legislation. We are clear that these additional safeguards will complement our existing animal welfare regulatory framework for protecting animals. This includes the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. A suite of legislation exists. I absolutely refute the points that have been rightly raised that this can be seen as a fast passage towards higher density occupation of buildings because birds are somehow resistant to diseases caused by tight accommodation. There is already legislation that controls the densities and other animal welfare provisions. The idea that this is somehow going to allow producers to get round existing legislation is not the case, and there are additional animal welfare safeguards within the legislation.
If we want to drive investment in new research and realise the potential benefits for animals, we need to include them in the Bill. By doing so, we are providing a clear signal that the UK is the best place to conduct research and bring products to market.
I move now to the topic of limiting the scope of the Bill to certain animals. As we have already discussed, we know that there are benefits from enabling precision breeding. This technology has the potential to improve the health and welfare of animals. This applies to a range of animal species. I hope that the points I am coming to now will address the points made in the amendments and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others.
The definition of animals in this Bill is broad so that the legislation remains durable for future years and to encourage beneficial research and innovation. Much of current research is on animals used in food production. We want to ensure that the potential benefits, such as improved welfare, can be realised across different species in a responsible way as research advances. This includes species that are kept only in this country as companion animals. Independent scientific advice that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk than traditionally bred organisms applies to farm and companion animals.
To quote one example, hip dysplasia in certain breeds of dog is a devastating condition; it causes a lot of misery for the dog and its owners, and results in the dog’s early death. I do not say that there is some quick and easy path to resolving this, but there is a lot of research going on to traditionally breed out that condition. I want to see this sort of work speeded up. It seems right to include the ability to tackle these sorts of conditions in companion animals in this legislation, with adequate safeguards.
It is important to note that this is just the beginning. We intend to take a step-by-step approach with animals. We will not bring the measures set out in this Bill into effect in relation to any animal until the system to safeguard animal welfare is fully developed and operational. This system is intended to ensure that, before a vertebrate animal or its qualifying progeny can be marketed, their health and welfare will not be adversely affected by any trait that results from precision breeding. As I said, we have started by commissioning Scotland’s Rural College to conduct research that will help develop this application process.
I acknowledge the amendments tabled by noble Lords in relation to the range of animals covered in the Bill. The suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to pursue and build up the step-by-step approach is the right way forward. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured to know that the Bill, as currently drafted, already allows us to take this step-by-step approach through commencement regulations; for instance, by commencing the relevant provisions of the Bill in relation to some animal species before dealing with others. I hope this offers some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I hope that the points I have made will enable noble Lords to not press their amendments.
Lord Trees (CB)
On companion animals, I can understand that this is a difficult and quite controversial issue. There is an irony and a paradox—for example, around short-nosed dogs; the so-called brachycephalic breeds—and we can look at it with either a glass half full or a glass half empty approach. The irony is that, through natural, traditional breeding, we have bred animals that are deformed. Brachycephalic breeds have a markedly reduced life expectancy than breeds with long noses. They have not only problems with obstructive airway disease but delivery by Caesarean section is much more frequent, and they have ocular and skinfold problems. Genetic manipulation and editing could help reverse these trends much more quickly than might happen through traditional breeding. We need to be open minded about the potential for good, as well as the potential for less good outturns.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord: there are opportunities here. With the balanced approach that we have taken and the step-by-step approach with which we will implement the legislation, I hope that we can quickly get to the place that the noble Lord described, where we start to reverse some of the terrible things that we have seen in traditional breeding processes. I hope that the Bill can be seen as paving the way for higher standards in animal welfare for all kinds of animals.
I am about to sit down, but I can see various noble Lords poised to step in and I am very happy to take more points.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister. He has talked about a step-by-step approach a few times. Why can that not be put in the Bill, so that we are secure that things will not be able to happen until we are ready for them?
Lord Benyon (Con)
All I can do is assure noble Lords that nothing will happen before we are in the right position to do it. That is why we have commissioned the work with Scotland’s Rural College, and we are working with important stakeholders such as veterinary colleges and others to make sure that we get this right.
The priority will be to try to do this for farmed animals first, and we want to make sure that we are operating a step-by-step approach. If we put it in the Bill, it may be too prescriptive, because we are in a fast-moving area of science, and it may constrain the ability of the scientific community to progress this if we do it in the wrong way. We want to give as much freedom as possible, and that is why we are adopting this process.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I hope the Minister will forgive me—I have been a complete pest to him this afternoon and will probably continue to be one—but it is nothing to do with the scientific community. That community can take as long as it wants to get the right answers; it is the marketing of these animals that concerns us. We have no problem with the science, providing it is done humanely, and we recognise that that is the Government’s intention because we already have very good legislation to do that, but we have to accept that the science is still uncertain. That is why we are concerned that we might make mistakes.
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is precisely why we want to have the proper regulatory framework in place, and that requires consultation. We also have a flowchart, available on the Bill webpage, that sets out very clearly the process for applying for an animal marketing authorisation. I will not delay noble Lords by going through each of the six steps in the process, but it is very extensive and exhaustive and clearly sets out how we propose to do this.
It gives the kind of reassurance that a lot of noble Lords talked about regarding the public’s acceptance. To address that point, it is a matter of how you put the question: if you do so in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, just did, mentioning the benefits of the legislation, I think a huge majority of people will support it. If you ask it in a different way, you will get a different answer—that was the problem 25 to 30 years ago.
The noble Lord is right, of course: the scientific community will move at the pace that the money allows it to, and the market will create demand for the research. But we want to make sure that we have a good, proper regulatory process that reassures the public and is clear to developers of these products, so that they can see how they will be required to sit within that sort of framework.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer and thank everyone who contributed to what has been a very rich, full and very informed debate. I am going to deal first with the structural questions just raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
We again have this problem that we have to wait for the regulations and trust the Government. I appreciate that the Minister was doing his best to persuade us, and I felt that he really wanted the opportunity to have a PowerPoint presentation here to show us a slide of his flowchart. But this is all about taking it on trust. Almost certainly, in the timeframe the Minister referred to, we are talking of not the same Government implementing this—I am not casting any aspersions on who the next Government might be—and the noble Lord not being in a position to guarantee what will happen in the future. We are left with this uncertainty and it not being clear. We know that tomorrow will test your Lordships’ House on just how much it is prepared to stand up against regulations. We shall see what happens then.
The Minister responded to me on the standards of what I call factory farming. He said that there is already legislation on this, but I say that that legislation is grossly inadequate and that we have huge disease problems because of that. Tightening up animal welfare regulations and regulations for housing animals in this country would greatly reduce the need to deal with problems of disease.
It is interesting that the Minister also said, perhaps a couple of times, that including animals is about making the UK the best place to conduct research. I come back to the point I made on an earlier group about whether this Bill is for animal welfare, food security for farmers, or for our biotechnology industry. It appears that we are hearing that it is for the biotechnology industry.
I am not going to run through all the contributions, because the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman, have already provided us with a good summary, but I will draw together the responses from the Minister and a number of others, including the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Cameron of Dillington. There have been suggestions about tackling disease, but we are talking about ecological niches here. Let us say you produce pigs that are entirely resistant to a particular disease; you are producing resistance to one species or one threat. You are very unlikely to produce widespread resistance, so you are opening up an ecological niche for another disease to come in, if you keep animals in conditions that allow that to happen.
We can take a practical example from what is happening in human society at this moment. Over many centuries, human societies have had conditions that have allowed the spread of a wide range of respiratory diseases.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not agree with me that we have been somewhat dismissive in this debate of the use of vaccines? Surely one of the ways to look at this with more intensity, and perhaps more money, is to look at more vaccines not just for human health but for animal health. At the moment, the research there is nothing like as much as it is for humans.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and agree, although we know that animals kept in good conditions of husbandry are much less susceptible to disease. My first approach is to keep animals in conditions where they are not susceptible to disease, and then you do not need to go to the expense and effort of developing vaccines or using antibiotics, which have the issues with resistance that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
I was talking about respiratory viruses. Our population is threatened now by not just Covid-19 but a number of other coronaviruses that have long been causing respiratory diseases in humans. We are threatened by rhinoviruses and by flus, all because of conditions that make us prone to respiratory illnesses spreading. Tackling just one of those, as we have done with the Covid-19 vaccine that the noble Lord just referred to, with great effect, does not mean that we will stop all those other forms of respiratory illness.
That has covered the main points. I want to come back to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, which raises some interesting points on great apes. I would extend this to all simians or monkeys. I ask your Lordships’ House to consider whether we actually want to be gene editing great apes or monkeys.
The point about equines is also very interesting when we think about horseracing and the enormous amount of money and the possibly shady characters involved in it. Whether we really want to see gene-editing in racehorses leads us into the companion animals question. It is a real area of concern. On that, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to brachycephalic breeds that are identified as a problem area. If the breed societies were to say that they were going to create really rigid rules and change their definition of what those breeds are supposed to look like, that would be another way, a kind of husbandry way, of tackling the issue.
I will of course withdraw the amendment at this stage, but before I do that, I want to ask the Minister a question. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, does he think we should leave open the possibility of gene-editing great apes?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not think that any conversation I have had has considered what our priorities would be. Our priorities would be to look at farmed animals and possibly the benefits for companion animals. We are not a range state when it comes to those sorts of animals, and I cannot see that being a priority.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer, but I note that the Bill allows that to happen. There is nothing in it to say that it would not. I have no doubt that this is an issue that we will return to on Report, probably at some length, with a number of choices before us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c) an organism’s genome could not have resulted from traditional processes or natural transformation if that organism is, or the processes used to create it are, subject to patent protection.” Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment examining how, where a genetic technology breeding process for any living organism has been granted a patent under international or national law, it can be the result of a traditional process or a natural transformation since novelty is required for granting such a patent.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise that I seem to be dominating; I am sure we will get away from this. Amendment 12 appears in my name. In some ways we are returning to some of the issues that we were discussing in the first group about the definition of “traditional” or “natural”. If a genetic technology breeding process has been granted a patent under international or national law, novelty is a condition of acquiring a patent. Therefore, how can it be traditional or natural? I freely confess to your Lordships’ House that I am not an expert on intellectual property, and Amendment 74 in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others deals with how this interacts with intellectual property law and the issues that were raised by your Lordships’ House’s oversight committees which the Government have insufficiently considered. I am going to leave that entirely to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, because intellectual property is definitely not my area.
However, I think it is worth exploring how something can be both traditional or natural and patented, whether we are using that as the process to create an organism or the organism itself. It is worth thinking about how the words “traditional” and “natural” are used. The idea is that something traditional or natural has been tried or tested for generations. It is associated in the public mind with safety. We know that food, feed and seed labelled as “traditional” or “natural” draw a higher level of consumer trust, so these words are important in their own terms and in terms of the technical understanding.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 74 in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for crediting me with knowledge of international law on IP, but in fact I am not very well informed on that. I will raise some questions that were put to me by the Royal Society, which suggested an amendment of this nature. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Patel for putting their names to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Patel sends his apologies; he is stranded in Scotland, as are many other noble Lords, I suspect.
My amendment merely asks the Government to review and publish guidance on the implications of the Bill for the law of intellectual property. This is important because all those involved in the development and marketing of precision-bred organisms need to know where they stand. Are these organisms to be treated, from the point of view of IP, like transgenic organisms or like conventionally bred organisms? GMOs currently enjoy greater intellectual property protection than new plant and animal varieties produced using other breeding technologies, which is justified in part by the greater expense of securing regulatory approval for the cultivation of varieties carrying GM traits.
But intellectual property protections significantly reduce the accessibility of the benefits of genetic technologies, and they also contribute to public concerns about the commercial use of technologies. As we heard at Second Reading, the fact that Monsanto and other companies had patent rights for GMOs and had inserted terminator genes into the plants was a major objection to transgenic crops 20-odd years ago.
If genome-edited products are not treated as GMOs, they should enjoy no greater intellectual property protection than the products of traditional breeding technologies, such as plant breeders’ rights—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also made this point. Members of the plant breeding industry need to be able to breed from each other’s varieties, and it would not be in the public interest if the adoption of genome editing for crop improvement were to compromise the ability of plant breeders to make crosses with each other’s varieties.
Plant breeders may argue that they should benefit from patent protection in the same way as for GMOs in order to recover their costs, including the royalties to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred on the CRISPR technology. However, I suggest that the public interest overrides this argument. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will confirm that, since precision-bred organisms are defined in the Bill as equivalent to organisms that could have been produced by conventional breeding, they will not enjoy greater IP protection than conventional varieties. Surely this is the logical conclusion.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, have spoken eloquently to this small group of amendments. The technical aspects of the Bill are complex and he has already mentioned the matter raised by the Royal Society. If a new seed variety is developed using GMOs, as he said, it has greater intellectual property rights than one that is developed using other breeding technologies. If some genome-edited products are not treated as GMOs, they should enjoy no greater intellectual property protection than the products of traditional breeding technologies, such as plant breeders’ rights.
The whole issue of novel foods is affected by the Bill and these amendments. The Royal Society believes that those in the plant breeding industry need to be able to breed from each other’s varieties, and it would not be in the public interest if the adoption of genome editing for crop improvement were to compromise the ability of plant breeders to make crosses with each other’s varieties. I am really sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is not here because I feel he would be interested in this section. The ownership of intellectual property needs to be addressed before the Bill moves forward to Report. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I look forward to the response of the Minister.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 12, and to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for tabling Amendment 74, which my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock was pleased to sign. Issues around intellectual property were not explored in any detail in another place; nor did the topic feature heavily in the Hansard report of Second Reading. Some may argue that such matters are pushing the scope of this legislation, but we believe it is vital that all interested parties understand the regimes that will apply once the Bill is passed and enacted.
For a product to make it to market, it will have been subject to research, testing, scaling up and the release and marketing processes laid out in the Bill. This will involve significant costs for those who develop the technologies and associated products. We understand that they will want to protect that work and the underlying financial investments to the best of their abilities. On the other hand, for this process to be successful, we need to see fair prices for the farmers who will utilise these technologies or the new plant and animal varieties that arise from them. At present, it is not clear what IP regimes will apply. We can make assumptions, but there is no certainty. As a result, we do not know how many players will bring these new products to market, nor how many farmers will be able to afford them. Amendment 74 offers a way forward, requiring the Secretary of State to publish guidance on these matters prior to bringing the bulk of the Bill’s provisions into force.
These matters are incredibly complex and perhaps not best dealt with through additions to the final version of the Bill. However, this is Committee, and we hope that the Minister will be able to provide an indication that this work is not only in progress, but that appropriate guidance will be in place at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments regarding intellectual property laws. I will first take the probing amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would prevent an organism from qualifying for precision-bred status if it was subject to a patent, either on the product itself or on the process used to produce it. This provides an opportunity for us to explore how a precision-bred organism can be patentable, and what it means for such an organism to be capable of having
“resulted from traditional processes or natural transformation”.
As I am sure she is aware from previous debates in Committee, it is the final genetic composition of an organism that we are considering when assessing whether a plant or animal meets the criteria for being “precision bred” as set out in the Bill. This is in line with the scientific advice we have received: that it is the final genetic and phenotypic characteristics of an organism that are important and not the technology or process used to produce it.
This approach differs fundamentally from the current principles used to determine whether patents are available for plants and animals whose DNA has been altered using modern biotechnology. Unlike the definition employed in the Bill to determine whether an organism is precision-bred—which, as I have said, focuses on the end result—patent principles focus on the technology or processes used to produce these plants and animals.
The definition of a “precision bred organism” should continue to be based on scientific evidence and advice. In continuation of this logic, it would be disproportionate and unscientific to prevent a qualifying precision-bred organism from having precision-bred status on the basis of the granting or not of a patent. To prevent precision-bred organisms from obtaining patent protections would go against the core principles on which the Bill is based: that regulation should be proportionate, robust and driven by the evidence.
An invention must meet a number of legal requirements if a patent is to be granted. The granting of a patent is determined not only by the nature of the invention but by other legal requirements, including whether the invention is new or non-obvious. This is not the same as asking whether an invention that did not exist previously could, in principle, have been produced through a different method. As such, the presence or absence of patent protection cannot be used to determine if a particular DNA sequence could have resulted from traditional processes or natural transformation.
Patents represent an important mechanism for innovators to gain return on their investments. As a result, preventing organisms from being classed as “precision bred” if those organisms or the processes used to create them are subject to patent protection, would likely deter uptake of the technologies that the Bill wishes to facilitate. Ultimately, the UK would lose the significant benefits that implementation of the Bill could bring.
Amendment 74 would require the Defra Secretary of State to review and publish guidance on the implications of the genetic technology Bill for intellectual property law. As I am sure that noble Lords are aware, in the UK the Intellectual Property Office is responsible for patents. I assure noble Lords that we have worked closely with the Intellectual Property Office in this area. UK patent law does not specifically exclude patents from being granted on precision-bred plants and animals. Indeed, a patent may be granted if all the requirements for a particular invention are met—novelty, utility, and non-obviousness.
The Bill does not make any changes to laws associated with obtaining a patent; nor does it alter the process by which an applicant would apply for patent protections. Breeders wishing to patent their precision-bred plant or animal should therefore undertake this process in the same manner as for all other inventions and under the guidance of the Intellectual Property Office.
Most interest in this area has revolved around the use of patents that protect precision-bred organisms. However, it is important to note that other protections for intellectual property are available. For example, a plant breeder may want to obtain protection using plant variety rights. In animals, breeders generally gain protections through contracts with buyers, which stipulate terms to ensure their trait of value is protected. Engagements with industry stakeholders have highlighted that fair access and value gains for farmers must balance with restrictions on the use of protected material in order to enable a return on investment. In plant breeding, licensing platforms which facilitate access to patented material have been borne out of the need to create this equilibrium. We envisage that a similar situation would arise should breeders decide to protect their precision-bred organisms. Ultimately, patent law strikes a balance between incentivising innovation and allowing access for farmers and breeders, precisely the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was making.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I do not know who drafted this response but it is a masterpiece of obscurantism, in my view. I do not blame the Minister; he is simply reading out what his civil servants have given him. I could not understand—maybe because I am falling asleep or something, but I do not think I am—whether the answer is that PBOs are equivalent to the plants or animals that could be produced by conventional breeding, and therefore enjoy the same protections, or whether they are different. Will he just nail that point down, with a very simple yes or no? Is his answer that precision-bred organisms are treated as equivalent to those that could be produced by conventional breeding, and therefore they enjoy the same patent protections?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord if I am sending him to sleep, but this is a complex area. Patent lawyers will dance on the head of a pin on some of these issues. As I said, we have worked with the Intellectual Property Office to get this exactly right and to address precisely the point he made earlier about some of the difficulties that were faced, with large international companies owning the rights to seed entitlements. That caused great difficulty in the past.
I shall just read one bit to him again, and if the noble Lord could try to stay awake, it will be an achievement that I will rejoice in. The Bill does not make any changes to laws associated with obtaining a patent; nor does it alter the process by which an applicant would apply for patent protections. Breeders wishing to patent their precision-bred plant or animal should therefore undertake this process in the same manner as for all other inventions and under the guidance of the Intellectual Property Office.
The Bill is also an attempt to provide precisely the balance that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, stressed. We want to secure the rights of those who are investing enormous amounts of money in the development of these technologies, while also not making it impossible for farmers—precisely the people we want to have access to these technologies—to have access. That is the balance we are seeking to achieve.
I can work only on the best legal advice I am given. There are noble Lords in this Committee whose speciality is intellectual property law, and I am sure they could dance much more dextrously on the head of that particular pin than I.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I wonder if we could “strictly” stop dancing just for a moment and come back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I have to declare an interest in the register: I have a company called Atazoa, which is responsible for modifying the genes not of embryos but of individual sperm. We have of course also been working with eggs. This is before fertilisation—before the organism is formed. That is subject to a number of patents which have raised a certain amount of money for our research, and the research has been moderately fruitful—not as fruitful as I would have liked it to have been; it has not made any major changes.
There is an issue here. First, what happens if we produce a farm animal as a result of that technique? Does that come under the licence or not? Secondly, during the process of gene editing, it is very probable that people will make new editions to the modification of techniques to find new ways to put together what is quite a complex process; even though it is fairly efficient and simple to do, it remains complex. What happens, for example, with regards to improvement of the technology, rather than the animal husbandry side of it? Does the patent there still stand or not?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I have to be honest with the noble Lord and say that I will write to him on this. He makes a very good point. I can think of it only in terms of a standard invention. In intellectual property terms, you secure the creation of whatever it is, with whatever characteristic it has, and others may come along and improve it. The line on intellectual property exists until they change it beyond its original purpose, and I quoted the other criteria earlier. I am going to write to both the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, to give more precise answers to those particular points. With that, I hope the noble Baroness is willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer and everyone who has contributed to this short but very dense—I think that is the appropriate adjective here—debate. I cannot help feeling that, should we revisit this on Report, as I suspect we may, we will need a couple of IP KC specialists to hand it over to, rather than leaving it to be tangled with by those who are not legal specialists in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, nailed it: it feels like this has not been properly worked through, and it certainly has not been explained to the Committee. That is exactly where we have arrived at.
I will put some more questions to the Minister, because I am wrestling with this. I freely acknowledge that I am not an IP law specialist, by any means, but how can something that is patented be natural and traditional? Those two things are simply incompatible in law, and certainly in public understanding. That is what my amendment addresses, and I do not believe the Minister has dealt with that issue.
More specifically and concretely, and perhaps easier to answer—although I understand if the Minister wants to write to me—he referred to some of the tangles that had occurred previously with GMO technology. Seeds had blown from one field to another, and a farmer who had not even planted the patented crop found themselves in legal difficulty with its owner because they were illegally growing the seeds, even though they did not want them. Some of them may even have been organic farmers, who definitely did not want those seeds. Can the Minister assure me that we will not see this situation arising with so-called precision-bred organisms in the UK, particularly plants in this case—I am not sure we are talking about animals as much? Also, what happens if a genetic trait cross-breeds with or appears in a weed? Who is responsible for that? Is the owner of the intellectual property responsible for what happens with the weed?
Lord Benyon (Con)
That last point would have been dealt with in the process for ACRE’s analysis of its worthiness as a precision-bred organism that can be taken to market, as it clearly does not sit within the intent of the applicant.
All I can say to the noble Baroness, as I said earlier, is that we want to achieve a balance in encouraging the development of this. She was wrong earlier to say that this is just for commercial activity. It is very much not. There are other benefits, public goods, that the Bill achieves in animal welfare, tackling climate change, improving our environment, and reducing the requirement for pesticides and fertilisers. Just as there is a balance between those public goods and encouraging commerce and the ability of organisations to take products to market to be of advantage to the UK economy, the Bill also tries to achieve a balance between securing the intellectual property rights of those who have invested large amounts of money in the development of precision-bred organisms and the importance of making those organisms available to precisely the people who we want to have them. In most cases, that will be producers of food.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for tackling those questions. I feel that it might be best for me to write to the Minister to spell out the details of the questions that I am not sure I am sufficiently equipped in the IP area to formulate now. We are going to revisit this at Report, and I do not think we have heard any kind of argument against Amendment 74 and the idea of a review. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Internationally agreed definition for precision breeding(1) The Secretary of State must consult with European partners and actors to agree a definition of precision breeding.(2) If a definition is agreed under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make regulations to apply it for the purposes of this Act in place of the definition in section 1(2).(3) “European partners and actors” includes but is not limited to—(a) the European Union;(b) European Union member states.(4) Prior to entering into consultation with European partners and actors to establish an agreed definition of precision breeding, the Secretary of State must consult representatives of—(a) farmers;(b) devolved nations;(c) suppliers;(d) food producers;(e) animal welfare organisations;(f) consumers.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 16 in my name and I have added my name to Amendments 76, 77 and 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. There is considerable concern about just how the measures in this Bill will be implemented. It is a considerable move away from the measures that operated under the EU. I and others understand why this is necessary. However, in order for our horticulture and farming sectors to continue to trade with our European partners, it will be necessary to provide reassurance on the process and outcomes involved.
Despite government trade deals with countries that are not on our doorstep, Europe is on our doorstep. Existing trade with the EU is the bedrock for many selling their crops and carcasses on to Europe. Agreeing just what the definition will be of a precision-bred seed or crop is going to be vital. If such agreement cannot be reached, it will have a devastating effect on the rural economy. Many of those who have provided briefings have commented on the lack of consultation that took place prior to the introduction of the Bill. It is possible that, given the reception of previous attempts to introduce GMOs, the Government decided to bypass this process. However, all those involved want to be consulted and wish to understand the process and just what the outcomes will be for them.
The list in Amendment 16(4)(a) to 16(4)(f) might see long, but I believe that each one of these consultees feels that they should be able to make their voice heard. The British Veterinary Association believes that the move away from the EU-regulated process for gene-edited organisms would potentially jeopardise its relationship with a key trading partner in pursuit of profitable trade deals with markets where animal welfare is a lower priority than in the UK. The trade deal announced today with India is a case in point.
Deregulation of gene editing in England is also likely to create burdens within the UK, jeopardising the principle of mutual recognition, which is necessary for frictionless trade. While scientific progress is necessary, it must be based on accurate science. It is necessary to take those involved with you. The Royal Society found in its evidence that dialogue with members of the public should be involved in the regulation of genetic technologies. A proposal that is endorsed by evidence of public involvement in the regulatory process increases the perceived trustworthiness of the process. Surely this is what the Government should be aiming for.
Amendments 76, 77 and 78 make further reference to trade and the importance of ensuring that businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, are not adversely affected by the measures in this Bill. If our exports of precision-engineered food do not comply with foreign regulations, this could result in foreign markets changing their preference for our goods. This will have an effect on both large and small businesses and would be a retrograde step.
We are debating a very important step today and on Wednesday. Everyone needs to be signed up for what is likely to take place: farmers, the devolved Administrations, suppliers, food producers, animal welfare organisations and, especially, consumers need to be consulted. If they are not, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, surely the whole point of this Bill is to speed up the process of bringing into being the plants and animals that the world really needs, as a matter of some urgency, to prevent our populations at home and abroad—I mentioned lots of examples in sub-Saharan Africa at Second Reading—starving, and to avoid further destroying our planet. We hope that our scientists will be able to make a difference sooner rather than later and show the world what can be done. We must lead on this and encourage others to follow, hopefully in the EU and sub-Saharan Africa. So why on earth should we as politicians want to delay this process? Surely that is going against everything that this Bill is trying to achieve.
It might be helpful if I gave some examples of how the whole process will work. Let us say a seed-breeding company finds and edits a variety of wheat for a trait of value—such as stronger straw that does not go flat just before harvest, or resistance to drought or Septoria. We then have its in-house testing for off-target characteristics and, above all, for the stability of the crop through the generations. I am advised that this testing takes three or four years, with three or four generations being bred. By the way, EFSA and ACRE would both be informed at a very early stage that this wheat was being bred, and they would be involved. Then you have a further two years—and two generations—of statutory testing. Then, hopefully, your new variety gets a recommended listing. You probably have another one or two years of multiplying up the seed for the farmers’ marketplace. That is six or seven years from the original genetic editing before the crop gets into the market on a commercial basis.
In animals, the same multigenerational gap exists between the original edit and the product being produced—except, in this case, each generation of cattle, for instance, will take an absolute minimum of two years, and I believe a single generation of salmon can take up to four years. So it will be a good 12 to 16 years after the actual gene editing before any such beef or salmon product reaches our plates. Breeding improvements in a species is a very long-term process, even with gene editing, so we cannot afford to wait any longer. I believe that we have to get on with it.
There will be some companies that will hold back on certain products when considering the European market, but it is not for us or Parliament to take a decision for them. If those sorts of business decisions were to be taken by parliamentary legislation—which is what we are doing now—our nation’s economic performance would really be in a pickle.
In any case, it seems to me that the EU is amazingly hypocritical about all this. Who is it that bans all GM products and yet is the second largest importer of GM products in the world? The answer is the EU, which imports 30 million tonnes of GM material every year. It is, of course, quite likely, with the snub of Brexit and the ongoing vexation of the Northern Ireland protocol, that the EU will cut up rough about this. But, as I say, I do not think that we as legislators dealing specifically now with the wording of this Bill should get involved in all that. Leave it to businesses to take their own decisions. It is interesting that Argentina, whose overall national wealth depends hugely on its ability to export agricultural products, has proved willing to adopt this technology. I think that sets us a very good example of how to balance reward versus risk.
If we are going to take a decision to proceed with this legislation, which I hope we are, please allow the many small businesses, which are waiting expectantly for this legislation to pass, to get on with their plans as soon as possible. I say small businesses because, at the moment, only really very big companies can breed seeds and breed different animals because of the time it takes. We are shortening it only by a small amount, so it is the small businesses which will benefit from this legislation. I think we ought to get on with it and not have any more delays.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, but I think the contribution that the noble Lord has just made demonstrates a fundamental difference in approach to, understanding of and belief in systems for—to use the phrase—feeding the world between him and several of us on this side of the House. I am going to take a very practical example of this because, last week, we saw reports emerge in the mainstream media of a new wheat variety called Jabal. The noble Lord spoke about our scientists finding solutions for Africa, and he spoke about leaving it to business. He said that only big companies could now develop new varieties of crops such as wheat. Jabal, which means mountain in Arabic, is a new durum wheat which is extremely tolerant to drought and heat. It was developed for climate resilience through the Crop Trust’s Wild Relatives project. It was developed between 2017 and 2021, so over a period of five years, and by working with farmers on the ground in the communities affected. It is looking to be extremely successful. There is no big business. There are some scientists—I have no doubt that there were some British scientists, but scientists from all round the world were involved in this—but it is grounded in the communities that need these crops and has been done without anyone making huge amounts of money out of it. If we are talking about feeding the world, there is a potential alternative model.
However, I am now going to come back to the detail of these amendments, starting with Amendment 16, already very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I do not really think that I need to add much to that, having attached my name to amendment, although I will note that Amendments 76 and 77, both of which appear in my name and which the noble Baroness has also kindly signed, have more or less the same intention of inserting in Clause 43 instead of earlier in the Bill. Amendment 77 looks at impacts on UK exports to the EU, as the earlier amendment did. Amendment 76 is broader and looks at exports around the world and what impacts it might have.
Amendment 78 in my name, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, have kindly signed, addresses some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. It says that regulations under this Act must particularly look at the impact on small and medium enterprises. Here, perhaps we are not thinking so much about enterprises that might be producing those so-called precision-bred organisms, but more the farmers using them and small farmers and the kind of impact we were addressing on the debate about intellectual property and the issues of market dynamics and competition which have been such an area of concern with GMOs.
Finally, I come to Amendment 75 in my name; the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also kindly signed it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, were here, she would probably be giving me lessons in the structure of Bills and exactly how a five-year review should be constructed. In her absence, I have done my best to propose that there should be a five-year review of how the Bill is working.
The debate on animals and plants provided some powerful ammunition for the discussion. The Minister acknowledged that the Bill will evolve and change according to events, but we also need to note that this is a fast-moving area of both technology and scientific understanding.
I will not go into great depth on what has been roughly described as the new biology but huge, fundamental debates within the science of biology are going on at the moment about the structure of organisms, of life and of ecosystems. In five years, the scientific framework behind this—not just the technology but scientific understanding—may well have moved on significantly. Surely a Bill this controversial, complex, difficult and technical should have a five-year review built in.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I never thought I would be a member of the Green Party, but I clearly am this evening. I must agree with the noble Baroness, because we have to understand that gene editing is a new technique and has been on the books for only about eight or 10 years, which seems a long time but is not at all—in science, that is a very short time.
It was 40 years ago that we genetically modified organisms for the first time. The noble Lord is proposing that we speed this process up when we do not fully understand what is happening with procedures such as CRISPR-Cas9 and other methods. We need much more data before we can be sure about the progeny of these animals. That is one of the problems, and it will not be simple.
Of course, I appreciate that it takes quite a long time to breed an animal. As a human, I understand that quite well—I have dealt with a few humans myself, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has also had children—but we have to accept that it takes time before you can really work out the status of an animal. It is a complex process.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in one of the earlier debates the Minister sought to categorise some of us as people who are fundamentally opposed to the Bill and trying to find any way we can to derail it. I assure him that I am not in that camp, and I hope that the amendment I will speak to will give some illustration of that.
I will speak to Amendment 88 in my name, which is a very particular amendment about the status of GMOs; this seems a very odd group of amendments that have been put together. It follows on slightly from the comments just made by my noble friend Lord Winston because it recognises that it has been many years since the regulations relating to GMOs have been reviewed. As a result, we appear to be legislating in silos rather than looking at the impact of genetic technology as a whole. We already have the GMO legislation on the statute and now we are looking at GE, but how do those two bits of legislation interrelate?
When the Government announced their plans to roll out gene editing, they also committed to a review of the wider GMO rules, but so far there does not seem to be any sign that the review is taking place—unless I have missed it. Amendment 88 probes whether the impact of Clause 41, which amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to exclude precision-bred organisms and differentiates them from GMOs, is likely to require further review.
This is all about the interrelation between genetic engineering and GMOs. Where is that review taking place? Is the wording of the legislation as it stands in Clause 41 how we want it to be? When and how will that wider review of GMOs take place? How will the Minister synchronise any result of that with the provisions of the Bill? It seems rather odd that scientific institutions could be potentially following two different routes for technology that in many ways is very similar.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for introducing her Amendment 16. As we have heard, there are a few amendments in this group around trade, particularly in relation to the EU and individual member states. Amendment 16 specifically refers to this. It is an important consideration for the Bill and its implications
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has tabled a number of amendments in this group. I also thank her for her introduction. I have added my name to her Amendments 75 and 78. As Amendment 75 says, it is really important to review the effectiveness and implementation of the Act once it is passed. The Minister has talked about a step-by-step process. I shall come to that as well in my amendment. As I mentioned on the previous group, there are still a lot of unknowns and a lot of SIs to come into play before we know exactly what the legislation will look like. A commitment to a review is pretty important to make sure that everything is happening as the Government intend and to see whether anything needs to be picked up that is perhaps not moving as they would wish. My noble friend Lord Winston made the important point that we need more data on animals. A review would help to look at where we were.
Amendment 78, to which I have also added my name, requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the impact on SMEs, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned the importance of supporting small businesses. From reading the Committee evidence in the Commons, I recall that there was quite a lot of debate around the importance of small businesses also being able to benefit from this legislation and not being pushed out by the larger companies. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that small businesses are allowed to play a full part in any legislation that comes from the Bill when it is enacted.
On a different topic, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch probed concerning Section 41 in the Environmental Protection Act. Again, this is a really important point. There are different pieces of legislation covering very similar areas. How do they interact? She asked an important question about when the review on wider GMO rules would take place. Once this review has reported, how will the outcomes be managed in relation to the new legislation that is coming forward? Not all legislation sits in its own little place. Lots of legislation interacts, at the Minister well knows. It would be good to know that the Government are looking at this, thinking about it and to know when they were likely to do a review.
I will come on to my Amendment 89 in a minute, as it is a little different. But briefly, on the trade implications which we touched on previously, the Food and Drink Federation has said, for example, that there could be barriers to exporting English farmed food from gene-edited crops. Again, it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this. We also talked earlier about what the impact of a difference in definition would be, and that comes into play here as well. At the end of the day, any commercial cultivation of plants or food products that are derived from gene-edited crops will still fall within existing rules. We know that the EU is reviewing where it is, but it is important that we do not end up with negative impacts on our farmers and exporters in food products because we have not thought this through properly.
Perhaps the Government could reassure us that that they are looking at the trade implications and whether they are considering any mitigating factors to ensure that there are no problems. The impact assessment says that it could
“have a relatively significant impact on UK producers”
if there are problems with exporting to the EU, because
“UK crop-related food exporters are heavily dependent on EU consumers’ demand”.
Again, it is important that we have those assurances. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is concerned about the word “risk”, but there are risks to exports which the Government need to recognise.
In looking at whether products are going to be accepted, I want to ask about Scotland. I am concerned that the Minister in Scotland said that they would not have any food products forced on them because of easing regulations around gene editing. That concerns me because, if we are not careful, we will have a constitutional flashpoint. Our single market rules say that any produce approved in England is automatically then allowed into Scotland, so what ongoing discussions are the Government having with Scotland on this and what mitigating circumstances can be brought in? That is a worry.
Finally, my Amendment 89, which I have left to the end because it is different from the others, brings me back to where I was on the step-by-step approach. I asked the Minister whether he would consider that; I know he has reassured us, over and again, that precision-breeding technologies will be used first in relation to plants, followed by animals later. But not to put too fine a point on it, we have only his word for that—and while I trust his word, we do not know who the future Ministers or Secretaries of State will be. My amendment makes a suggestion that he could pick up, so that we genuinely would have a step-by-step approach in the Bill. It would be plants first, then farm animals, and then other animals could be looked at. Again, I am only trying to be helpful to the Minister in supporting his step-by-step approach.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I appreciate that, as keen as I am to get this right and get something sensible on the statute book. I have a throwaway line before I get into the meat of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about this being controversial legislation. Actually, in some of the surveys I have seen, a very small number of people are either very opposed or very in favour, and a large number do not know what this is all about. They want to know more, and we have to tell them more. We have to explain it in an unbiased, unpolitical, factual way, and that is what we are seeking to do. In the other place, the Bill passed by a majority way in excess of the Government’s majority, and I want to reassure many noble Lords here, so that we can pass it with equal fervour.
Smarting from the earlier comment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I think the Minister tried to suggest that the legislation was uncontroversial. We were before discussing the inclusion of animals in the Bill, and 13 of what I think would be universally agreed to be the premier animal welfare organisations in the UK have said animals should not be in it. That surely is controversy from people who are very informed about its nature.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I accept the point the noble Baroness makes, and of course, there are others who fervently want measures brought in as quickly as possible that deal with animal disease, animal welfare and those sorts of things.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, quite rightly upbraided me earlier for boring the House, I will try to be as quick as I can, but there is a lot in this section, and I want to be open with the Committee in my comments.
I will respond first to Amendment 16, which would require the Secretary of State to consult, first, representatives of a number of interested groups and then European partners including but not limited to the EU and its member states. This is to agree on a definition of precision breeding and, if a definition is agreed, to amend the definition of a precision-bred organism in the Bill accordingly, using a Henry VIII power. The amendment could be used to change the key concepts that form the basis on which this legislation has been drafted and debated in both Houses of Parliament.
This summer, the EU conducted a consultation in which 80% of participants agreed that the existing provisions of the EU GMO legislation are not adequate for plants produced by certain new genomic techniques, which largely aligns with our view of precision breeding. As I have previously mentioned, the definition of a precision-bred organism in the Bill aims to cover all plants and animals produced by modern biotechnology that could have occurred through traditional processes or natural transformation. This approach to carving out precision-bred plants and animals from GMO legislation is in line with scientific evidence and advice, because it focuses on the end product rather than the technology used to produce it.
Furthermore, we have continuously engaged with national and international stakeholders and regulators to develop a definition that reflects the key principle of this legislation. Our approach is based on the science. With regulations on precision-bred plants and animals changing around the world, we believe the measures in this Bill will facilitate greater trade.
On the topic of trade, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how differences in regulation and public perception in other countries will impact on our trade with them. Noble Lords have referred to genetically modified organisms in the amendment we are dealing with, and I want to be clear that there is a scientific distinction between GMOs and precision-bred organisms. Many countries recognise this and have changed, or are in the process of changing, their regulations to reflect it. As the international regulatory landscape evolves, our approach could help facilitate greater trade with countries that have already adopted a similar approach to the regulation of precision-bred organisms, with trading partners such as the USA, Canada, Japan and Argentina.
Currently, there are only a few precision-bred products on the market globally, and none of those are traded internationally. Many of them are still in the early development stage, allowing time to monitor and understand the international regulatory framework as it develops. Britain is an exporter of quality products, and one of the reasons for introducing this new, proportionate regulatory approach is to enable the development of more nutritious, higher-quality products that have been grown more sustainably.
Turning to Amendment 77 and the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I would like to outline developments that are likely to change the requirements for companies exporting precision-bred products specifically into the EU; we have been following these developments with interest.
As our legislation on genetically modified organisms mirrors the EU’s, it is not surprising that we have the same drivers for change. The timing of the EU’s reform plans means that we are unlikely to be able to consider any new EU legislation while we are drafting our regulations under this Bill. However, we will continue to monitor developments closely and work with the EU, and other countries we trade with, to enable innovation and trade. I hope I have reassured noble Lords on this.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I would love to hear from the Minister say “finally” again in just a second. One of the issues I would like him briefly to address—probably in a note, not now—would be how to classify a plant organism, for example, which has been treated not only by gene editing but also by, say, radiation. I mention this is because a recent publication by Amritha and Shah in the last few months shows that, by combining those techniques, the resulting edit is even more successful. It seems that is hardly a natural process, but I do not know whether that is something to discuss now.
The other issue is that we are all obviously agreed about climate change, but what I think concerns a lot of people who are arguing on my side of the Chamber is that modifying plants could make us, the plants or the land more vulnerable to climate change. That is something we need to be thinking about during the course of the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s points. We have to make it clear that we will not allow organisms to come on to the market that would somehow make it harder for us to adapt. There are so many benefits that we can introduce to tackle things such as drought and other issues that plague farmers. We have climate change affecting farmers here and now in this country. It is not something that is happening in Pacific countries alone; it is in our country, and we need to give farmers the tools to deal with it.
On the noble Lord’s other point, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said earlier, irradiation—if I have got the word right—is an established part of plant breeding today. He is right. I can see an overlap in this, but I will write to him and make sure that we give him the facts that he needs. With that, I hope that we can progress.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, although I thank the Minister for his response, I am obviously somewhat disappointed by it. I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to speed up the process, but I fail to understand how consulting with the EU would affect that. It certainly would delay it a little bit, but not by the years and years that the noble Lord indicated. I believe that a Bill introducing a process which alters the genome of crops and animals ought to have a review every five years. I accept that the Minister feels that there are sufficient reviews in place—I just do not necessarily agree with him.
The Minister spoke about a consultation that took place—he did not say exactly when it was, but I think it might have been last year—and said that 80% of those consulted said that the EU definition of precision engineering was not adequate, and that the end product, rather than the process, was more important. The Minister can write to me, given the hour, but I would like to know who was consulted—who were these 80% of people who said that the EU’s process was not fit for purpose? The Minister also said that the UK’s regulations mirrored the EU’s regulations and monitors; that conflicts with this figure of 80% saying that they were not fit for purpose. For me, it is smaller businesses that benefit most from trade with the EU rather than with Argentina, although I accept that some will trade with the latter.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(c) the organism has been developed for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes—(i) producing food in a way that protects or enhances a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;(ii) growing and managing plants or animals in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;(iii) producing food in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;(iv) protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals;(v) conserving native animals or genetic resources relating to any such animal;(vi) protecting or improving the health of plants;(vii) reducing the use of pesticides and artificial fertiliser;(viii) conserving plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives, or genetic resources relating to any such plant;(ix) protecting or improving the quality of soil;(x) supporting or improving human health and well-being;(xi) supporting or improving the sustainable use of resources.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that a precision bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit, if it is to be released into the environment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 19 would require that a precision-bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit if it is to be released into the environment. The benefits that are listed in my amendment include, but are not limited to, producing food in a way that protects the natural environment and managing crops or livestock in a manner that mitigates or adapts to climate change. Amendment 21 in this group prevents the release of a precision-bred organism unless its genome has been sequenced and the features that have resulted from the use of modern biotechnology have been recorded. I am looking forward to hearing more about that as well.
Earlier, we talked briefly about climate change and how plants in particular can be adapted to support the future needs that we will have in producing sufficient food. It is important that we find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system while we are developing new legislation and that at the same time we address the environmental and health damage that our modern food system has sometimes created. This Bill gives us an opportunity to look at that and see what we can do to improve those areas alongside the other benefits that people have talked about and to mitigate any adverse impacts that could counteract that.
This Bill presents us the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that other countries could follow as they develop these kinds of technologies that would provide a clear public good. We recognise that our laws need to be updated to match current scientific understanding. We talked about that earlier in the debate. We want our scientists to succeed, but we also want them to use their skills for good here in the UK. I know that is broad terminology, but I hope noble Lords understand what I mean by this.
To get the legislation right, the Government have to balance certain risks and benefits. We need to have consumer confidence and business confidence; otherwise, all the benefits that could come from the Bill may not happen in the way that we would like. It could mean that we get improvements to environmental sustainability and better food security. A lot of this Bill is obviously around food, but how does it fit in with the much bigger picture that the Government have debated alongside the food strategy, which we all saw—was it last year? I am trying to remember how long ago it was. We talked earlier about different legislations interacting. How will this Bill work with the food strategy? Many of the recommendations were about how our modern food system could be improved and what public benefit could come from the way we farm in future.
The Nuffield Council has made recommendations in its document. One part of that is around aspirations for the UK’s future food system—something that is in the minds of a lot of people who have real influence over the way this technology could be looked at and developed in the future. I was also particularly struck by the evidence given to the Commons Public Bill Committee by Bill Angus, who is a wheat consultant. He noted that the motivations behind the work that he does as a wheat breeder and as vice-chair of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico can be quite different; there are strong passions that drive both ways of working.
We also know that the Crop Science Centre in Cambridge has done interesting work focused on improving the sustainability of our farming systems—in particular, removing the need for inorganic fertilisers. To me, these are the kinds of areas where gene editing could bring significant benefits for the environment, the sustainability of our food systems, and reducing food insecurity across the world. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned these issues in his earlier speech.
It is important that we look at how gene editing could be used for good, because we also know that it can be used for ends that, to many of us, would not be so desirable. Evidence from Compassion in World Farming was very interesting in this area. It talked about some of the harms that traditional breeding has caused—I will not go into detail, as we have heard about that today and at Second Reading. It is important that we work for the public benefit and that the Bill is not used to breed animals in a way that would mean they suffer more or be made to tolerate harsher conditions; the Minister mentioned this earlier. It is important that those questions posed in my amendments are taken account of. How can we ensure that the technology is used for good here in the UK?
There is also the question: who decides what that good might be? We will come on to debate that more to some extent in group 8, where we look at the animal welfare tests, for example. There are also questions around the development of herbicide-resistant crops. Do they allow more herbicide to be used? Is that a good thing? There need perhaps to be more tests in the Bill to make sure that some of the roads that we do not want to go down are not roads that we can go down.
My amendment would create a public benefit test before precision-bred organisms could be authorised and released. It is important that the governance is correct to manage that. Professor Sarah Hartley of the University of Exeter said in evidence:
“The Bill enables science to develop in this area, but it does not enable us to direct the science and technology towards doing any good.”—[Official Report, Commons, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee, 30/6/22; col. 123.]
That is the area that I am trying to look at and ask noble Lords to consider. How would we achieve that? At the moment, it is driven too much by market forces. In making legislation, we have to ensure that we guard against those who are, perhaps, not so interested in the good—the public benefit—that can come out of it but looking just at the market forces. We believe that the Bill could be strengthened through this amendment, and the Government’s stated aims, which the Minister has said he wants to achieve, could be encoded within the legislation itself. I beg to move.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for introducing this amendment so eloquently. I have added my name to it. In fact, I felt that the amendment was almost unnecessary because, earlier this evening, the Minister referred to precision breeding as being used to create public good—I think I am right in saying that. The amendment tries to flesh that out and ask what is meant by “public good”.
It goes without saying that one objective of farming is to produce food or other farm products. Precision breeding will be used to increase the efficiency, and maybe the productivity, of farming in this country. My noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who is not in his place, made a useful comment earlier about what is meant by productivity in farming.
It goes without saying that one objective is to increase efficiency and productivity: that is the “more” bit of “more with less”. Equally important, and what the amendment is about, is enshrining the “less”: less harm to the environment and to people. We have been through many times the kind of harms to the environment that intensive agriculture has delivered, and we hope that precision breeding will be used to reverse those harms rather than augment them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also raised the important point of how bits of the jigsaw fit together. She referred to Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy. I would be interested in knowing from the Minister whether some of the recommendations that Henry Dimbleby made will be implementable or, indeed, supported by the Bill if it goes through—as I hope it will, possibly with some modifications.
In a way, this is almost uncontroversial. We all accept that there have to be public goods that are supported by precision breeding; that has to be balanced with increasing productivity and efficiency of agriculture; and what we are trying to do here is spell out what those public goods are and should look like. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I want to say how much I support this amendment, which has been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that it was a very eloquent introduction. It should indeed be uncontroversial, for two reasons.
This Government have committed themselves to a number of welcome targets on climate change. We have not quite got there yet on the environmental targets, but the Secretary of State says that we will perhaps have them by next week. We also have the food strategy. If not set targets, we have a clear direction of travel. If the Government are committed to those targets, be it in the social, environmental or climate sphere, then they have to will the means to deliver it. Whether we are talking about a procurement Bill or this Bill, the Government have all these levers to pull to deliver the outcomes.
It would be almost a dereliction of duty not to will the means in a Bill like this to deliver the environmental, climate and food targets which the Government have so welcomely committed themselves to on the record in other places. If the Government were to miss the golden opportunity to embed this commitment to a public benefit in this Bill, I feel it would leave Members around the Committee worried that some of those commitments were perhaps not as deep as we all were hoping.
Moreover, in the way that the Agriculture Act did, there is an opportunity to shape the market by saying that we will rightly give farmers funding to produce the public goods that we want. The mirror approach here is saying that we will provide this new regulatory framework to regulate the benefits and risks of this new procedure. We will allow companies the investment and growth opportunities if it is clear that they are delivering public goods. It is about shaping the market in a way that delivers those public goods.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 19 and I very much support the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Hayman. She made a powerful case for why there should be a clear public benefit written into the Bill, which is why her emphasis and the detail in the amendment are important. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that the Minister has already said that he agrees with this. That is fine, but having it written down in the way set out here would be an important addition.
All the examples in the amendment have been cited by Ministers and supporters of the Bill, in various debates, as advantages that could accrue from it. The Minister believes in and is committed to issues such as the environment, climate change mitigation, food safety and animal welfare. As my noble friend said, we have talked many times about the potential to develop a world-class reputation for our science and innovation, and this would be a way of stating, publicly and internationally, what this research is about—so it is not just buried away in Hansard but is in a more public domain. That is very important.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, these preconditions very much reflect those that were spelled out in the Agriculture Act. It is not as though it is not legislative practice to have that amount of detail; it is, as it was done in a different Bill. So why can we not have it in this Bill as well? That would have the great advantage of putting the public good at the heart of the Bill.
It would also ensure that public money for gene-editing research, particularly in public institutions—I am involved in one of them—is firmly anchored and focused on the public good benefits. It would give the funding allocation something to measure against, which is an advantage. I am sure that the vast majority of research institutions in the UK would welcome this clarity; it would fit with the ethos of their operations anyway, and, in a sense, play to their strengths. It would be good to have measures in place on how that money is being spent, much as there are for ELMS funding in the Agriculture Act. We wanted to see what we would get for our investment with the farmers, so it was no longer just a free handout.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made the important point that we need to reassure the public that this is not a backdoor to further environmental damage and exploitation. We come back to the subject we have already debated, which is how we can make sure that we take the public with us. This is certainly one way we can make sure of that. We have to learn the lessons from the GM crop row of over 30 years ago, when one of the main criticisms was that it would allow the multinational seed companies to exploit farmers in developing countries by locking them into seed contracts in which the seeds could not be naturally regenerated for future use. We need to reassure people that that sort of exploitation is not part of our agenda on this occasion, so it is important to write that public benefit and use into the Bill.
It is important that we provide public reassurance. If it is good enough for the Agriculture Act, why can we not adopt a similar policy here? I urge the Minister to think about this; it would provide a great deal of public reassurance on an issue that we know is still quite sensitive. I hope he feels able, if not in my noble friend’s terms then in his own terms, to come back with an amendment that reflects the detail of that amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 19, which noble Lords will see already has a full complement of signatures. I thought the signature of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was far more useful than mine, so I was pleased to leave that space. If the Minister cannot agree to make some commitment such as that which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of Whitchurch, just asked for, it might well be possible to find a Conservative Back-Bencher to make a complete set on Report, should we get to that stage. I would have attached my name to this and I think it has already very been powerfully argued for, but I want to make two additional points.
Both the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act were built around the idea of public money for public good. Here, surely the Conservative Government would embrace the idea of public good for no public money at all. This is the Government able to make the rules, and they can ensure that there is public good without a penny having to be spent. That would be very much in line with the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act.
I want to highlight a couple of the elements in Amendment 19 that I think are particularly important, including sub-paragraph (x),
“supporting or improving human health and well-being”.
I note that the Government, in promoting the Bill, talk a great deal about sugar beet. Given the massive overconsumption of sugar in the UK diet—if we produced by volume only two-thirds of the sugar we produce in the UK, that would be more than enough for a sufficient, healthy level of diet without importing a single gram of sugar—and the fact that sugar beet is associated with massive loss of fertile topsoil from some of the richest lands in the UK, if we could gene-edit sugar beet to be more productive on less land, it would be ideal to combine that with ensuring that we produce only a healthy amount of sugar and free up the land for other purposes.
I also note that the Minister talked about sub-paragraph (ii), mitigating and adapting to climate change—indeed, he talked about the climate emergency quite a lot this afternoon. Of course, when we are talking about animals, we talk about engineering cattle to release less methane; we are looking at a whole-systems approach here, and having fewer cattle would be by far the easiest way to produce less methane. Further, they would not be consuming grains and proteins, such as soya from the Amazon, which we could be consuming as human food instead. It is a complex issue, but what we are getting at here is trying to deliver, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, what the Minister said is the purpose of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, has not spoken yet, but I will venture to make one comment on his Amendment 21. The wording is not terribly clear, and the noble Lord could answer now or later, or think about this amendment on Report. It says that the genome should be sequenced and the changes recorded and reported to the Secretary of State. My question is whether that should be published and publicly available. We are talking about licensing something that the Government are giving companies the right and the chance to potentially make money out of, so it is perfectly reasonable to demand an increase in public knowledge to make accessible those genomes that would then be available to other researchers for all kinds of possibly very different purposes, not necessarily productivity or seed-producing purposes. The knowledge of all those genome sequences would be a very useful thing. I think that should perhaps be written into the amendment.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Seeing as my name has been mentioned, perhaps I ought to speak. I thought we were still on the two previous amendments. The difficulty I have with this is that Amendment 21 is really a continuation of Amendment 20, and Amendments 22 and 23 follow logically.
Let me just deal very quickly with this. Basically, what we are talking about here is the release of organisms into the environment, and the proof that we have done to those organisms what we what we said we were going to do. Of course, that particularly means looking at the phenotype of the animal, whether it is a normal animal and therefore not suffering in any kind of way, and at whether the editing has changed the genome in a way that is unexpected. Of course, the Minister mentioned off-target mutations, but that is only one thing that can occur with gene editing. Once the DNA is on a double-stranded split and there is a gap there, you can actually introduce foreign DNA—even human DNA; whatever is floating around in the laboratory. When we are doing very careful work in the lab with genetic material, we have to be scrupulously clean of the flow hoods and so on. Those things need to be considered, because they would be part of what is seemingly a simple procedure, but in reality there are really quite difficult safeguards. What I am really asking is whether the Government intend that there be some form of sequencing to see whether there have been mistakes, or some form of examining the genome of the animals after we have done the work required.
To my mind, there are two issues here. One, of course, is the need to get better data on the effect of the gene editing, wherever it is done, and, in particular, of gene editing in general. That will help the research. If we really want to promote a market, we need to show that we are what we promised to be: a leading scientific organisation in this country, doing this sort of stuff at the top level. That is important. The other issue, of course, is protecting the environment. Clearly, release of organisms that turn out to be not what we expect, and which would have the ability to produce progeny, is risking things further. That is basically the reason for all these amendments, but Amendment 21 expresses my main concern: to ensure that we have done what we promised to do, and if we have not, to find what went wrong so that we can deal with it.
The primary question of privacy of the information has to be discussed by us, but it is deliberately not in this amendment at the moment. There are pros and cons for doing that. There does not necessarily have to be openness, but there must be a proper register of the information. We may well not get the work done if we do not have complete confidentiality, although science is never done best when it is confidential. On the whole, openness has been described, in the general information about the Bill, to be an issue in it, and transparency is a word mentioned by the Government. In the interest of transparency, this amendment may be required.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, when I practised law before I started practising law and grace together, I was of the view that any lawyer enshrines into legislation an agreed public policy. Here, the public policy in Amendment 19 to Clause 3 is that really, if you are to develop these organisms, they must be
“for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes”.
The purposes are explained. The Minister has to work out clearly what the public policy is that he is trying to enshrine here, because any general knows that it is no good launching out into a battle when there are no soldiers coming behind you. One of those purposes here is to try to help the public to understand why this is being done. It is not just for money—although that, of course, is important—and it is not just because we think that science has developed and there is no control over it. At the end of the day, it is about the fact that we want to get our purposes to work out and progress. I hope that the Minister will see this as helpful in stating what the public policy is, why this is being done, and what areas may in future be brought into being.
Of course, I regret that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, was stuck in Scotland and therefore could not be here, because, under Clause 3, if all those things that are supposed not to be let out are let out, what will be the sanction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for Amendment 19, which raises the importance of ensuring that what we do has a public benefit. Across government we are undertaking a range of what I believe is really exciting work to deliver public good and we want to see precision-breeding technologies complement this work to improve our food system and the environment.
On my phone I keep some crucial lines from the Agriculture Act, because when I meet farmers and they say that this Government no longer mind about food production I remind them that right at the front of the Agriculture Act, in Clause 1, it says:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
That is a declaratory statement right at the front of the Act. What we are seeking to do in terms of environmental land management goes through the heart of that piece of legislation and this piece of legislation fits very firmly within that.
As noble Lords are aware, the UK is privileged in its scientific position and researchers across the country are already delivering exciting research that contributes towards public good in the field of precision breeding. In the other place, the John Innes Centre gave evidence about the vitamin D tomatoes that its research group is developing, striving towards improving the food we eat for the benefit of our health. Another notable example is from researchers at Rothamsted who are exploring ways to increase the lipid content of grasses. This could help improve the quality of animal feed and has the potential to reduce methane emissions in livestock. I think we are all proud of the work taking place in this country and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly proud of Rothamsted.
This amendment, I fear, might hinder the important research in this area by placing restrictions on and creating significant uncertainty for critical field trials for researchers and breeders attempting to make new varieties of precision-bred crops. While I understand the intention of this amendment—and it is an intention I applaud—it would not be appropriate to restrict technologies used in breeding, nor do we have any evidence that suggests developers are doing anything other than creating better and improved varieties or breeds.
Of course, it is important to note that these technologies are not a silver bullet, and we want them to be part of our innovation toolkit to improve our food system. Delivering public good is what I did say earlier, and I am very glad I did—and it has been underlined by other noble Lords. It is what we strive for across government and we are fully committed to developing a more sustainable, resilient and productive food system.
Noble Lords quite rightly referenced the Government’s food strategy and, building on Henry Dimbleby’s extraordinary, in-depth piece of work, we have set out a plan to transform our food system and ensure that it is fit for the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned sugar beet. This is a crop where there is an application which might be of huge benefit, and not just in terms of the food that we produce. Being able to develop a strain resistant to virus yellows would mean that we would not have to seek noble Lords’ permission through secondary legislation for a derogation to allow the use of neonicotinoids to control virus yellows. More importantly, we could have a crop that was not only able to produce more sugar for our producers here but would require us to import less sugar from abroad, thereby lowering the carbon impact of that crop.
There are counterfactuals in everything. Trying to improve the home-grown element of our food, while reducing the impact that failing to produce it at home would create by having to import that food, sometimes from far away, needs to be factored in. It is fundamental to our food strategy.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his Amendment 21, which would require the genomes of precision-bred organisms to be sequenced before they can be released into the environment, regardless of whether or not an organism with the same genetic changes had previously been assessed and classified as precision bred. It also stipulates that the genomic changes resulting from the use of modern biotechnology have to be recorded, that no unprecedented changes can be present in the plant or animal, and that this must be reported to the Secretary of State.
I assure noble Lords that the criteria for defining a precision-bred organism, as set out in Clause 1, consider both intended and unintended changes to the genome. This means that any changes resulting from the use of modern biotechnology, whether intended or unintended, must be able to occur through traditional breeding or natural transformation for a plant or animal to be considered precision bred. It also means that unintended changes will already need to be assessed as meeting these criteria before any precision-bred organism is released.
The noble Lord’s amendment would mean that plants and animals could not be classed as precision bred if they contain unintended genomic changes. Unintended genetic changes occur during the traditional breeding process. Some of these may be removed during that process and others not, as will be the case with precision-bred organisms. As I expect the noble Lord is aware, many recent gene-editing studies about animals have reported no incidences of unintended genomic changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. Having assessed this evidence our expert advisory committee, ACRE, has also advised that unintended genomic changes occur significantly more often during the course of traditional breeding than they do as a result of precision breeding. This is also the view of the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU. Consequently, while we expect developers to ensure that any unintended changes are within the range of what can occur naturally, the scientific advice we have received suggests that it is not appropriate to prevent plants or animals with unintended genetic changes from being classed as precision-bred organisms.
We are committed to taking a proportionate approach, requiring only the information that fulfils the regulatory requirement at the appropriate time. It is for this reason that the Bill distinguishes between requirements for research trials and marketing applications of precision-bred organisms. This amendment is likely to add regulatory burden, without adding value to the process. For example, developers would be required to submit a release notice to Defra, confirming that the founder organism they intend to release for research trials meets the criteria in the Bill. They would have generated genomic data to confirm that this is the case.
However, requiring whole-genome sequencing would be disproportionate, given the specific, targeted nature of changes being made. I assure the noble Lord that breeders who release an organism modified using modern biotechnology that does not meet the criteria outlined would be subjected to sanctions under existing GMO legislation. This is a strong deterrent against releasing organisms that do not qualify as precision bred. That also goes some way to answering the point that the noble and right reverend Lord tried to pick up from the previous group, which was not moved. However, we are clear about the sanctions that we want implemented.
Developers will have to submit an additional notification to Defra should they wish to market their precision-bred organism. Breeders will need to provide fit-for-purpose information to demonstrate that they have met the requirements that I have outlined. The technical details will be developed with the advisory committee appointed to advise the Secretary of State on the regulatory status of these organisms.
For marketing approvals, assessments will be carried out on a case-by-case basis. The full genomic sequence of an organism may not be required in addition to information on intended and unintended genomic changes to determine similarity to traditional breeding or natural transformation. As a result, we do not feel it necessary to include a provision that specifically requires whole-genome sequencing.
Finally, to address the noble Lord’s point that the DNA of all progeny of a precision-bred organism should be sequenced before release, if a “founder” organism has met the criteria laid out in the Bill—specifically, that the genetic changes made by modern biotechnology are stable and could have arisen naturally or through traditional breeding—we have been advised that the regulatory status of its progeny does not have to be assessed. This is because the changes made are stable and in line with those that occur naturally.
To address the noble and right reverend Lord’s point about this being a public good, I hope I have set out why the Bill fits in with the Government’s food strategy and how environmental sustainability will be enhanced by it if we get it right. Perhaps the greatest public good will be if we are able to adapt to and tackle elements of climate change that affect not just these islands but countries all around the world. It could benefit some very challenged environments, so we owe it to them to make sure that we are regulating this correctly, making it accessible not just to large multinational companies but to smaller businesses and—to use the rather pompous word I used earlier—democratising it, ensuring that its benefits can be felt far and wide. I hope this provides the assurance that noble Lords need not to press their amendments.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the Minister, but I have one question of clarification, just to check that I have understood what he said—namely, while accepting that it is important that public goods are delivered by precision breeding, that it would in some way stifle innovation if one defined too precisely what one meant by “public goods”. Can the Minister give an example of where saying what one means stifles innovation?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Whether I can give the noble Lord an example or not, I do not know, but he is absolutely right. That is why crafting this legislation has been such a monumental task. MPs in the other place and noble Lords in this place very often—and quite rightly—want to see as much as possible on the face of a Bill, because it holds current and future Governments to account. Very often, not having things on the face of a Bill can be exploited. However, putting too much on the face of this Bill, or being too prescriptive, could create a feeding frenzy for lawyers, be a burden on producers and have a stifling effect on innovation. I hope noble Lords will feel that we have got the balance right and are allowing enough flexibility.
I can see that there are elements of the regulatory framework that support this legislation that are yet to be developed in detail. I am very happy to give noble Lords as much information as I can on the process of developing that, not just now but, for example, as we get information from the Scottish colleges that will inform us on some aspects of the Bill, including this one. That will give the wider consumer and the concerned individual the information they need to know that we are being proportionate and are very focused on this key point of trying to make sure that we are providing a public good.
Lord Winston (Lab)
That was a very complicated statement. I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, had a bit of difficulty with it, and so did I, so I shall read it with great interest in Hansard. Perhaps we can discuss one or two issues that the Minister raised. I think he said, though maybe I misheard, that there have been no recorded changes in the genome or in the DNA of animals that have been modified using the CRISPR technology, for example. I should like to get back to the noble Lord in order to share with him my understanding and to present him with some reports from the literature which argues that this actually has happened and that the introduction of stray DNA, as well as off-target mutation, is a real issue. But now is not the time to discuss this. We shall probably have to leave it until Report.
I am sure that we are basically working towards the same thing. However, it seems to me that, if you own a picture—a Rembrandt, for example—you do not automatically sell it as a Rembrandt; you sell it for what you think it is worth, or what its provenance is. So the provenance of what we sell in terms of our animals to other people is just as important. It is part of a proper sale. If in fact it depends on the genome and the nature of the genes—whether they are expressing or not expressing, and whether the progeny is normal—that, I would argue, is important to the person who is going to buy it. It is essential that we try to be honest, open and transparent.
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is absolutely right. I would just say to the noble Lord that ACRE assessed the evidence put to it by the scientific community. I repeat what I said. Many recent gene-editing studies on animals have reported no incidences of unintended genomic changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. If the noble Lord has information that ACRE should be considering in relation to this, I would be very happy to connect him with ACRE. But that is also the same scientific opinion that was reached by the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU Commission. But the noble Lord is absolutely right that the science on this is moving. There are advances being made, not just here but internationally as well, and we must have the best possible advice to allow Ministers to take the best possible decisions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for his amendment and for the discussion, but I do not feel qualified to comment on it any further than that. We are having an important debate in these areas, and his knowledge is really helpful and useful as we continue to debate the Bill.
On my Amendment 19, I thank all noble Lords for their support, particularly my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for adding their names to it and supporting me strongly on this—I appreciate it. I am sure that noble Lords and the Minister will not be surprised that I am extremely disappointed in his response. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Jones said, the amendment fits so well with the Agriculture Act and, as the Minister himself said, with what the Government are trying to achieve through the food strategy. I genuinely do not understand why it cannot be part of the Bill. The Minister said that the amendment was too restrictive, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised a question about this and asked for an example, which I am not sure we got. I ask the Minister again: how is it too restrictive?
I am not sure whether all noble Lords have seen the amendment, but it lists 11 different purposes—I tried to keep it broad. One of the 11 is
“protecting or improving the health of plants”,
and another is
“protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals”.
My amendment says that it has to be only “in connection with one” of the 11. In discussing the animal part of the Bill, everyone said the reason for having it is to improve health and welfare; I do not see how the amendment would not fit in with this. The same is true of some of the other areas around plants. I genuinely do not understand why it is too restrictive, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could perhaps think about that before Report, because we will come back to this.
Earlier, I said that, when making legislation, we have to ensure that, as well as welcoming those who are undoubtedly trying to do good, we must guard against those who are not. I think the Minister is looking through rather rose-tinted spectacles. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Wednesday 25th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 Jan 2023)
17:22 - Division on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 206 - Amendment 11 disagreed.
18:14 - Division on Amendment 21 - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 193 - Amendment 21 disagreed.
19:20 - Division on Amendment 22 - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 176 - Amendment 22 disagreed.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove animals from the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will speak also to Amendment 2 in my name and briefly comment on the other amendments in this group.
Many Peers will no doubt have received overnight the joint briefing on the Bill from Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Landworkers’ Alliance; the Consortium for Labelling for the Environment, Animal Welfare, and Regenerative Farming —known as CLEAR; the Soil Association; GM Freeze; Organic Farmers and Growers; and the Organic Research Centre. The tone of that briefing reflects what I hear from academics and campaigners: they feel let down by your Lordships’ House. In Committee, we had a detailed, informed and productive debate on the contents of this Bill and the science behind it, and I single out the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his rich and expert contributions and many amendments. Then they saw the list of amendments for Report, before I had tabled the amendments in my name, and it seemed as though all that debate and all the issues raised in Committee—not satisfactorily answered by the Government—had dissolved into a puff of smoke, or perhaps a puff of gene-edited pollen.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House attended a very informative online briefing on Friday and heard from an academic expert, Dr Michael Antoniou from King’s College London, about his concerns, and I think most noble Lords were copied into the subsequent detailed written exchanges that continued that debate. With that in mind, since Hansard does not yet allow footnotes in speeches, I put on the record two articles that I urge every noble Lord and civil servant who will be involved in this Bill and subsequent regulations to read and ponder: in Nature, on 12 January 2022, “Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana”; and, in Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene in March 2021, “Differentiated impacts of human interventions on nature: Scaling the conversation on regulation of gene technologies”.
In short, the first is a substantial debunking of the claim that the mutations occurring in nature are random. This is a subject of continuing scientific debate and a claim relied on heavily by the supporters of the Bill, but it is increasingly evidently incorrect. The second makes the point that even if you were to concede that similar detrimental changes take place through natural means, they are not transmitted around the world at the scale of our globalised industrial agricultural systems, which can spread mistakes before they are recognised. Your Lordships will note the date of those articles. The understanding of genetics and particularly epigenetics is changing fast and the Bill is stuck in the understandings of the 20th century.
All the amendments I have tabled, with one exception, offer a final chance: different routes by which your Lordships’ House could take a pause and allow reflection for the science and the understanding to catch up. I think it is telling that in the last few weeks I have had three major groups of scientists from different fields reach out to me to ask for advice on how they can get through to the Government—in the words of one, “to get the Government to understand our issues”.
There is further evidence for that and I will comment further in the next group on government Amendments 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10. These are amendments to foundational elements of the Bill. This is not mere tidying up—crossing the “t”s and the odd dotting of the “i”s. It is reminiscent of the mess we encountered in Committee on the Procurement Bill and the now gutted and apparently defunct Schools Bill. But here we are at the final stage, the last detailed consideration of the Bill, and the Government are still trying to play around with what it is actually all about.
As I said, my amendments—apart from Amendment 12, which is somewhat different—focus on giving us the chance to go slower, to pause, to look at this somewhat differently. In Committee and in the other place, there was much debate about whether animals should be included in the Bill—to draw a parallel, something that, as far as I am aware, is not even being considered in the yet to be settled debate on gene editing in the European Union. It is an issue of great interest to farmers, growers and food manufacturers in the UK—those who are still managing to export there even after Brexit. Noble Lords will see from the briefings that organic growers and farmers in the UK are very concerned about the Bill.
Amendment 27 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston—and its associated amendments that make up the rest of this group—sets out a very fast timetable of 2026 for farm animals and 2028 for other animals. The best I can say about it is that it is better than nothing. Should it be put to a vote I will support it, but that is still a very short timetable in view of the time it takes for science to get from the lab bench to the peer-reviewed publication, let alone the time it takes to then reach government understanding.
Amendment 1 excludes animals and Amendment 2 in my name would exclude animals and plants not used for food production. We are told again and again by the Government that they want this Bill for food security—they want to be able to produce food—even though it looks a lot like a Bill designed for and by the multinational-dominated biotech sector. But if it is for food, why allow companion animals—or, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said in Committee, and the Minister admitted, the gene editing of great apes, the species whose closeness to us has been highlighted only this week by research showing we have an embedded understanding of their gestural language?
So, what I have done with my Amendments 1 and 2 is offer the House a final chance to deliver the changes to the Bill that many were expecting. It is not my intention at this point to call a vote on either, unless the House should signal that it does want to reflect, pause and at least proceed more slowly on a major change in our relationship with the natural world—in the natural world—as human animals in an immensely complex system that has developed over hundreds of millions of years.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I shall introduce my amendments in this group, Amendments 11, 27, 29 and 30. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lord Winston for their support. I declare my interest as laid out in the register as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust.
During our Committee debate, the Minister stated that the Government’s intention was to take a step-by-step approach, particularly around the introduction of animals, and that the Bill had the ability to do so. Our concern is that we have heard no clarification as to how this will actually work. By what means do the Government intend to introduce provisions related to distinct species, rather than the “relevant animals” as a class, under the Bill as currently drafted? Despite the Minister’s assurances, we still have no guarantee that this step-by-step approach will actually happen.
My Amendment 11 would set this expectation on the face of the Bill. Combined with my Amendments 27, 29 and 30, the effect would be to prevent a precision-bred animal being released until it had met the date condition provided by my new clause, which would follow Clause 47. This proposes that, for farm animals, the date is no earlier than 1 January 2026, and for other animals, no earlier than 1 January 2028. Also scientific evidence must support this extension: if it does not, the date could be put back further. I just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is not an automatic introduction at that date; it is just putting the step-by-step approach on the face of the Bill.
The reason I have tabled these amendments is that, whether we agree that animals should be included or not, clear concerns were expressed during our Committee debates as to when they should be included, how quickly they should be included, and whether all animals should be included at the same time. We believe there is insufficient detail in the Bill regarding concrete provisions around timeframes: many of them are vague and noncommittal. Much of the preparation that we believe is necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been properly carried out.
When this issue was debated in Committee, the noble Lord the Minister said:
“All I can do is assure noble Lords that nothing will happen before we are in the right position to do it … The priority will be to try to do this for farmed animals first, and we want to make sure that we are operating a step-by-step approach. If we put it in the Bill, it may be too prescriptive, because we are in a fast-moving area of science, and it may constrain the ability of the scientific community to progress this if we do it in the wrong way.”—[Official Report, 12/12/22; col.503.]
We listened to the Minister’s words and, in order not to tie the Government’s hands or constrain the scientific community if there is clear evidence, for example, of a scientific breakthrough in tackling bird flu, the amendment allows for flexibility. An accelerated timetable should come in only if scientific opinion supported this. So we have not set these dates in stone in either direction.
I hope the Minister can see that we are taking a constructive approach to trying to put step-by-step on the face of the Bill. However, if he is not prepared to accept our amendments, I intend to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her courtesy in giving way. I will make only two brief comments. The first addresses the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised, particularly the reference to the workshop that I helped to organise last Friday, where we had a number of experts giving us their take on the science. It is very often—in fact, usually—the case that scientists do not absolutely agree on everything; that is just the way that science is. When you go as a scientist to a conference, you do not expect everybody to say, “Fantastic, your research is absolutely superb”. People criticise it and challenge you and say, “Why are you doing that in this way and not some other way?” But there is sometimes a centre of gravity of opinion. Science goes through different phases. There may be no agreed position and gradually over time it is possible that a position consolidates in a particular way.
I think it is fair to say that Dr Michael Antoniou, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred, is probably not in the centre of gravity of current opinion on the safety issues and other technical aspects of gene editing. So while I absolutely applaud the noble Baroness’s point which raised the diversity of opinions in the scientific community, I do not think your Lordships should be too swayed by a particular individual’s point of view, because I do not think it is the centre of gravity of scientific opinion.
My second, very brief point concerns timescales and is related to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. One can see this in two ways, as her introduction to her amendments implied. You could see it as putting the brakes on—do not rush too quickly before you are sure—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would wish us to do. On the other hand, towards the end of her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, “We don’t want to hold things back”. On the one hand we do not want to rush, and on the other hand we do not want to have the brakes applied too sharply.
I am trying to anchor that in a bit of reality. As far as I am aware—I was told this at the meeting last Friday by Professor Bruce Whitelaw, director of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, which is the UK’s leading centre for this sort of technology in animals—in the US, the Food and Drug Administration is already reviewing a licence application for gene-edited pigs. The animal genetics company, Genus, in collaboration with the University of Missouri, has developed a pig that is totally resistant to the virus that causes porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome—PRRS for short. So the question in assessing the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is, would that amendment hold up the commercialisation of this pig, if the FDA and the relevant bodies in the UK approved it?
Given that it would improve pig welfare, because PRRS is not a pleasant disease, and save the pig industry a very large amount of money—an estimated $2.5 billion a year in Europe and the US alone—do we want accidentally to place a barrier on that kind of development through timescale limits? I do not land on one side or the other; I just think it is useful to have a real-life example of what is going on. My question to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is this: if this PRRS-resistant pig came to market before 2026, would that count as an example of where the 2026 hurdle should be removed, because it is ready to go, or would she want to keep it in place? The question on the other side is whether it will realistically go from FDA approval to commercialisation in about three years. I am not trying to land on one side or the other, just to anchor this in a specific example which may help us think through our response to the proposed amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Just to come back on that, proposed new subsection (4) in my amendment says:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend the dates listed in subsection (2)”—
the dates I read out—
“if the requirement under subsection (3)”,
which is the evidence condition the noble Lord is talking about,
“is met before the dates”.
There is flexibility in the amendment to bring those dates forward if that scientific evidence is there.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will intervene briefly on a point of information. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has helped his cause, although he is very knowledgeable in this area and I pay tribute to him in that regard, in mentioning that a particular academic is not deemed to be at the centre of gravity on these issues. Who are we to judge? This is a fast-moving and complicated field. We are leaving what has been a highly regulated area, where our farm products have moved very freely between here and the European Union; if we go down this path of very light regulation in the Bill, how do we know that the EU will accept our food products? I shall listen very carefully to my noble friend’s response, in particular to the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench.
I feel that there is an uneasiness and lack of understanding among the public about this, which I share. I am in awe of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh; it is my alma mater, although I studied law rather than science or veterinary science. I realise that cloning is different, but the very fact that we do not seem to be going down that path, which was first brought up with Dolly the sheep, raises issues. I am very uneasy about moving to light-touch regulation when the science is not at one on this issue.
Lord Krebs (CB)
If I could just interrupt the noble Baroness, I think it is wrong to bring up Dolly the sheep in this conversation, because this has nothing to do with cloning. It is a completely different technology.
While I am on my feet, I will respond to her point about how we know where the centre of gravity of scientific opinion is, who is to judge it and whether it will change. I appreciate her kind words about me; I am a scientist but I am no expert in genetics or gene editing. However, I know from my general experience of a lifetime as a scientific researcher that, when there is a centre of gravity of opinion, there are always outliers. Sometimes those outliers turn out to be right and there are transformations, but I have seen no evidence at this stage that the outliers are right and the centre of gravity is about to shift. That is all I want to say.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I have nearly finished my remarks. I have some sympathy with the amendments from the Front Bench opposite and would like to hear a very good reason why my noble friend may be minded not to support them.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I remind my noble friend Lord Krebs—and I call him my friend because I have huge respect for him as a scientist, a Peer and a contributor to the House—that one of the great outliers was Dr Oppenheimer at the time of the Manhattan Project, who afterwards recognised what had been released as a result of that. We know very well that every single piece of technology that humans have ever produced has a downside we do not expect, and do not recognise and predict at the time. I would argue that this is one of those examples of a technology, which we have a duty, as a House in Parliament, to examine extremely carefully. I am not sure we have done that yet, and I am not sure how we can do it very well.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will see that these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, are helpful because they give expression to what he said in Committee: that the Government will move forward on a step-by-step basis.
Why do I think that is important? First, again in Committee, the Minister made it absolutely clear that there were no institutions or research bodies—nobody—making a claim that they wanted to do any form of gene editing on anything other than farm animals, and that the only reason why animals beyond farm animals were in the Bill was, to quote the Minister, to “future-proof the Bill”. That is fine, but let us give expression to that future-proofing by ensuring that there is a degree of phasing.
Secondly—this is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, touched on—the consultation that the Government did on the statutory instrument in advance of this Bill indicated that there was no support from either consumers or retailers for the sale of animal products into the market. The public appetite is therefore limited. Those of you in this Chamber who are strong proponents of gene editing could very well argue that this phasing amendment would allow time to bring the public along with us.
The third argument, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, is that while Europe is looking at gene editing, it is not looking at animals at all, and it is a major trading partner. The Welsh have opposed this legislation and, if my timing is correct, the Scottish are voting at this very moment to turn it down as well. Therefore, key partners of ours are moving at a slower pace than ours and therefore there is a strong argument for moving at a measured pace.
However, the strongest argument, which I think will find favour with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, is for doing this based on the evidence of the science. Yes, we need a proportionate regulatory framework, but we must ensure that we are learning the lessons at every stage and monitoring the adverse effects. We will come to an amendment about this later. Then, going forward, animal welfare is guaranteed, and public benefits are maintained. An argument that allows this in a phased way is the right regulatory approach. If the noble Baroness takes this to a vote, she will have the support of these Benches.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I will make one or two points, particularly with respect to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston.
Regarding imprecision, conventional breeding is totally imprecise. Mankind has been breeding animals for thousands of years, just looking grossly at the phenotype, the way animals look and so on. Recent research on pigs has shown that if you breed two pigs —a boar and a sow—and do whole-genome on sequencing on all their progeny, there will be at least 100 mutations in the DNA of each of those progenies which are not represented in either parent. Every time we breed every animal now, on every farm, in every house, in every stable, we have a very imprecise system which is constantly throwing up genetic variation.
Applying this more precise breeding will be done under very controlled conditions in research establishments which will be thoroughly looking at the changes in the genomes of the animals long before they are released. Remember that when we market animals for breeding, we control the breeding. We have had assurances that mechanisms such as gene drive will not be included in this legislation. Every precision-bred animal that is genetically edited and put on the market will be bred by humans controlling that breeding.
Lastly, regarding ethics, there are counter-ethics, and the bus has already left the station on this. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned the work on PRRS. There is some very encouraging work coming through which indicates that we may be able to create poultry with a degree of resistance to avian influenza. An Israeli research group has published information on being able to produce only female chicks from layer breeder flocks, thus preventing the unnecessary destruction of half the chicks born for laying purposes because they are male. When we have the potential to reduce the burden of disease in animals which are under our control, is it ethical not to take up that opportunity?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a dairy farmer and as an investor in a number of agriculture-related businesses around the world. I also declare negligible scientific credentials, unlike many noble Lords who have spoken.
However, I believe that it is essential that farmed animals are included in the Bill without undue delay, and I am very much against any amendment which delays or removes these animals. I have previously mentioned in this House that I could raise the output of my herd by 23% were all my cows blessed with the same genetics as my best cow. As noble Lords have already mentioned, there are disease benefits. Another example is the Roslin Institute’s engagement in gene editing of salmon, which improves resistance to infectious pancreatic necrosis viruses. These are meaningful benefits and I agree that they also improve animal welfare.
I would also add that I do not entirely recognise the world that was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, earlier. Agricultural productivity continues to increase globally, powered largely by ongoing plant and animal selective breeding. I believe that we have an obligation to unleash this technology of precision breeding to further increase production globally and support a growing global population.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if he might be kind enough to comment on this, seeing as he wanted to breed his best cow with all the other cows to reduce genetic diversity. Can he tell me what happens if a virus comes along to which that herd is susceptible? What do you do then? That is the problem.
Lord Roborough (Con)
As a non-scientist, I am not sure that I have a good answer to that. I would rely on the vets.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
I think my noble friend is quite right: we will depend on increasing productivity and will be able to do that only by breeding. The whole point of the Bill is selective breeding; actually, it is precision breeding. The noble Lord may well have this nightmare that we are releasing something ghastly into the world; I do not believe that is true at all. It is done because of objectives in the breeding programme, which is precise. This is just the sort of thing that I do—and I declare my interest as a horticulturalist, as the House well knows—when we are breeding bulbs and daffodils. But this is more serious; this is not about domestic gardening but is about feeding the world and making it possible for the diversity that exists in gene stock to be harnessed for greater productivity.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I do not want to argue with the noble Lord about this too much but, actually, I have to say that there is good evidence. For example, with gene editing and the operation called i-GONAD where you can change embryos, most of those animals look perfectly normal and would pass without their gene being changed, but it turns out, of course, that they do not actually fulfil the requirements that you eventually have for the gene. That is one of the problems. That is a serious issue because you change other genes; not as a result of editing them, but by having those other genes edited. That is a big problem.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, on that point. It is a fair question, which we do need to respond to: what happens if we narrow the gene pool and expose animals to genetic risk? There has been evidence in the past that by narrowing the gene pool in dairy cows, we have had lameness problems; there has been an issue in other species. That is because we have not properly understood; indeed, random breeding, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has said, has resulted in that kind of action. Through better understanding of the genes, and through ensuring that we retain as wide a gene pool as possible from which to choose, but being selective and more careful and intelligent about the use of those genes, we should avoid that consequence.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I start by reminding noble Lords of my entry in the register. This has been a fascinating opener for this afternoon’s proceedings. I know that this is an area of great importance to this House. I want to take account of the concerns raised in the debate and more clearly show our intention on this issue. Perhaps I should start by saying that, having been in, then out and now back in Defra over about a decade or more—and not being a scientist—I absolutely do take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I try never to use the words that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, attributed to me, which was that I was following the science. The science is imprecise, and what we have to do as policy- makers is take a view, listen to reputable people who advise us and organisations both here and around the world, and hope we get it right.
I shall say just two things at this stage of the proceedings on what my involvement in the Bill is not about. First, to tackle what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said—that this is somehow to satisfy the demands of the global agricultural corporations—no, it is not that. As far as I know, we have had no lobbying from any of those organisations, and this is about something else which I shall come to. Secondly, it is not about taking back control. For me, it is about looking at crops that I see frying in heatwaves that we never had when I was younger. It is about talking to farmers who have Belgian Blue cattle that can give birth to calves only by Caesarean section because they have been bred through traditional breeding methods in a way that makes natural calving impossible. It is about correcting some of those aberrations that have existed, as well pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. We can tie ourselves down with negativity about this, but the opportunities for this legislation, what it offers for animal welfare and for tackling issues such as climate change, are immense.
On the amendment to remove animals from the Bill completely, as was highlighted in Committee and in today’s debate, I say that it is vital that animals remain part of the Bill. We focused on farmed animals in debate because there is already research in the UK and abroad showing the exciting potential of precision breeding to help tackle some of the most pressing challenges to our food system, the environment and animal welfare. These challenges are significant, and while these technologies are not a silver bullet, they can work alongside other approaches to help us to improve animal health and welfare, enhance the sustainability of farming, and strengthen food security and resilience. It is vital that we create an enabling regulatory environment to translate the research that we have already highlighted in debates into practical, tangible benefits.
It is equally vital that these technologies are used responsibly. That is why we have included specific measures in the Bill to safeguard animal welfare. These go beyond what is required for traditional breeding and under current GMO requirements. We therefore do not see this legislation as a route to lowering welfare standards. Instead, we see it as a real opportunity to improve animal welfare and our food system.
The debate about outliers was fascinating. As a policymaker, I quite like challenging Defra scientists and those who advise us by pushing an outlying piece of science, something that may not even be peer-reviewed. It is one of my criticisms of the scientific lobby that, to get peer-reviewed papers, you have to be in the centre. In this case, I have looked at the broad range of views in the scientific community. I entirely endorse the sentiments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. However, I understand concerns raised in the debate about the use of precision-breeding technologies in certain groups of animals, such as companion animals, and I recognise and agree with noble Lords on the importance of building confidence in the regulatory system.
There is a case for prioritising where there is the greatest research interest and where there are greatest potential benefits for animal welfare in our food system. That is why I want to make a commitment on the Floor of this House that we will adopt a phased approach to commencing the measures in the Bill in relation to animals. In other words, we will commence the measures in the Bill for only a select group of animal species in the first instance before commencing them in relation to other species. For example, in the first phase it is likely to be animals typically used in agriculture or aquaculture.
As indicated during Committee, we intend to use the commencement powers within the Bill to achieve that. These powers allow us to bring the provisions in the Bill into force in relation to a specific list of species or group of animals; for example, we can apply the provisions to cattle by stating the species name as Bos taurus—domestic cows. That means that until the relevant commencement regulations applicable to them are made, some species or groups of animals, such as companion animals, will not be affected by changes in the Bill. Likewise, GMO rules would continue to apply to them if they are produced using precision-breeding technology. Taking this approach allows us to limit the practical effect of the Bill for a time, while retaining the flexibility and durability needed to capture the potential benefits in other species in the future.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
It is encouraging to think that the Minister would pick one genus of defined animal such as Bos taurus, but how long would it remain the only race being investigated? Moreover, they are only about half of the cattle beasts; there are also all the beasts descended from Bos indicus that occupy tropical areas.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I understand the point that my noble friend is making. I cited Bos taurus as perhaps the greatest priority in our minds, but I have also mentioned the benefits that would accrue if we could tackle conditions such as PRRS in pigs. He is right that there are other genuses across farm animal species that we must consider.
As I said, we also intend to produce guidance on the animal marketing authorisation process outlined in the Bill. That will include guidance on the evidence that regulations will require to be submitted alongside the animal welfare declaration by the breeder and, if necessary, more specific guidance relevant to particular species. Through that consideration of evidence and clear guidance, we will ensure that the regulatory system works effectively for different species of animals. I hope that the Government’s intended approach, our commitment to phase the introduction of animals under this legislation and the words that I have said from this Dispatch Box are clear and reassuring for noble Lords. I ask noble Lords to consider not pressing their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I thank everyone who has participated in, as he said, this fascinating, detailed and high-quality debate.
I will start with the small bombshell that the Minister that just dropped. We appear to have had a new outline for the way in which the Bill is to be implemented presented to us at the final stage of Report on the Floor of the House—and, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, pointed out, with some very unclear elements where we suddenly appear to be covering half the cattle but not the other half. I question whether this is the way in which we should be making legislation.
I want to raise a point on something the Minister said which has not been raised before: why is aquaculture here? As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, the reality of land animals is that at least you can keep control of them and muster them fairly well. If we include aquaculture in the early stages, we have to realise that once you release something into the sea, as we know from farmed salmon, there will of course be escapes. We have not had a chance to debate all the things the Minister just said.
I want to go back to first principles. I return to the immensely powerful and important speech by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. As he said, he has 40 years’ experience of working with genes. He is your Lordships’ House’s absolute expert. The noble Lord said that we are embarking on a massive experiment with potential global repercussions, but we do not understand what we are doing. Before I go further, I want to put those words to the Minister. My understanding is that the precautionary principle is part of government policy. How does this Bill fit with that principle?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Let me address some of the points that the noble Baroness has made. The Government have always said that our priority for the rollout of this technology will be plants, then animals. I have added to that the reassurance, in frequent meetings that I have held with noble Lords before today, that we can phase that part of it as well. So I do not consider that to be a bombshell.
ACRE, the body that advises the Government on releases into the environment, has recommended that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk than their traditionally-bred counterparts. Its advice is supported by the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Biology and the Roslin Institute. As for food and feed, consumer safety will be ensured through a case-by-case assessment by the FSA to ensure that products are safe for consumption.
So I hope the noble Baroness feels that his is not a bombshell, that clear processes are involved and that we have been, in every way, precautionary about how we do this. I put it to her that surely it is being precautionary to tackle some of the problems we face. The greatest challenge ever for humanity is to adapt to climate change and to produce food in a way that a modern society, a civilised society, wants—to make sure we address issues such as animal welfare. That is the opportunity of this Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I will pick up that point about animal welfare, and indeed pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about pigs in the US that have been gene-engineered—or, rather, gene-disrupted— to make them resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome.
This is a case of knocking out one gene in these pigs. We know that any given strain of a virus mutates at a rapid rate—we only need to look at Covid-19. Where we have pigs held in the kind of crowded, dangerous conditions in which we know pigs are held in the US, the virus will mutate very quickly. We have been through this many times. We had it with resistance to pesticides: we got rid of a single disease with one gene and then, of course, it goes. This is the way that biology works, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said. We hold those pigs in the kind of crowded, dangerous conditions where PRRS is a concern. Let us remember that this genetic change is only against that one disease. When swine flu arrives, there is nothing in those pigs that will protect them against it, or prevent it becoming a zoonosis and crossing the species barrier into humans. Yet we continue those farming practices.
I pick up the point from the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who said that this is the only way we will feed the world and the only way to get more production. That is what we were saying in the 20th century. The discussion on Friday that I referred is only a preprint, but it reflects the direction of the new biology. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that there is a centre of gravity, but we also know there are tipping points. The new biology acknowledges that a wheat plant and every other complex organism is a holobiont; it operates as a complex of what we think of as the plant, bacteria and fungi that work together. The preprint showed that when a wheat crop is dealing with drought, the epigenetic changes—the kind of changes that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was talking about, where the plant adapts to circumstances and has its genes expressed in different ways—were happening overwhelmingly in the bacteria and fungi. It is not the genetics of the wheat plant at all. I do not accept that this is the way to feed the world, without tackling the issues of poverty, inequality, food waste and feeding perfectly good food to animals. We need good management of soils and crop diversity—that is how we feed the world.
I feel a sense of despair at this point; I have no alternative but to withdraw my amendment with great reluctance. I really hope that your Lordships’ House has listened, particularly to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and that the Government listen to this as we go forward from here.
Lord Benyon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the test in Clause 1(2)(c) to features of a precision bred organism’s genome that result from the application of modern biotechnology and would require them to be capable of resulting just from traditional processes (whether or not in conjunction with selection techniques).
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I will begin by speaking to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, whom I thank for his amendments and his ongoing support for the Bill. I will come on to the government amendments in due course.
The noble Lord’s amendment highlights some of the challenges in maximising the potential of plant and animal genomes using traditional breeding methods. The crucial issue is whether the types of genetic features under discussion could, in principle, occur in the genome of the organism by traditional processes. In other places in the Bill, where we intended to refer to outcomes that
“could reasonably be expected to result”
from a process, rather than outcomes that could in principle so result, we have expressly said so. This means that it is unnecessary to add further descriptions to the word “could” in Clause 1. Consequently, the existing wording—“could” have resulted from traditional breeding —already achieves the Government’s intended ambition, without the need for further descriptors in the definition. I believe that it achieves the outcome that the noble Lord wants it to.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, and his officials for the very productive conversations that we have had and thank the Government for tabling amendments that, as he just explained, meet the essential request of my Amendments 4 and 7 in this group. I do not think that there is further debate to be had about the purpose of my amendments, but I thought that I might spend a few minutes, if noble Lords do not mind, explaining what I was talking about with a couple of simple examples. Although he gave a very correct and detailed response, I could see the eyes of one or two of your Lordships beginning to glaze over. I will therefore try to give an illustration.
The logic of my Amendment 4 was that the Bill says —and the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has just repeated—that a precision-bred organism could have been produced by traditional breeding. My amendment says that while this is true in principle, in practice it may be very difficult to achieve these changes by traditional breeding. The Government’s amendment, in slightly different words, acknowledges that point. I will illustrate why I tabled my amendment with two examples.
Noble Lords will know that cystic fibrosis is an incurable and often fatal disease caused by a single gene mutation. That gene is extremely bad for you, yet one in 25 of us carries that gene, which is extraordinary. After 10,000 generations or more of human evolution since Homo sapiens first emerged, why is that gene still around? If it is so disadvantageous—indeed, fatal—why has it not disappeared? The answer is very simple: traditional breeding—what we do—and natural selection over 10,000 generations has been unable to remove that gene because it is recessive. In other words, most of us who carry the gene—we do not know which ones of us do—show no manifestation of it. If two carriers have children then, statistically speaking, one-quarter of those children will manifest the disease but the others will not. That is the law of Mendelian genetics. Although, in theory, selection and traditional breeding could eliminate the cystic fibrosis gene, the fact is that it does not. But precision breeding could, if we applied it to that example.
My other illustration is on linkage. Genes that live together also travel together, which means that they are passed down through the generations as joined-up twins. One example might be hair colour and eye colour. In general, blond hair and blue eyes go together and brown hair and brown eyes go together, although not always, because those genes for hair colour and eye colour are linked together on the same chromosome but not incredibly closely linked. If they were absolute neighbours, it would be very hard, in the normal process of the reshuffling of chromosomes that occurs during traditional breeding, to separate them. Yet, with precision breeding, you could separate them at a stroke using molecular scissors.
That is what the amendment is about, and I believe that the Government’s amendment has addressed those points with slightly different wording from mine. When I asked Defra officials whether they agreed with the logic of my amendments, they said, “Yes, but our lawyers don’t like your wording.” I defer to the Defra lawyers and accept that they have come up with an alternative form of wording.
Briefly, I move on to my Amendment 7 which, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is about whether having any small fragments of exogenous DNA—probably bacterial DNA—left over after gene editing is a bad thing. The first thing that I need to say to noble Lords in case they are not aware of it is that there is nothing wrong with exogenous DNA. None of us would be alive today were it not for our exogenous DNA. In fact, no multicellular organism on the planet would be alive today were it not for their exogenous DNA. The reason is that, in every cell of our body, there are tiny little organelles called mitochondria, which started life as bacteria. They are not our own DNA; they got into multicellular organisms long before we appeared on the planet 1.5 billion years ago and have been accepted by the host—and, in fact, used by the host to generate energy. The energy that fuels your body and keeps you going is created, second by second in every cell of your body, by these little inclusions that are controlled by exogenous DNA.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, having spoken a great deal on the last group, I will be extremely brief now. What we have is the Government still trying to define what the Bill is about at this incredibly late stage. We have been through Committee, Report and the other stages in the other place and here, and here we are still trying to find the wording. Neither the science nor the law is stable enough for this to become an Act and we have just seen a very useful demonstration in this short debate of how this is very likely to be a field day for lawyers, so the lawyers in your Lordships’ House can get ready.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his continuing help in trying to get this right. I hope the eyes of not too many noble Lords glazed over. I had to get on the record, about what is undoubtedly a very technical piece of legislation, what we were seeking to do by the changes that we were putting in.
The noble Lord makes a very good point about “modern biotechnology” as a term. I am at great pains not to throw in new definitions that could one day come back to bite us, but “modern technology” is widely recognised to cover a specific set of technologies for regulatory purposes. In particular, it is used in the UN’s Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The definition of modern biotechnology can be updated—to be probably even more modern technology—subject to the affirmative procedure under powers in the Bill if required.
I hope that the government amendments, which aim to clarify which kinds of genetic features are permissible in a precision-bred organism and the techniques by which they may be introduced, will provide assurance to the noble Lord not to press his amendments. I hope that noble Lords are confident in accepting these government amendments.
Lord Benyon
(d) its genome does not contain any feature that results from the application of any artificial modification technique other than modern biotechnology.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a new requirement to ensure that the genome of a precision bred organism could not contain features that result from artificial modification techniques that are not modern biotechnology within the meaning of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would omit Clause 1(6), which defines “natural transformation”. It is consequential on the Minister’s first amendment to Clause 1 which would remove Clause 1(2)(c)(ii).
Lord Benyon
“(7A) An “artificial modification technique” means any technique by which genes or other genetic material can be artificially modified within the meaning of Part 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as it has effect from time to time).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define artificial modification techniques in line with Part 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (which deals with genetically modified organisms).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a technical amendment so that subsection (8) reflects the language of the definition of “artificially modified” in the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002, which is expressed in relation to genes or other genetic material, rather than the organisms. It would not make a substantive change.
“(10) An organism to which subsection (11) applies does not fail to be precision bred merely because it does not meet the condition in subsection (2)(d).(11) This subsection applies to an organism which, for the purposes of Part 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is to be taken not to be a genetically modified organism by virtue of—(a) paragraph (3) of the regulation referred to in subsection (8)(a), or(b) regulations under subsection (4C) of section 106 of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that an organism will not fail to be a precision bred organism by reason only of the new test introduced by the Minister’s second amendment to Clause 1 if it is to be taken not to be a genetically modified organism by virtue of the provisions referred to in subsection (11)(a) and (b).
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent a precision bred animal from being released unless the date condition in a later Clause in the name of Baroness Hayman of Ullock has been met. Taken collectively, these amendments would ensure a phasing in of the animal provisions in the Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment and I am pleased that he reaffirmed the Government’s ambition to phase in different species. The problem is that it is not actually in the Bill, so there is no guarantee that it will happen. I would also like to come back to him on this: the amendment is not designed to restrict. If scientific evidence supports this application, it will not restrict it. I thought I had made that clear. Also, if the Minister believes that the introduction of animals is likely to be later than the date in my amendment, I really do not understand the reluctance to accept this and have it in the Bill. On that note, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 11.
“(iv) the details of the gene editing event, and the record of the whole genome sequence of the qualifying organism, are recorded in a publicly available register established by regulations,”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 12, I will speak also to Amendment 13 in my name. This is an adaptation and development of the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, in Committee—he is not currently in his place; I hope he will be back in a second—when he put forward the idea of a register. This is my attempt to write that register into the Bill, to establish full transparency and traceability around gene editing.
The drafting is my own, although I thank the Table Office for its help. I will not claim that this is the perfect way to set this in the legislation, but in this legislation it absolutely should be, for the sake of transparency and traceability. We are giving commercial companies the right to mess around with the basis of life on earth. Showing their working and allowing the knowledge to be available to others is a small price to pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I had a detailed debate in Committee about whether it is possible to identify gene-edited organisms; some aspects of that debate remain in dispute, but we heard on Friday’s call that, should the nature of the gene-editing event be recorded, as Amendment 12 calls for, there is absolutely no doubt that any gene-edited organism can be identified.
This amendment goes further in calling for the record of the whole-genome sequence of the qualifying organism to be recorded. For the House’s information, I think it is worth going a little further into that, and into an explanation of why the regulations should be covered by the affirmative procedure.
Whole-genome sequencing can accurately identify the full spectrum of unintended mutations at both off-target and on-target editing sites, including the inadvertent insertion of foreign DNA. Given what we heard from the Minister in the last group, I am not sure how we can be sure than an organism is legal if we do not have this. Multiple-reference genomes derived from the whole-genome sequencing of major crop plants are available already in the public domain. That has yielded important information about the unintended effects of gene editing on the genome. For example, in a study on gene-edited rice using CRISPR-Cas, whole-genome sequencing was used to investigate unintended mutations arising from several aspects of the gene-editing procedure. The procedure, which taken as a whole includes tissue culture and Agrobacterium-mediated cell transformation, resulted in several times more unintended mutations than were found in rice propagated through natural pollination. If you do not do the whole-genome sequencing, you simply cannot know that to be the case.
We are sometimes told that this is too complicated, difficult and expensive. We have been talking about how fast this field is moving, and one recent innovation is what is known as long-read DNA sequencing. Unlike many things in this area, its meaning is pretty clear-cut from its self-description. It provides a continuous sequence that reads up to 1.5 million DNA base units and would provide unequivocal understanding of the placement of long stretches of repeat sequences, which some of the older methods that break up the DNA strand do not do so easily. Several companies offer a long-read genome sequencing service, making this technology readily available.
I did not write this into the Bill, and it is another reason why I put in the affirmative procedure, but this register could also include requirements for molecular compositional profiling methods: gene expression-profiling transcriptomics, protein-profiling proteomics and small biochemical molecule-profiling metabolomics—let us call them “omics”. These are now used by thousands of research groups around the world to gain a more comprehensive and deeper insight, not just into the genome but into how an organism functions. It is crucial to understanding the health and disease implications of the genome to see how that genome plays out in the proteins in the cells.
A 2016 research paper published in the extremely prestigious journal Nature used a multi-omics approach to demonstrate that a glyphosate-tolerant GM maize was not substantially equivalent to its non-GM relative. The large-scale protein and metabolite alterations that were detected were unintended consequences of the GM transformation process, with potential downstream health consequences for the consumer in terms of the introduction of toxins and allergens.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is here and I refer Members of your Lordships’ House to his speech in this area and our discussion in Committee. To know what is going on is scientifically and practically essential. That is why I have tabled these amendments. I do not intend to move to a vote, but this is a matter that the Government should commit to. It is interesting that in our discussion on Friday with all the experts one of them said to me, “Yes, there is a public register. At least that’s how it’s going to work”. I do not know whether the Minister can explain this, but my understanding is that there is nothing in the legislation that provides for a public register. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. However, these people are proponents of the Bill and this procedure, and they believe that there will be a public register. If that is what the experts are trusting in and want to be able to use—it is a public resource—and if it is not already there, the Government certainly should introduce it. I beg to move.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for introducing the amendment because it gives me a chance to say two things quickly. One, which she alluded to, is our discussion in Committee about detectability by analytical methods. I asked Wendy Harwood from the John Innes Centre to give me an exact form of words about that, which I shall repeat with her permission. It confirms, in a way, what the noble Baroness has just been saying. Wendy Harwood said:
“If you had details of the exact edit made, then you could detect”
the PBO by polymerase chain reaction,
“followed by sequencing of the PCR product. If you were just presented with a plant, and no audit trail and asked whether it was genome edited, you could not determine whether it was or not.”
One therefore needs an audit trail in order to be able to tell. She continued:
“If exactly the same change had been made by precision breeding as had been made by traditional breeding, and you tested by looking for that precise change, then you would not be able to tell which was which. Again an audit trail would be required. You might however have a case where both PB and traditional breeding had made changes to the same gene, giving the same trait, but these changes were not identical at the DNA level, in this case you could tell the difference.”
That emphasises that if one is serious about knowing which products on the shelves are produced by PB, there needs to be an audit trail.
On whether whole-genome sequencing is of value, one angle is that so much mutation in the genome is going on all the time that it is hard to know what one’s reference material would be. The Royal Society produced in its evidence to the Defra consultation a calculation that in a hectare of wheat there would be at least one mutation for every base pair in the wheat genome. There are 10 billion base pairs in a wheat genome. In a one-hectare field of wheat, there would be a mutation somewhere in every one of those base pairs. So the difficulty with using whole-genome sequencing is what one makes of the information one gets. There will be huge variation and one does not quite know what the value of the information is.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I think we have agreement that some parts of the genome are functionally relevant and have a particular functional significance. We perhaps have points of disagreement about how relatively protected some of those may be from natural mutations. There are lots of mutations that happen naturally in areas that may be beneficial to the plant but only in certain parts of the genome and with certain sorts of functional effects. The parts of the genome that are particularly crucial to the function of the organism are the structural, basic ones, where there are far fewer natural effects. If you read the complete list of the genome, you are going to look at certain bits to see which changes are significant, which ones may be deleterious and which ones are less significant. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Krebs (CB)
Obviously, I agree that the different parts of the genome serve different functions. As the noble Baroness said in Committee, when we were students, we learned about junk DNA. However, it is not junk DNA; it can play an important part in regulating the expression of other genes. I take the point.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I love the idea of the noble Lord’s field of wheat waving gently in the breeze and the sunlight, but does he not agree that certain genes in those wheat seeds are rather well conserved and, in fact, do not change? Indeed, certain genes are protected from mutation. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent us looking at analysis to see the frequency of certain mutations within the genome; perhaps we need to be doing that. The data there could be very useful in all sorts of ways.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments deals with technical scientific issues and moving whole or parts of clauses from the negative procedure to the affirmative. Your Lordships will know that I am not a scientist so I shall, I hope, avoid digging a hole for myself or getting caught in the crossfire.
Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would require the details of genome sequencing to be recorded in a publicly available register. If the processes outlined in this Bill are to be carried forward successfully, it will be necessary for farmers, producers and the public especially to have confidence in the process. Ensuring that there is transparency and visibility through a publicly available register can only help this process. The DPRRC was strongly in favour of such a register in its report of 2 December.
Amendment 13, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to make the whole regulation in Clause 3 affirmative. Currently, the Bill is silent on whether Clause 3 is affirmative or negative. I suspect that, as it currently stands, Clause 4(6) applies to the whole of the section headed “Release”.
I am grateful to the Minister for his amendments in this group. At Second Reading and in Committee, concerns were raised at the number of negative procedures in the Bill. The Minister has tabled government Amendments 14 and 15 to Clause 4, which would qualify the section on marketing and keep subsection (1)(b) as negative while the rest of this clause will be moved to the affirmative procedure. This is welcome and gives the opportunity for debate on the notification requirements if necessary. Perhaps the Minister can clarify in his response whether Clauses 3 and 4 are covered by his Amendments 14 and 15. If not, can he say what process is applied for Clause 3? I am sorry; I may have misunderstood what this is all about.
Amendment 16, to Clause 6(4), moves regulations on the precision bred confirmation from negative to affirmative. We welcome the Minister’s movement on this point. This is a sensible way forward and, again, gives the opportunity for further debate.
Government Amendments 24 and 25 are somewhat confusing. Amendment 24 indicates that the regulations under Clause 18(1) are to be affirmative, and Amendment 25 deletes “this section” and inserts “subsection (6)”. I think this means that Clause 18(1) is affirmative while the rest of the clause is negative, as Clause 18(7) has not been amended. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. It is important for when we come to debate these things later to know whether it is affirmative or negative. Although these are technical amendments, they are very important and provide transparency in the Bill, which is to be welcomed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has tabled two amendments. Amendment 12 concerns the publicly available register. Clearly, transparency and information for the public will be important if we are to carry people with us, so we need to look at how we develop registers and information to reassure people and to give them the information that they need to have confidence in the legislation.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, drew attention to the parallel piece of legislation, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, in which there is a requirement for the surrender of ongoing records containing the information about the impacts, both the positive and the adverse outcomes, on individuals used under the terms of that Act. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, read out an opinion which emphasised the importance of an audit trail, so there is a general feeling in this House that information and a public register are important.
Amendment 13 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report on the Bill, which was very helpful. I reassure the Minister, who knows that we support the Bill, that what concerns us is that so much is left to an unknown number of SIs over an unspecified timescale. If the regulations in Clause 3 are under the affirmative procedure, Parliament will rightly have a formal role in improving the finer details of the release and marketing notices, crucially ensuring that we have proper political consensus on this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, the Government have moved a number of clauses from the negative to the affirmative procedure. I will not go into all the detail, as she covered everything that I was going to ask about on this, since some of it is not crystal clear. We know that the Government can see that there is merit in moving from the negative to affirmative. Can the Minister clarify why not this clause as well if that is not the case, as this is important?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 12, which would require details of the specific gene editing event and the whole-genome sequence of a qualifying precision-bred organism to be made publicly available for its release into the environment. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 13 to Clause 3 would require that regulations made under this clause to establish a public register containing this information are subject to the affirmative procedure.
It is not our intention to require breeders to include sequence data as part of their release or marketing notices. I have discussed this previously following an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, in Committee. We have since had a very useful meeting with the noble Lord and our scientific advisors, ACRE, to explore why whole- genome sequencing information has limited value in most cases, and the noble Lord has not retabled his amendment on Report.
This type of information has limited value because there is a significant degree of genetic variation between individual plants and animals within a species, which is more or less the point that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was making. This amount of background noise means that the value in requiring whole-genome sequences is limited in terms of addressing regulatory questions; for example, questions about the precision-bred status of a plant or animal. Additionally, the release notice that researchers are required to submit to Defra will be in line with the requirements of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022, which were agreed by the affirmative procedure.
Our intention is that information provided in release notices will be published on the precision breeding register and will include the relevant and necessary information about the precision-bred organism in it. We also intend to require developers to confirm that the organisms that they intend to release in research trials meet the criteria in the Bill. The technical details of this notice will be prescribed by regulations, prepared with input from the advisory committee appointed to advise the Secretary of State on the regulatory status of these organisms and, in accordance with the amendments to Clause 4 that I have tabled, our intention is that such regulations will be scrutinised using the affirmative procedure before they are made.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is persuaded to withdraw this amendment and not move her additional amendment to Clause 3, which would specify the parliamentary procedure for the delegated power that her substantive amendment would insert.
I always pay particular attention to points raised on secondary legislation by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. As a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, she is very good at holding me to account on these. I did not quite understand her point about Clause 3 because there are no regulations in Clause 3 and therefore no requirement for it to be affirmative or negative.
We remain of the belief that the matters to be set out in the regulations under the powers in Clauses 4(3) and 6(2) are administrative in nature. However, the Government acknowledge that these provisions are of significant public interest. We have heard this previously in the House and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has raised this as well. We have considered these matters closely and have decided to change the procedure from negative to affirmative for both powers. These changes will increase the scrutiny when these powers are used to prescribe the information which must be provided to the Secretary of State by a person who wishes to release or market a precision-bred organism. I hope that noble Lords feel that I was serious in Committee when I said that I had listened to them. I hope that they feel that this improves the Bill. Regulations under Clause 4(1)(b) would be administrative in nature, not of significant public interest, and will remain subject to the negative procedure. I hope that this reassures noble Lords.
Amendments 24 and 25 will increase the level of scrutiny when powers are used to prescribe information that must be included in the precision breeding register. The Government acknowledge that these provisions are of significant public interest. We accept noble Lords’ concerns about the level of scrutiny for such provisions. Therefore, we will change the parliamentary procedure from negative to affirmative for the power in Clause 18(1). Regulations under Clause 18(6) regarding the keeping of the register, which is an administrative matter and, again, not of significant public interest, will remain under the negative procedure.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has just said, but can he answer this question about whole-genome sequencing?
When we first started genome sequencing, it was laborious, expensive, time-consuming, and so on. It is now a pretty rapid process and can be done without huge expense. Does the Minister not agree that one of the reasons for doing this is not just marketing—because of course there are different issues there, which is how we are addressing this—but the advantage of getting more knowledge about what we are doing? The advantage there would be seeing where things are moving within the organisms that we are trying to edit. That is important as a research tool because, ultimately, we are doing something that—admittedly—we do not fully understand, and this would greatly increase knowledge. Does he feel that this is a relevant point?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is entirely a relevant point, and was much on our minds when we debated some months ago a research measure in secondary legislation to allow the development of plant precision editing but not for it to be taken forward to market. The noble Lord is absolutely right that this is fast-moving and that we therefore need to be clear about how we regulate: that we are regulating a research process and a process to take products to market. Ministers will have to be clear about the intention of the organisation taking that forward. I hope, through the changes that we made, that there will be greater parliamentary scrutiny, that people with real knowledge, particularly in this place, will be able to scrutinise that, and that the Secretary of State of the day will have the best available information about what is being taken forward and why—whether it is just for research. The point made by the noble Lord about the value of research of products that will never go to market, that it is just to understand a particular aspect of genomic sequencing, is crucial.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer, and everyone who contributed to this debate. Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, gave us the expert nailing of the issues. I thank particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Hayman of Ullock, for stressing the importance of transparency, both for scientific and public confidence reasons.
The Minister went over some of the same ground that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I circulated back and forth on in terms of saying “Oh, there are lots of mutations” is not a reason not to do whole-genome sequencing. What we see are the mutations that are of greater importance in particular areas of the genome, et cetera, so the claim that “Oh, there are lots of mutations, so it doesn’t matter” does not scientifically stack up.
We are in a situation of regulations. The Minister said that the regulations will specify that the release notices contain “relevant and necessary” information. I think it is already clear that the detail of what “relevant and necessary” actually means is going to be crucial. We all know the problem with regulation and the way in which we are given it on a take it or leave it basis. Again, I feel great reluctance: I feel that we really should have whole-genome sequencing, and indeed broader omics testing. But I see no option at the present moment but to withdraw the amendment, with great reluctance.
Lord Benyon
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s next amendment to Clause 4.
“(7) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for regulations under Clause 4(3) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Benyon
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for regulations under Clause 6(2) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Benyon
“(9A) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for regulations under Clause 11(5) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her amendments, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and—in the case of the first of the amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, have added their names.
The amendments require the animal welfare advisory body, when assessing precision-bred animal marketing authorisation applications, to also consider and report on the notifier’s history of compliance with relevant provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and other legislation it deems relevant. However, the purpose of the animal welfare declaration process is not to vet notifiers themselves, but to assess their applications for marketing authorisations. The role of the welfare advisory body is to use its scientific expertise to evaluate the notifier’s animal welfare declaration. It would not be an appropriate body to assess compliance history.
We expect notifiers, as with any other keepers of animals, to ensure they are in full compliance with all applicable animal welfare laws. The Animal Welfare Act, as mentioned in the noble Baroness’s amendment, will continue to apply to all vertebrate animals subject to precision breeding. Under the Act, it is already an offence either to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. Persons found to have committed certain serious offences under the Animal Welfare Act may be disqualified from keeping animals. Such persons would therefore be unable to keep animals that have been precision-bred.
Similarly, other animal welfare legislation provides for appropriate sanctions for non-compliance. For example, notifiers may also be licence holders for research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, known as ASPA. It is in the interest of such notifiers to ensure that any research involving animals carried out in the UK complies with the requirements of the ASPA licences relating to that research; these licences may be revoked or suspended if their conditions are not complied with.
Furthermore, the Bill provides powers under Clause 15 for regulations to enable the Secretary of State to suspend or revoke a precision-bred animal marketing authorisation if new information about the health or welfare of the animal or, crucially, its qualifying progeny comes to light, or if the notifier fails to comply with a legal requirement to report information about a relevant animal’s health and welfare under Clause 14. Regulations will describe the procedures to be followed when a marketing authorisation is suspended or revoked, and the consequences of such suspension or revocation.
Amendment 21 reflects ones put forward during previous stages, in this House and the other place. We intend to explore these matters further as we develop the technical details underpinning the animal welfare declaration process. The Government agree that safeguarding animal welfare is crucial, and I acknowledge the high level of interest in this topic. That is why, as I mentioned previously, we have commissioned an external research project to gather the evidence required to develop the health and welfare assessment that underpins the declaration process. This will enable us to set out, in regulations and guidance, the information that a notifier must provide to support their declaration that the health and welfare of a precision-bred vertebrate animal is not expected to be adversely affected.
Furthermore, Clause 13 already ensures that the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied with the animal welfare declaration before issuing a marketing authorisation. That is why we do not consider the amendment to be necessary. In addition, as I mentioned before, the power in Clause 25 allows us to set out in regulations what constitutes an adverse effect on health or welfare. This includes any parameters needed for assessing that and could include consideration of any known health and welfare issues in selectively bred animals.
Finally, the welfare declaration and the welfare advisory body’s assessment will be based on the principle that relevant precision-bred animals will need to be kept in conditions which satisfy existing requirements in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and, where relevant, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. I fully understand the noble Baroness’s concerns. None the less, existing animal welfare legislation is in place and the Bill is intended to work alongside that to enable responsible innovation.
I will now address Amendments 17, 18 and 26 in my name. It is essential that the animal welfare protections under this Bill command strong public and stakeholder confidence. To that end, we have listened carefully to the points raised by the Opposition and stakeholders about the need for strong animal welfare protections. We understand that noble Lords feel that there should be more opportunity for parliamentary oversight of these vital elements of the legislation. Consequently, we are tabling these amendments so that regulations made under the powers in Clauses 11(5) and 22(3) will need to be debated and actively approved by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure before they come into effect.
Amendment 17 relates to Clause 11(5). The amendment provides an increased opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny when powers are used to lay out the form and content of the animal welfare declaration and accompanying documents, and the information that must accompany the declaration.
Regulations under Clause 11(9) regarding provisions for an application for a precision-bred marketing authorisation to be made by a person other than the notifier are a technical and administrative matter and not of significant public interest. They will therefore remain subject to negative procedure.
Amendment 26 relates to Clause 22(3). This amendment will provide Parliament with an increased opportunity to scrutinise and debate the body which is to be designated as the animal welfare advisory body, while retaining the flexibility the Bill provides on how the advisory body can be established. We expect there to be strong public interest in the requirements set out in the animal welfare declarations, and we want to come to Parliament with a robust set of proposals informed by expert advice. Indeed, that is why we have already commissioned in Scotland’s Rural College to run an independent research project to set criteria for the animal welfare assessment and the evidence that will be required to accompany it.
The research will involve experts from the Animal Welfare Committee and a wide range of organisations with expertise in animal welfare, genetics and industry practice. This is a growing, innovative sector, and the regulatory system that oversees it is likely to need to evolve over time. Establishing the regulations in secondary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure will allow the Government to ensure that the regulatory system continues to achieve its goals in the long run, while maintaining proportionate parliamentary oversight of its design and future development. I hope noble Lords will be content to accept these amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I should first declare an interest through my involvement at Rothamsted, as in the register. I have tabled Amendments 19, 20 and 21 in this group. They all focus on the welfare advisory body in protecting animal welfare. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for their support.
Amendments 19 and 20 would require the welfare advisory body to look beyond the information provided by applicants to ensure that they have a consistent record of meeting animal welfare standards, as set out in previous legislation. Amendment 21 would require the welfare advisory body or the Secretary of State to consider wider health and welfare issues before granting a marketing authorisation. These factors, set out in the new clause, include the direct and indirect effects on the health of the animal or its offspring, whether there might be pain or suffering arising from increased yields or faster growth, and whether the precision-bred traits may result in the animal being kept in worse conditions. These amendments reflect the widespread concern raised in Committee about the consequences for animal welfare of extending precision-breeding techniques from plants to animals, and they also express the concerns of many animal welfare organisations, including the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming, as well as the report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
As we discussed before, British farming and traditional breeding techniques have not always had a great record on considering animal welfare. Without going back over all the arguments raised in Committee, I will say that there remains a fundamental concern that the genetic editing of animals will be used for the wrong purpose. Once we understand that there could be benefits from improved disease resistance in animals, we need better guarantees that this will not result in animals being kept in more crowded, stressful conditions, which in turn could result in the spread of new and emerging pathogens. Similarly, we need better guarantees that precision-breeding techniques will not be used to speed up selective breeding for fast growth, high yields and large litters, when they have historically caused a great deal of suffering to farm animals, despite the animal welfare legislation already in place.
All these concerns are raised against the backdrop that so much of the detail in this Bill is left to secondary legislation, so we do not know how its provisions will work in practice. I hope the Minister will understand why we are trying to spell out in more detail the specific animal welfare protections in this Bill. I shall make a further point: this is specifically about animal welfare. It is not a criticism of the whole Bill. It is about the specifics and our widespread concern about wanting to get animal welfare protections right.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendments 17, 18 and 26. The Government have responded well to the concerns expressed in Committee about the number of negative procedures on some critical issues. Amendments 17 and 18 relate to Clause 11, “Application for precision bred animal marketing authorisation”, which is a key element of the Bill. Regulations under subsection (5) are moved to affirmative, and only subsection (9), which deals with regulations for precision-bred animal marketing authorisations for a relevant animal, are negative and reserved to the Secretary of State. While it would have been preferable for all that clause to be affirmative, we are pleased with this movement, as the change allows more debate on these issues in future.
I turn now to Amendments 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I have added my name—she introduced them fully, as always. The Government have been trying for a long time to introduce gene editing of plants and animals. Changing the name of this process to “precision engineering” has somewhat helped their case. At the heart of previous and current objections which have been raised over time against precision engineering is animal welfare.
Whenever a man, woman or child is to undergo a surgical or medical procedure, numerous forms have to be completed, and a consent form signed; in the case of a child, a parent or guardian signs. Animals undergoing genetic change have no such individual guardian, and they certainly cannot speak for themselves. It is therefore necessary for those of us in this Chamber to ensure that safeguards and trust are in place which will be robust. This trust is placed in the welfare advisory body. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to ethics in his comments on the first group of amendments, and the issue runs all through the Bill. The process is that the notifier applies to the Secretary of State for an authorisation in relation to an animal, and the Secretary of State then refers the application to the welfare advisory body, which in turn provides a report for the Secretary of State. Amendment 19 requires the welfare advisory body to ensure that the notifier has a record which provides the necessary reassurance that animal welfare will not be compromised in any way. Precision engineering can take place, but not at the expense of the animal’s suffering. Amendment 20 is consequential on Amendment 19.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has also spoken to her Amendment 21, which proposes a new clause. This lists some additional factors which the welfare advisory body or the Secretary of State must consider before granting a marketing authorisation. The Minister has said that he does not feel that this is necessary, but such is the interest in the Bill and the consequences which flow from it that we believe a belt-and-braces approach is necessary.
We on these Benches do not wish to interrupt the passage of the Bill, but we support all efforts to ensure that animal safety and welfare are protected. This is not the stage of the Bill at which to relate cases of experimentation on animals which have gone horribly wrong and ended with considerable suffering to the animals concerned. Animal welfare is our prime concern, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is not satisfied with it and decides to divide the House, we will support her.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, for the purposes of Report, I declare my interests: I am still involved in a family farming enterprise growing crops and rearing livestock, I chair the board of the UK Centre of Ecology & Hydrology, and I am president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers.
As the House knows, I am a very strong supporter of the Bill and everything it stands for. It is only to strengthen the Bill that I have added my name to Amendment 19 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell, because here again we touch on the same weakness in the Bill that I referred to at earlier stages—notably, the oversight of the ongoing welfare of animals and their ensuing progeny affected by these processes. As I said at Second Reading:
“To my mind, however, there is too much responsibility, certainly in the latter stages of the proposed development process, for the notifiers themselves to keep the welfare advisory body informed. It appears that the notifiers are in the driving seat.”—[Official Report, 21/11/22; col. 1218.]
These notifiers will be the ones who have probably invested millions of pounds, and almost certainly years of man-hours and academic endeavour in the process, and will therefore be very strongly motivated to ensure that the results give them some sort of positive return. I am not saying that they will necessarily falsify the evidence, although that may not be beyond the realm of possibility, but they will surely be sorely tempted to slant the results—if only for the sake of their commitment to what they see as the greater good. For instance, one person’s definition of bovine, ovine or avian distress might be another person’s idea of, say, satisfactory close family living. Therefore, it is essential that the welfare advisory body has the duty to audit and check up on these notifiers.
I know that the Government—any Government—have a priority to repel all boarders when it comes to amendments to their legislation, but I cannot see how or why they would want to tell the public that their new welfare advisory body would not have an obligation to check up on and satisfy itself that the notifier is conforming to the codes of practice set out in existing legislation. I am sure that the Government will tell us that this is not necessary—in fact, they have already done so—that there are other bodies involved, and that the notifiers already have an obligation. However, unless the welfare advisory body has a specific duty to check on and audit the notifier, it is quite possible that such persons or bodies could slip through the Met. Oh! That is not necessarily a Freudian slip—I mean “the net”, of course, but after last week’s revelations about rogue policemen I expect you can see how my mind is working. The welfare advisory body needs a specific duty spelled out in the legislation to ensure that there are no rogue notifiers.
I hope that the Government will see fit to accept this amendment, or undertake to discuss a positively worded government replacement amendment to be introduced at Third Reading, either for Amendment 19, to which I put my name, or Amendment 21, or indeed Amendment 22 in the next grouping. There has to be some give here on their part to persuade me, and I would like to think to persuade the House, that a vote on this matter of animal welfare is not necessary.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, during the proceedings on the Bill—I spoke at Second Reading—it has been clear that some people, both inside and outside the House, do not want anything to do with genetics in terms of food production, and think that its application is anathema. I understand that and I do not blame them in the least, although I do not agree with it, but I have been looking at Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and I ask her whether she thinks that the provision in proposed new subsection (3)(b) might well give an opportunity for one of those people. Its wording is about progeny being
“likely to experience … lasting harm”
resulting from “faster growth” If you take that to its logical conclusion and encourage faster growth in an animal used in the meat trade, it is fairly clear that the animal will become suitable for slaughter at an earlier stage than if it had not had the influence of genetics. If you create faster growth by the application of genetics that ends up with the animal having a shorter life, is that not lasting harm? Some people could argue that, and I ask the noble Baroness if she would like to comment on that question.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am not sure if this is the right moment to speak, but, in answer to the noble Lord’s specific question, the amendment is saying only that the welfare advisory body should take that into account. If there were other overriding reasons why we would want to have faster growth, for example, then that would be a balanced decision that it would make. However, if the faster growth were indeed leading to more pain, we hope it would take that into account. That is what the animal welfare role ought to be about. In Committee we heard lots of examples of new breeding techniques causing considerable pain, but I hope we are moving away from that now and can have a more generous attitude towards both conventional breeding and, potentially, the genetic breeding of animals where it does not have that effect. So it is all about the balance, and this is just one factor that the welfare advisory body will take into account.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a tenant farmer and as chairman of the Rock review into England’s agricultural tenancies.
The Government’s procedural amendments will increase parliamentary oversight of the design and future development of the animal welfare provisions. The Government recognise that there is a need to safeguard animal welfare, and that is why we need a step-by-step approach by bringing legislation into effect for precision-bred plants first and then for animals. Research in farmed animals is already leading to the development of animals that have increased resistance to some devastating diseases that, as farmers, we all see, and it thereby enhances the health and welfare of animals.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the government amendments that move the regulations to the affirmative procedure; they are extremely welcome.
I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for her thorough introduction to her Amendments 19 to 21. I am sure noble Lords will remember that in Committee I tabled a number of amendments relating to the welfare advisory body, so we are very pleased to see my noble friend Lady Jones tabling similar amendments today. I spoke at length on this issue in Committee, my noble friend has introduced her concerns and we have heard from across the House, so I shall be brief.
Amendment 19 makes it clear that, in addition to considering information submitted by the notifier, the welfare advisory body should satisfy itself that the notifier has a record of acting in a manner that is consistent with research and animal welfare requirements across other Acts of Parliament. That really should be part of the body’s role. We do not want any confusion or different decision-making across different bodies.
I may have this recollection wrong, but I thought that in an earlier meeting a flow chart was mentioned showing how different animal welfare bodies, in Defra and the Home Office, would interact. I had been hoping to receive a copy of that to get some clarification about precedence and how this was all going to work together. It may have gone into my spam folder and I may have missed it, but if the Minister could check on that, that would be very helpful.
Currently, the Bill states that the welfare advisory body has to determine whether in the animal welfare declaration the notifier has paid regard to the risks to an animal. One of my concerns has always been that it is the notifier who is driving the process and is in the driving seat, rather than the welfare advisory body, which is why we were all very concerned about more checks and balances. We know the Bill says that the notifier has to take reasonable steps to assess those risks, but we do not believe that is a strong enough protection for animals in the Bill.
My noble friend’s amendment would mean that the welfare advisory body had to assess the impact on animals where a precision-bred trait was developed, with the aim, as she said, of achieving fast growth, high yields or other increases in productivity. As we have heard, we have seen that too often in traditional breeding methods, so we need to bring in these protections. We have heard many examples of traditional selective breeding producing animals that were highly efficient but this was often at the expense of animal welfare, and we need to ensure that that is not an unfortunate consequence of the Bill. The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have raised serious concerns about the lack of safeguards in the Bill to prevent that happening. In addition, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has drawn our attention to the fact that many of the effects of selective breeding have been unintended.
We agree with our noble friend that it is reasonable that welfare impacts should be assessed here. Without the amendment, it is not clear exactly how that would be part of that process with the advisory body, particularly in relation to other bodies that already exist. So we strongly support my noble friend and believe that her amendments should be in the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for another useful debate. I assure the noble Baroness that we sent her a copy of my flow chart, so it must have ended up in her spam folder. I hope none of my other correspondence to her will be rejected into the ether. It sets out in five clear steps the process of taking something through to authorisation.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that I am not one of those people who repel all boarders when it comes to amendments; we have actually moved considerably on the scrutiny of the Bill, and we want to ensure that there is as much agreement as possible. I concede that we might have a problem on Amendment 19, but I will come on to that.
I repeat that the welfare declaration and the welfare advisory body’s assessment will be based on the principle that precision-bred relevant animals will need to be kept in conditions that satisfy existing requirements in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and, where relevant, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. So existing animal welfare legislation is in place, and the Bill is intended to work alongside it to enable responsible innovation.
An accusation was made, although I cannot remember who by, that this was an enabling Bill and was somehow a forest of Henry VIII clauses. I reject that. It is not a skeleton Bill. We have set out our substantive policy proposals in the Bill and have included appropriate delegated powers to supplement those provisions. Delegated powers serve a valuable purpose and it is always important to assess them in context. Simply counting up the number of powers in a given Bill is not necessarily always meaningful, but I hope we have shifted the balance in terms of those that are affirmative and those that are negative.
There has been talk of belt and braces. I think you can overdo caution in these circumstances, and you can clog up the system. I really feel it would be difficult to accept Amendment 19 as it would pre-empt the Scottish royal college research project. The Bill already outlines a regulatory framework to safeguard animal welfare that goes beyond existing requirements in traditional breeding.
I hope that my words, and the government amendments to increase the degree of parliamentary scrutiny on the animal welfare provisions in the Bill, provide noble Lords with sufficient reassurance not to press their amendments.
Lord Benyon
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s previous amendment to Clause 11.
“Additional factors to be considered in relation to a precision bred animal marketing authorisation(1) When producing a report under section 12, the welfare advisory body may choose to consider the factors listed in subsection (3).(2) In the event that a report of the welfare advisory body does not consider the factors listed in subsection (3), the Secretary of State must do so prior to making a decision under section 13(1) regarding the issuing of a precision bred animal marketing authorisation.(3) The additional factors to be considered in relation to a precision bred animal marketing authorisation are—(a) whether the precision bred traits will have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny,(b) whether the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny are likely to experience pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with precision bred traits that aim to produce increased yields, faster growth or any other increase in productivity, and(c) whether the precision bred traits may facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that are likely to have an adverse effect on animal health or welfare.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would introduce a small number of additional animal welfare factors to be considered by the welfare advisory body or Secretary of State prior to the granting of a precision bred animal marketing authorisation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pursue Amendment 21. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said. My amendments are fundamental to animal welfare issues and, as a number of noble Lords have said, they already have huge public support externally—not only in this House.
I still feel that we are being asked to take far too much on trust. The Minister said that it is not a skeleton Bill and he tried to reassure us on that. I would say on the animal welfare protections it is skeleton and it is sketchy, for the very good reasons that he has outlined in the past, which is that the Government have not decided what they want to do about animal welfare legislation going forward. So, we are being asked to take a great deal on trust. That is why we feel there need to be some minimum protections built into the Bill.
My Amendment 21 is not comprehensive, and I do not pretend it is, but it is the beginning of some basic protections on animal welfare, which in the absence of any other legislation we feel is absolutely necessary. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lady Hayman, who both made the correct point that at the moment the notifier is in the driving seat on all this. They are providing the information, and they have considerable vested interests in providing a selective range of information to the animal welfare body. There is not an external role for audit and check on the information they provide. We would not get this with any other regulator. Any other regulator the Government set up would be expected to have a wide-ranging role, not just to accept the information they were given. I think the logic of what we are proposing is common sense and it fundamentally addresses animal welfare legislation. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Parminter
“Precision bred animal marketing authorisations: reporting obligations(1) Before issuing a precision bred marketing authorisation for the first time, the Secretary of State must establish a monitoring system for the reporting of potential adverse effects on the health or welfare of such animals or their progeny which must enable—(a) the voluntary reporting to the Secretary of State by keepers of animals, animal health and veterinary professionals, or others, of adverse effects,(b) the mandatory reporting to the Secretary of State by the marketing authorisation holder of adverse effects, and(c) relevant information to be available to support future research.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may—(a) define what is meant by adverse effects on health and welfare,(b) prescribe information to be required from the notifier for reporting adverse effects to the Secretary of State,(c) make provision for requiring the recipient of marketing authorisation to take prescribed steps, in connection with supplying such an animal to another person, to secure that prescribed information about the subsequent health and welfare of that animal or its progeny, is provided by, or can be collected from that other person, and(d) determine the period after marketing authorisation that such reporting of adverse effects on the health and welfare of animals or their progeny of a given precision bred technique is to be required.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that, before precision bred animals are marketed, there be mechanisms established for reporting possible adverse effects on the animals’ health and welfare or that of their progeny. Regulations shall define adverse effects, details of the information required, and the time period over which it is required for any given precision breeding technique and application.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 22 and 23 are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Trees. My name is at the head, but they are really joint amendments, and we grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the Labour Front Bench and my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville from the Liberal Democrats. The aim of the amendments is to ensure that a very clear monitoring system is set up in advance of when gene-edited animals are marketed. This is to ensure that the lessons can be learned about any adverse, or indeed positive, effects on animal welfare so that, throughout the process, we can make those learnings available to others so that animals can benefit in the future.
The provisions in Clause 14, which we are proposing this amendment as a replacement for, say that the Government “may” do this—but this is a fundamental issue about whether or not we are ensuring that a proper surveillance and monitoring system is in place right from the beginning. We would certainly concede that it is appropriate that the regulations to implement such a provision were in secondary legislation, but that is not what Clause 14 says: it basically says that the principle of undertaking a monitoring system is only a “may”, not a “must”. As was referred to earlier this evening, in comparable legislation—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act—the principle of having a surveillance and monitoring system in the Act and the regulations for how to deliver it are in secondary legislation. This seems to be a reasonable position.
The Minister talked on a number of occasions this evening about the research project with a Scottish university on how these regulations might work in practice. If you have the provisions on how they will be delivered in secondary legislation, that seems to be appropriate. But our amendment would put in the Bill a provision that the Government will introduce a surveillance and monitoring system and that the information will be recorded and available to inform decisions in the future to guarantee animal welfare— which is a common theme that we have covered this evening.
I am grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for their meetings with me, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and others on this matter between Committee and Report. I do not wish to put words into the Minister’s mouth, but I can guess what he will say in response to our amendment, given the email that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and I received from the Bill team on 13 January. The objections were that what was in the Bill was proportionate and what we were asking for was not a proportionate form of regulation. The exact words were that our amendment
“could be seen as being too burdensome a requirement for industry and would remove our ability to scale back reporting requirements in the future if we have a scientific basis for doing so”.
To be clear, our amendment is about putting in the Bill a requirement that there is scientific monitoring; we are not saying that the regulations need to go in the Bill. But the Bill team basically says that making it effectively something that the Government must do— putting it in the Bill—is too “burdensome” a requirement for industry. That does not seem a proportionate approach to a regulatory process, where you are balancing the rightful requirements of people going into this new industry against public benefit and animal welfare. This gets the scales wrong.
This is compounded when the email goes on to say:
“Introducing a requirement on the face of the bill to require and publish data from clinical outcomes from research would also curtail our flexibility and could lead to issues with commercial sensitivity”.
Again, it is not beyond the wit of man for Governments to produce regulations in secondary legislation that ensure that legitimate issues of commercial sensitivity are handled—but that should not preclude the duty on companies to supply that information so that lessons can be learned for the benefit of both animal welfare and public confidence, which is an issue that I think the noble Lord, Lord Trees, will address in some detail.
So I look forward to what other noble Lords will say and how the Minister will respond to both our amendments. I reserve our position on moving to a vote. But we think that this is a really important way of doing what the Government say they want to do: move ahead with this in a step-by-step way, while ensuring that the evidence is retained from the relevant companies and available to inform future research.
Lord Trees (CB)
I am grateful for the excellent introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which carries my name and those of two other noble Baronesses. I am also very grateful to the Minister for our meetings. As he and others in the House will be aware, I strongly support the Bill, and I commend the Government on including animals in it. Alongside existing animal welfare legislation, the new breeding technologies promise great benefits to animal health and welfare by reducing the burden of disease, thereby maintaining food production with potentially fewer animals, and reducing land use, the use of drugs and chemicals, the carbon dioxide footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.
I will expand on the productivity issue. Productivity goes both ways: you improve productivity by producing the same amount from fewer animals. Reducing the disease burden will enable us to produce the same amount with fewer animals, with concomitant advantages.
I thank the Minister for the amendments he introduced earlier. Although I have great enthusiasm for the modern technologies and for this Bill, which will facilitate the uptake of those technologies, this enthusiasm—and I note that in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to mine as “gung-ho”, which I take as a compliment—is not shared by everyone. If we want these technologies to be applied and the benefits to be realised, it is going to be essential to take the public with us and ensure public confidence so that they take them up and accept them. This amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has elegantly said, basically makes it mandatory in the Bill that there shall be a reporting process for potential adverse effects post marketing. So it differs in that respect from Clause 14, but much of the rest of our amendment is copied from Clause 14.
What we are suggesting is also a two-tier reporting system. The first tier is a voluntary system, proposed for individuals such as farmers, keepers of animals, veterinary surgeons and animal health professionals. But for the commercial bodies that hold a marketing authorisation, there should be a mandatory requirement to collect data about the possible adverse effects on PB animals’ health and welfare and to submit that data at periodic intervals.
I will make a number of key points on the amendments. First, they mirror precisely current regulations with regard to possible adverse effects of drugs marketed for veterinary use, and indeed for human use, both of which have voluntary as well as mandatory reporting systems in place.
Secondly, we submit—and I reinforce the points the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made—that we do not feel that what we are asking is disproportionate, in that only the commercial sellers of these animals, the people making money, have the legal obligation to collect adverse effects reports and notify of them. But there is a provision for others to do so voluntarily, which could be a sort of check that the notifiers are not ignoring potential problems.
Thirdly, surely it is in the interests of the developers of a new product to safeguard the reputation of that product by seeking and surveying and monitoring the possible outcomes of the development when used in the real world.
Fourthly, the definition of an adverse effect can be made in regulations, and indeed that is already provided for in Clause 25. But I suggest it should refer to issues over and above the expected health issues that might affect any conventionally bred animals but might reasonably be associated with a particular breeding technology. But this requirement can be time-limited under regulation for any given precision-breeding method.
Fifthly, this can be quite a light-touch system. For example, the reporting of adverse effects of veterinary medicines requires an online pro forma which can be sent in digitally to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which assesses it. That directorate, of course, already exists. The marketing authorisation holders could also submit their reports in the first place to something like the VMD, which could triage them and then pass them to the Secretary of State for consideration by the animal welfare advisory body, which is already set up —we are not asking for new bodies to be set up.
Sixthly, and perhaps most importantly, the public acceptance of precision-bred animals is hugely important if the Bill is ultimately to be of value, and I submit that it will be a considerable reassurance for the public to know that the sale and commercial breeding of precision-bred animals will be monitored for unforeseen negative effects post-marketing to complement the pre-marketing reporting requirements under Clause 12.
Seventhly, such post-marketing monitoring will also provide both the animal welfare advisory body and the marketeers with essential feedback on the robustness, validity and safety of their pre-marketing assessments. That would be important to inform them and help them develop, if necessary, better systems.
Eighthly and finally, the Minister has assured us that the use in animals will be phased in. Surely, if one is phasing in, one would want to monitor what was happening to the first group in the real world when it is being sold and used by farmers. Only then, by collecting that information, could you be assured, at the end of whatever length of time that phase is, that it is safe and appropriate to proceed to subsequent phases. I would argue that phasing in automatically suggests that one needs to be monitoring what is happening in that first phase, which will involve thousands of animals but will be a real-world experiment to prove or disprove the safety of the system. I do not expect there to be major problems, but it will give assurance to the public. On these collective grounds, I support Amendments 22 and 23.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her thorough introduction to her two amendments, to which I am very pleased to have added my name. We strongly support what she is trying to achieve. We believe that there does need to be a reporting process for the adverse effects on the health and welfare of animals and, of course, their progeny. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talked about the importance of evidence being retained to inform future research, as did the noble Lord, Lord Trees. This is also about public benefit; we discussed public benefit a lot in Committee, and it does need to be central to the Bill.
As the noble Baroness also said, we need to understand any lessons that can be learned. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, put it very clearly and succinctly when he talked about “robust” feedback. When we look at the first tranche of animals, we need to have the confidence that the industry is acting appropriately, that the outcomes are what we would hope to see and that we can catch anything that perhaps is not what we hoped for.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked, importantly, about public confidence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. If we are to carry the public with us, the future monitoring of animal health and welfare, consequences and outcomes is really important. Understanding adverse events is therefore terribly important. The noble Lord talked about drug introductions in the veterinary field, and we should have the same principles here, I believe, if we are to carry the public with us.
It does not seem to me that this amendment is disproportionate in any way. Instead, it would bring in some really important checks and balances and underpin what the Government are trying to achieve. I urge the Minister to consider very carefully what noble Lords have said. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, she will have our support.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I repeat, again, that I am a very strong supporter of this Bill and everything it stands for. However, again, as I have said at every stage and indeed a moment ago on the previous grouping, the one weakness of the Bill is around animal welfare. Anyone reading the Hansard of the passage of this Bill through the Commons will note that it was the greatest concern of MPs too, but they failed to make even a dent in the Government’s protective carapace on this issue.
In Committee, many noble Lords from all sides of the House—myself included—put down amendments to try to minimise the possibility of any genetic change being proposed or implemented that could result in the future suffering or discomfort of, or distress to, animals or their progeny involved in the process. However, none of these amendments was put to the vote. We now have a well-thought-out amendment—or two—which precisely covers the worries that we all had and attempts to avoid them. The Government should think seriously before they reject them.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this important issue. I am grateful for the meetings that I have had with noble Lords from across the House on this and for them taking the time to share their thoughts with me and with the House on this occasion. I have found it constructive and enlightening.
We recognise that there is a need to safeguard animal welfare in the new regulatory regime; we are all united on this. That is why we are taking a step-by-step approach with regulatory changes for plants first, followed by animals. The measures in this Bill in relation to precision-bred animals will come into force, as I said before, only when safeguards for animal welfare are in place. This will include a monitoring and reporting system for the precision-bred animals once they are placed on the market.
The Bill will give us the ability to place a time-limited and proportionate duty on breeders and developers to monitor for significant health and welfare outcomes in animals that could be linked to their new traits and to report such outcomes to Defra. This monitoring and reporting system will be informed by research that we intend to carry out—which I have already spoken about—to help us identify the specific outcomes that must be reported, as well as appropriate timeframes and numbers of generations that must be monitored for each species or type of animal.
We believe that the powers in the Bill are sufficient to enable us to put this monitoring system in place. Clause 14 sets out that regulations may require the notifier, or any other person specified, to provide information to the Secretary of State about the welfare of the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny. The regulations may set requirements on the information that must be collected, and they allow the Secretary of State to apply reporting requirements in a bespoke manner. This flexibility is essential to ensure that any obligations placed on businesses are proportionate to risk—this is the key point that I hope I may be successful in getting across.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Sadly, it is quite clear, in the almost immortal words of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, this evening, that we have not yet managed to make a dent in the Government’s protective carapace on this Bill—it is a great phrase—which is a disappointment, as a number of other amendments earlier in the evening led up to this amendment.
I do not want to spend much time. I just want to make two points to the Minister. He did not answer the fundamental question that Clause 14 says only that regulations “may” make provision. There is absolutely nothing to stop a future Government—and I do not wish to impugn the Minister’s character or motives—not doing anything at all. It is not about the regulations in future; they do not need to introduce a surveillance monitoring system in the future because all that is in the Bill is that regulations “may” make provision. If it was regulations “must” make provision, that might have made a difference, but the Minster was not prepared to concede that.
Secondly, we have a difference of opinion on the issue of commercial sensitivity. I referred to other legislation in comparable fields of human research where this issue has been overcome, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined other legislation in the veterinary field where this commercial sensitivity issue has been addressed with wording in legislation to that effect.
So I am not content with what the Minister has said. I have seen where we have been heading this evening, but I think it is a matter of principle. For those of us who feel strongly about this, this was a solid amendment seeking to do a good job to help this Bill from both sides of the House, and I wish to press it to a vote.
Lord Benyon
“(6A) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for regulations under Clause 18(1) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s previous amendment to Clause 18.
Lord Benyon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for regulations under Clause 22(3) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
“(2) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The rest of this Act comes into force on such day as regulations may appoint.(4) Regulations under this section may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid a Priority Setting Partnership Report before both Houses of Parliament.(5) The Priority Setting Partnership Report shall be drafted by a Priority Setting Partnership established and funded by the Secretary of State, and include a response from the Secretary of State.(6) The Priority Setting Partnership shall—(a) identify evidence uncertainties in relation to precision breeding which cannot be answered by existing research,(b) produce a list of research priorities in relation to precision breeding, and(c) make comments on this Act in relation to issues identified in respect of paragraphs (a) and (b).(7) The Priority Setting Partnership shall have a membership comprising—(a) scientists and academics with expertise in the field of genetics, agriculture, and ecology,(b) lay members of the public,(c) representatives of animal welfare organisations, and(d) other interested parties.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a report to be published identifying gaps in scientific evidence relating to precision breeding before the Act can come into force.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am aware of the time but I have attempted, through this amendment, to find a creative new way of tackling some of the issues that have come up in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said quite some time ago, early on, that we have to reassure the public. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, said in the last debate that it is essential to take the public with us. The Minister said that it is essential to build confidence. This amendment seeks a positive way forward. For anyone still worrying about their dinner break, I am not intending to put this to a vote, for the avoidance of doubt, but I want to suggest a way forward for what has clearly been a very difficult Bill with a lot of issues that remain of great concern in your Lordships’ House and more broadly.
On the first group, I spoke about the number of people whom I know are watching the debate at this very moment and feeling very disappointed about what has happened—or rather, not happened. I also refer back to what I said at the start about the scientists who were coming to me saying, “How do we get our knowledge through to the Government? We feel we are just not being heard”, and these are experts in a range of different fields. This is a creative suggestion. I might have included the word “consultation” but, as we have heard in debates on various amendments today, the Government did consult the public and stakeholders and then entirely ignored what they said. It might be said with some justice that what result you will get depends on how you ask the question. Indeed, I think the Minister at some stage referred to a survey saying, “If we can get drought-proof wheat with gene editing, should we go ahead with it?” If you phrase the question that way, you will get a positive result; however, that is not listening to the academic—a proponent of the technology—who said to me this week, “You cannot drought-proof wheat with one genetic change. That is a fact.”
What I am suggesting here is a process of deliberative democracy. This is something that has really taken hold in government departments—not, that I know of, in Defra, but in others—and indeed across the world. Some of the classic examples of deliberative democracy are in Ireland, on equal marriage and on abortion, where the public, when allowed a chance to deliberate and carefully consider the issues, showed themselves to be significantly in front of the politicians. We have seen climate assemblies in the UK— that may have been under Defra; I am not sure what department they were under. We have seen a very effective climate assembly in France. Lots of local government organisations have been having climate assemblies. It is a way of getting people together and getting themselves informed, both the general public and stakeholders.
I borrowed the term “priority setting partnerships” from an organisation called the James Lind Alliance; I did not ask first. I have spoken to people who have been involved in this process, and it is of particular relevance here because it has been used in a significant number of cases to look at how to set priorities and make decisions about ways forward in healthcare. It brings together clinicians, patients and carers in those healthcare settings. My Amendment 28 is a commencement amendment, but I am not going to push it on that basis. My constructive suggestion to the Minister is that, to find a way forward among many of the issues that have really not been resolved in your Lordships’ House, and have not been resolved among scientists, the Government should seek a deliberative process looking at how the regulations are constructed for the Bill. That process could actually get public involvement and engagement, because I guarantee him that there will be a great deal of public concern and public anger about where we have got to today, and public resistance to the products.
That issue is particularly going to arise around whether gene-edited products will be labelled. I could very easily have tabled amendments on this; lots of people asked me to. We debated it extensively in Committee, but I could not see a different way forward and I did not simply want to revisit the Committee debate. However, if we are going to talk to the public about labelling and about what is happening to their food, we know how deep the public’s concern is about food safety, the nature of their food and the way it is produced. I do not need to list all the scandals and the concerns, including genuine health concerns, that have arisen in recent years. This is an area of public concern, so I am suggesting that on regulations, issues such as labelling and many of the things that remain unresolved, the Government should bring together scientists, government officials, experts and the public and seek a way forward that works.
While I remain gravely concerned, for all the reasons I have set out previously about the Bill and what it could unleash, I think there is a very significant chance that this will go nowhere, both because of the legal tangles and the public resistance. If the Government want to find a constructive way forward, I have set out here a way in which they could co-create a model with the public and the experts. That is my genuinely constructive suggestion, and I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 29 and 30 for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who has spoken at length on why she feels it is necessary to delay the implementation of the Bill. The Bill sets in train a considerable step towards precision engineering and a move away from traditional practices. Great care is needed to ensure that all unintended consequences are avoided. The extra protections that the noble Baroness proposes are therefore necessary and I look forward to the Minister’s response and reassurance on this matter.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her thorough introduction to her amendment. I completely understand why she is bringing it forward. There are areas of the Bill around implementation, oversight and the step-by-step process that we have discussed time and time again that people are still concerned about. The requirement of the amendment for a report to be published that identifies any gaps in scientific evidence is an interesting one. It will be good to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for this amendment. I am keen to have a much wider conversation with people. My learning curve has been incredibly steep as I have gone through this—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is nodding as well. It is an area of science which is not understood by an awful lot of people. While I have sought to bring in as many safeguards as possible, there is a continuing job to do for all sorts of parties, not just the Government, to explain the benefits of this technology and the safeguards that the Government are introducing. However, I do not think that a priority setting partnership should be established in or under this Bill.
The Bill places science at its core. ACRE advised that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk than traditionally-bred counterparts. As I said earlier, its advice is supported by the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Biology, the Roslin Institute and a wealth of peer-reviewed literature. The Royal Society stated that
“these are no more likely to pose a risk to human health or the environment than non-editing derived mutations, which occur spontaneously in each new generation”.
In earlier debates, I have sought to make it clear that if we inserted regulatory measures or language into the Bill that somehow elevated this technology beyond where it is, we risk misleading the public and we have to be really careful about that.
ACRE’s expertise in precision-breeding technologies is considerable, having first advised on them in 2013. We used this as a basis for our intervention in a pivotal European Court of Justice case in 2018 and for our consultation on genetic technologies in 2021.
The Secretary of State will be required to make decisions based on the advice of expert committees. As part of its current role as adviser on genetically modified organisms, ACRE will also advise the Secretary of State on whether an organism is precision bred. A comprehensive understanding of the underlying science is essential for this process and ACRE members have a wealth of experience in the regulation of genetic technologies. Moreover, this Bill will sit alongside existing legislation that deals with human, animal, and environmental health.
I understand the noble Baroness’s reservations. However, where we have identified evidence is incomplete, we have taken steps to address this. The regulations under the Bill will not come forward until the relevant measures are in place, and Parliament will have the opportunity to further scrutinise them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I will certainly look to take up his offer in the final section of his response. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Hayman of Ullock, for acknowledging the reasons why I brought forward the amendment and the continuing issues around the Bill, that, I think, the Minister also acknowledged to some degree.
I make one comment on the Minister’s reliance on ACRE, which has an extremely narrow scientific focus that lacks the sociological and ecological approaches that would give the Government a much broader view. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I were playing with metaphors around centres of gravity and shifting balance. ACRE reflects one part of the scientific community and views, but not perhaps the more, dare I say, modern and newer forms of biology, which are not represented in its membership.
However, we are where we are, and I feel the next debates pressing in on us. We have had a good debate today. I do not think we have got to where we need to go, but I do not think we are finished on this issue by any means. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Wednesday 1st February 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 Jan 2023)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, has consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is my privilege to move the Third Reading of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in this House today. As we have discussed in debate, it is essential that we forge ahead with the Bill now to help address the many challenges we are facing across our food system and environment.
During the Bill’s passage through the other place, we saw record-breaking heat and drought and now, as it nears the end of its journey, we are managing the impacts of winter flooding. Precision-breeding technology is one of the tools we can use to develop plants that are more productive, more resilient to extreme weather, and less reliant on fertilisers and pesticides. This technology will help support our farmers to grow and harvest better, improve the health and welfare of animals, and provide healthier and more nutritious foods for consumers.
We have some of the best scientists and research institutes in the world, and we want to encourage this exciting research and translate it into tangible benefits. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Professor Jane Langdale at the University of Oxford, where I learned about her cutting-edge work developing high-yielding rice varieties for smallholder farmers. I heard how you can precision breed drought-resistant varieties. That is exactly the kind of work we want to see. I know that this is happening across the country, including at the John Innes Centre at Rothamsted, the Roslin Institute and many more places. I left Oxford with the warm glow—no doubt some noble Lords might feel that it was naive but I felt it was genuine—one gets from the belief that we have actually done something good here, which will benefit people in not just this country but abroad.
By introducing a more proportionate and science-based regulatory framework, we want to encourage innovation and enable new breeds of plants and animals to be released for field trials and brought to market more easily. We want to encourage this innovation responsibly. Following the Bill’s passage, we will continue to work with experts and other stakeholders to develop measures to safeguard animal welfare before we bring the measures in the Bill into force in relation to animals.
I thank all those who have supported the Bill and those who put it through its paces to ensure it will deliver on its vision of proportionate and safe regulation of precision-breeding technologies. The specialist expertise that the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Trees, Lord Winston and Lord Cameron of Dillington, have brought to the debates has been invaluable. As we are all aware, this is a scientific policy area with which some of us do not always feel at ease. It was a truly extraordinary experience to hear the level of understanding and knowledge in some of the exchanges. I really thank many noble Lords for their wisdom and for ensuring the appropriate direction of debates.
I also thank noble Lords on the Front Benches for their invaluable contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has led well-considered scrutiny, and I thank her for her debate on this legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has provided extensive input to these debates, for which I am grateful. I thank other noble Lords from all sides of the House for their interest and engagement, which has undoubtedly improved the Bill. I know that we had some arguments and that not everyone will have been happy with precisely where we ended up, but it was an enormously beneficial experience to have the debates that we did.
Finally, I want to thank the Bill team, who were led by Fiona White, Emily Bowen, Elizabeth Bates and Elena Kimber, and the Bill policy team, parliamentary counsel and the Food Standards Agency, which worked so hard on the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their support and input into these important debates. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I realise that the Chamber is filling up and getting ready for the next debate, which is very important, but I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, for his good humour, patience and flexibility during the passage of the Bill. I also thank the Bill team for their help in answering our queries, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and all those on the Labour Benches, including the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who made a very valuable contribution to the Bill.
As the Minister has said, the expertise of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Trees and Lord Cameron of Dillington, was absolutely invaluable. I really enjoyed the exchanges across the Chamber on this very technical Bill. I cannot sit down without mentioning the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who also brought a great deal of expertise to it. My noble friend Lady Parminter supported me brilliantly; we could not have got where we are without her, so I thank her for that.
There were excellent cross-party debates and we reached a reasonable conclusion. We did not get everything that we wanted but we got a satisfactory result and I thank the Minister for that.
Lord Benyon (Con)
In adding to the noble Baroness’s thanks to noble Lords, I forgot to mention my noble friend Lord Harlech, without whom chaos would have ensued.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her comment and want briefly to pick up one point from the Minister on Report. He gave the assurance
“that I will be open to any suggestions”
for
“a forum or fora for a wider conversation with the public”.—[Official Report, 25/1/23; col. 278.]
I hope the Minister will confirm that; I am hoping to outreach with him in the coming weeks to do that. The Minister did not refer to the fact that the Welsh and Scottish Governments have both rejected the legislative consent Motions for the Bill to apply to their countries. Can he provide any more information on where the Government are going forward with that?
Two things have happened since we finished Report. The European Patent Office has revoked an EU patent for heme proteins in plant-based meat alternatives, an issue which was also the subject of litigation in the US. In Committee, we talked a lot about patent issues. We did not go back to them on Report but that certainly raises lots of those issues from Committee. Finally, since our debate we have had a statement from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes on so-called precision-bred organisms. Many people are reaching out to me to say that it does not resolve the issues of labelling and other regulatory issues, so I draw that response to the Minister’s attention.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this was at times a very complex and sometimes challenging Bill, particularly for a non-scientist such as myself; I think both the Minister and I were on a steep learning curve. I thank everybody who provided detailed information and support during the course of this Bill. It really was invaluable as we moved through its progress.
I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. A lot of people spent a lot of time going into detail and depth on this, which was really important when you consider its nature. In particular, I would like to thank: my noble friends Lord Winston and Lady Jones of Whitchurch; the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Trees and Lord Cameron; the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Parminter, with whom I worked closely, on the Opposition Benches; and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. There was a lot of very clear insight and knowledge that came through noble Lords’ contributions on this Bill, which is one of the reasons why this House is so good at improving legislation—I think this Bill really demonstrated that.
I would also like to thank the officials for their time and their patience with me and my many questions. It was very much appreciated from the Opposition Benches. Finally, I thank the Minister for his time and the constructive way he worked with those of us on the Opposition Benches. It is very much appreciated.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind thanks.
To answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—and I thank her for her challenge in this debate and this Bill—I am very keen to continue a conversation about how we raise people’s awareness about how this technology can help, or unravel some of the mystery that might surround people who are concerned about it at times. I assure her that will be the case.
On the question of Scotland and Wales, I hope in time they will see what we are doing and the direction in which the EU is moving on this. I hope they will listen to farmers and institutions like the Roslin Institute, Bangor and Aberystwyth universities, and the James Hutton Institute, and understand that this is an area where it is possible to develop technologies and where, if we all work together, Britain can be a leader. With that, I beg to move.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Monday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 Jan 2023)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 17.
Mark Spencer
These amendments aim to provide clarity as to which genetic changes produced through modern biotechnology are acceptable in a precision-bred organism, particularly with regard to changes that are similar to those that could have resulted from natural transformation. To achieve this, these amendments remove references to “natural transformation” in the Bill. We included this term originally to acknowledge that exogenous DNA can be present in plants and animals as a result of natural transformation. In addition, there was a clause that would strictly limit which features of this type could be present in precision-bred organisms if they resulted from the application of modern biotechnology.
Our policy ambition has not changed. However, after further discussions with our scientific advisers and with experts in the other place, we have introduced these amendments to achieve this desired outcome more effectively. Rather than referring to “natural transformation” in the Bill, we have focused on the features that can be present in a precision-bred organism resulting from the use of modern biotechnology. These are features that arise from the application of traditional processes listed in clause 1(7), which has not been amended. It is also important that the definitions of “modern biotechnology” and “artificial modification technique” in the Bill align with corresponding terms in the genetically modified organisms legislation. These Government amendments ensure that these can remain aligned, if there are technical updates, in the GMO legislation.
Through these amendments, we are maintaining our intention that precision-bred organisms contain only changes that could also have arisen in the gene pool through natural variation or through the kinds of directed breeding programmes already in use today. I am confident that the changes we have introduced are more effective in delivering the scientific approach to which we have committed when defining a precision-bred organism.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this important Bill could release vital technological innovation and demonstrates that the United Kingdom can regulate more effectively when we make decisions in our own national interest than when we were a member of the European Union?
Mark Spencer
Of course. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was an excellent Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She had the same ambitions as this Bill is delivering.
Amendments 7 to 13 and 15 will increase the scrutiny of the secondary legislation set out by the Bill. In response to the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, amendments 7 to 9, 12 and 13 change the parliamentary procedure from negative to affirmative for clauses 4(3), 6(2) and 18(1). Amendments 7 and 13 ensure that clauses 4(1)(b) and 18(6) remain subject to the affirmative procedure. We considered these recommendations closely and accepted the Committee’s view that the clauses contain matters of significant public interest. Regulations under these clauses will therefore need to be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament via affirmative resolution before they come into effect.
Amendments 10, 11 and 15 increase parliamentary scrutiny of clauses 11(5) and 22(3) while retaining the flexibility for the Secretary of State to designate the most appropriate body for the role of the animal welfare advisory body. We recognise it is essential that the animal welfare protections under this Bill command strong public and stakeholder confidence, which is why we tabled these amendments.
Alongside these amendments, which provide an opportunity for both Houses to debate and agree the provisions before they come into effect, we commissioned Scotland’s Rural College to run an independent research project to help us develop criteria for the animal welfare assessment and the accompanying evidence that will be required.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
We have traditionally used other methods of crop breeding, such as induced mutation using gamma radiation or chemicals such as colchicine. Can the Minister reassure me that, although we are making changes for this keyhole surgery type of genetic modification, or gene editing, it will not affect traditional methods that have been used for many years to produce varieties such as Golden Promise winter barley?
Mark Spencer
This technology should accompany and enhance the possibilities of plant breeding and, later, animal breeding. I think it is an exciting opportunity, and who knows where the science will take us? It may well lead to world-changing developments that help to feed the growing world population.
The research by Scotland’s Rural College will involve experts from the Animal Welfare Committee and a wide range of organisations with expertise in animal welfare, genetics and industry practice. Following the Bill’s passage, we will continue to work with experts and other stakeholders to develop measures to safeguard animal welfare before we bring the measures on animals into force.
Finally, I will speak to the minor and technical amendments. Amendment 5 is a technical amendment that ensures clause 1(8) reflects the definition of “artificially modified” inserted into part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002, which is expressed in relation to genes or other genetic material rather than organisms. The amendment will make no substantive change to the Bill.
Amendment 14 replaces the reference to a “relevant obligation” in clause 21(3)(a) with a reference to a “part 2 obligation”, as defined in clause 21, for clarity.
Amendment 16 similarly replaces the reference to a “relevant obligation” in clause 29(4)(a) with a reference to a “part 3 obligation”, as defined in clause 29, for clarity.
Amendment 17 aims to make it clear in the clause on interpretation that references to the term “notifier”, which is defined in clause 6(1), may in certain circumstances be modified by regulations under clause 11(9).
I hope the House is confident in accepting these amendments.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister, who is, by my accounting, the fourth Minister at the Dispatch Box on this Bill. We had two in two days during the Committee stage, but I am still here, as is his colleague on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I thank her for the inclusive way in which she introduced the Bill at the beginning. It is a complicated Bill and she gave us access to officials, which was very helpful.
I take this opportunity, in case the Minister missed it, to remind him of the mantra that has guided the Opposition’s view on the Bill. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that to secure both public and investor confidence, a strong and robust regulatory framework is required. Disappointingly, that is the part the Government have failed to provide.
Sir Robert Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman represents a city that is full of science, particularly in its universities, so does he agree that we can bring forward this legislation only because we have left the European Union and that new wheat varieties that are 50% lower in acrylamide, a chemical that can induce cancer, is good news for both farmers and consumers of wheat?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that. We have had this discussion before and I have to disappoint him slightly, in the sense that of course the EU is moving as well on this. I suspect we will probably end up in a similar place at a similar time. However, he is absolutely right to point out the potential advantages.
The amendments before us are all Government amendments, because, despite the excellent learned and erudite arguments put by my colleagues in the other place—I pay tribute to Baroness Hayman, Baroness Jones and Lords Winston, Krebs, Trees and Cameron, among others—not much has changed, and that is genuinely disappointing. However, some improvements have been made. A number of the amendments move regulations to the affirmative procedure, as the Minister explained, and that allows some, if limited, further scrutiny, which is welcome. Amendment 1 to clause 1 is the Government’s further attempt to codify a particular knotty problem that we discussed at length in Committee. So the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing their amendments tonight. We will merely pointing be out how much more improved the Bill could have been had they had the confidence to embrace our positive suggestions.
I say that not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, because if you had the chance to peruse the Sunday newspapers, as I hope you had the time to do and enjoy, you would have seen comment on today’s gathering of international experts on human gene editing. Although the techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 may be similar, this is of course a different issue from those under consideration today. However, I would argue that many of the ethical issues around animals are not dissimilar. That is why the Government’s refusal to adopt our suggestion of an overseeing authority to look at these very complicated and challenging issues is so disappointing. We have a great chance to be genuinely world-leading in this area. We have brilliant people such as those at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, yet the Government are, apparently, not interested. That is a wasted opportunity.
Let us look at these amendments in more detail. As I have said, on a number of issues the Government have bowed to informed argument in the other place and agreed that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure: on the release or marketing of genetically edited organisms; on information that must be included in the register; on the animal welfare declaration that has to be made; and on the body to be designated as the animal welfare advisory body. That is all welcome. But one of the most powerful and consistent criticisms has been the vagueness of the Bill on many issues and the lack of detail, particularly relating to the proposals regarding animals and when regulations might take effect. I am afraid that these amendments do not seem to help us on this, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on it. The promise at the outset was that nothing would be done on animals until the science was further advanced; it has been described as a “step-by-step approach”. Will the Minister reconfirm that commitment today and tell us what timeframe is actually envisaged? As for companion animals or primates, can he give any reassurances on that today? Many people will be keen to hear what he has to say on it.
As I have already indicated, the most significant amendment is to clause 1, as the Government seek once again to explain what they consider to be a natural process. We had an interesting and extensive discussion in Committee on this point, both with those giving evidence and between members, and it was discussed at length in the other place. I fear that the Government have struggled with this, and I am not sure the new wording takes us much further forward. In general, the Government have sought to define a new category, “precision breeding” which many expert witnesses doubt has much meaning. The particular concern is whether the definitions accurately describe gene editing, without allowing gene modification in through the back door, with one of the key issues being whether exogenous material is included.
The amendment before us introduces yet another term—modern biotechnology. This is also ill-defined, and, as argued by Lord Krebs in the other place, may not stand the test of time, or, more importantly, as we heard in expert evidence, legal scrutiny and challenge. I appreciate that this is difficult territory and hard to define, and almost any sentence fails to capture the complexity, but we were promised at the outset that GM is excluded, and it would be helpful to have the Minister confirm that clearly again today.
l am conscious that you do not want lengthy speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me conclude. The learned and lengthy discussions in the other place showed just how complicated this subject is. Sadly, the Government have made only limited changes in the light of those discussions. Those changes are welcome, so we will not oppose them, but we think that this is a missed opportunity to set out the strong regulatory framework that would have reassured the public, and given investors the confidence that the sector needs.
There is significant opportunity for good here, but there are also risks—risks we may not fully understand. It is also worth bearing in mind that one mistake could tarnish the entire technology. As so often, the Government have gone for the short-term quick fix—the sticking plaster. How much better it would have been to have set up the robust long-term framework that could have established the UK as the setter of the standard that others will follow. That is unfinished business, and it is for another day.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise
again in support of this important Bill. I declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon. I am passionate about animal health and welfare, and strongly believe that the Bill will help in that area.
The Bill has been strengthened and improved in the other place. Its definitions are also tighter. I am pleased that the Opposition amendment to remove animals from the Bill was withdrawn and has not been carried forward. It is so important that both animals and plants are included in the Bill. I was also pleased that the amendments that would have phased in animal provisions were not successful. That has strong benefits for animal health and welfare, and it is important that animals are included.
I very much welcome the Government’s allaying of concerns expressed by the Opposition about exogenous DNA, therefore preventing any exogenous DNA that was outside the range of an organism’s existing gene pool from remaining in the organism. Amendments 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been very helpful in that regard. It is important to reaffirm to the public and the world at large that this Bill is to do with gene editing, which is very, very different from genetic modification. That is where genetic material from exogenous or unrelated species can be introduced. That will not happen in this gene editing Bill.
I very much welcome the Government amendments that have removed reference to natural transformation. Some clarity was needed in that regard. I also welcome the fact that the Bill introduces more parliamentary scrutiny to help protect animal health and welfare, which strengthens the safeguards. This increased scrutiny will also allay some of the fears that people had put forward.
The Bill has huge benefits to animals, plants, the environment and people in, for example, helping to develop resistance to diseases such as avian influenza. A lot of work is being done to make birds resistant to this horrific disease. A huge outbreak has gripped this country and others across the world and that is firmly in our minds. This sort of technology will help us in that battle. It will also help us to develop resistance to other diseases, such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs. It will help reduce the need for medicines, help combat antimicrobial resistance and, indirectly and very directly, help public health. It will also help us as a country and as a world in our fight to preserve and strengthen food security by being able to develop more climate-resilient and disease-resistant crops, reducing the need for pesticides and reducing the need for fertiliser as well. That will also benefit the environment.
In summary, I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the Government amendments. I thank the other place for refining and improving the Bill and I wish it well as it completes its passage.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I will not detain the House longer than a moment or two, but I want to put on record that, although we in the SNP do not intend to oppose the Lords amendments, our opposition to the entire Bill has been well documented throughout its passage. The Bill, alongside the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, attacks the integrity of the powers of the Scottish Parliament in specifically devolved areas such as agriculture, aquaculture and animal welfare.
The intended scope of the Bill may be England only, but the Bill documentation is clear that it will have significant impacts on areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In particular, the impact assessment for the Bill recognises that,
“products entering the market in England would also be marketable in both Scotland and Wales.”
It is outrageous that this Government did not see fit to work more closely—or at all—with the Scottish Parliament, to give that institution the respect it is due through this process and to listen to the concerns expressed. As a result, this entire Bill does not have the support of my party.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I have spoken to the Minister before, so he knows my thoughts on the Bill, and I am very pleased to add my support to what we have before us tonight. It is also good to hear from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who brings a wealth of personal knowledge to the debate—I thank him for sharing that with us.
I have been supportive of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill for some time now, having spoken with a number of farmers in my constituency who have expressed to me their willingness to engage with and support it when they learned how exactly it could help their work. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and also as a landowner.
To my reading, the Lords amendments simply provide clarity and clarification. The Minister was very good to share his response, which highlighted the use of the terminology “natural transformation”, and I thank him for that. Five of the amendments serve the purpose of removing references to natural transformation.
The amendments were made following concerns raised by MPs and peers regarding the potential for misinterpretation of the term as allowing the stable integration of the functional transgenic DNA, through the use of modern biotechnology, in an organism that is considered to be precision-bred for the purposes of the Bill. That is not in line with the Government’s policy intention, which is to allow only genetic features similar to those present in the gene pool or that might arise naturally through existing breeding processes.
As that clarity has been furnished, it is clear that our farming industry can benefit without dangerously interfering with genetic structure. I am encouraged by that, and I believe that the information from the National Farmers Union, which outlined gene-editing applications in 46 different crop species, with rice, tobacco, wheat and soybean among the most cited, is an indication of the clear benefits of the ability to use precision breeding.
A broad range of products with market-oriented traits are being developed, and not just those with agronomic traits such as yield and disease resistance, but foods with consumer-facing traits such as lower allergenicity, reduced contaminants, higher antioxidants, longer shelf life, vitamin enhancement and heart-healthiness—all things we would wish to see in foods. There are also those with climate-resilient traits such as drought and salt tolerance.
No one can ignore what is happening and what we have before us. It is not gene modification in livestock, but instead gene editing applications being developed and researched, including on resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. These technologies are exciting, innovative and challenging and I believe they give the United Kingdom a chance to lead the way. For example, if the problems of African swine flu in pigs or bovine tuberculosis in cattle could be sorted out, my goodness, we could all put our hands up and clap hard for that. Mastitis resistance, hornless cattle, chickens that cannot spread bird flu, elimination of milk allergens and increased lean muscle—how would that not be good news for our farming sector? It could only lead to more efficiency and higher standards and make our farming industry even stronger.
It is clear that this Bill solidifies what farmers and indeed many of our grandmothers have done for years with their roses and their peas. I well remember in Strabane back in the ’60s my grandmother being one of those people doing things with roses and peas, making changes even in those days. My grandmother called it splicing, but this is splicing made technical, and it is past time we legislated to protect it. I very much welcome what the Minister is bringing forward tonight.
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to hon. Members who have assisted not only in this place, but at the other end of the corridor, and particularly to my right hon. Friend Lord Benyon for steering the Bill so ably through the House of Lords.
It is worth putting on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—I see him in his place behind me—who was the originator of the Bill. He saw the benefit of this technology and brought in the Bill, ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) indicated, was one of the Ministers he jousted with over the Bill.
The shadow Minister was broadly supportive, but he had one little concern about animal welfare; I understand those concerns and I will try to reassure him. Animal welfare concerns were raised in both Houses and by non-governmental organisations. The Government are committed to maintaining our already high animal welfare standards and we want to improve and build on that record. That is why we are taking a step-by-step approach, with regulatory changes first for plants, followed then by animals. That is why we have also commissioned Scotland’s Rural College to carry out our research.
One reason why I was a little disappointed by the comments about Scotland from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) was that even she must be proud of the fantastic establishments in Scotland. Not least, the James Hutton Institute in Dundee and the University of Edinburgh are world-leading in some of this research. We need to embrace that research and bounce forward.
This is a fantastic Bill. I am glad to see it progress through the House and I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent.
Patricia Gibson
It is right and fitting that the Minister pays tribute to the hub of scientific excellence that we find in Scotland in a range of different areas, but surely he is not suggesting that that, in itself, and using that expertise in Scotland is a reason for his Government to legislate by the back door in devolved areas in Scotland.
Mark Spencer
Not at all. This is an England-only Bill; it is there in black and white. I was expressing my disappointment on behalf of Scottish farmers who will not be able to use this technology. That will leave them at a disadvantage commercially, and I hope that she will listen to those Scottish farmers.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Perhaps the Minister might be reassured by the fact that the Scottish National party seems to be against the Bill on political rather than scientific grounds. In fact, I think it is on the record as saying that if the European Union adopts the legislation—as the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), said—it would immediately adopt it. Surely the SNP is taking the lead from Europe, not from the people who elected them.
Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It was my intention to slowly glide the Bill through its process, but we seem to have stepped into a bit of a hot potato. The Bill is a fantastic opportunity for scientists around the UK, particularly in England, to embrace this new technology.
Jim Shannon
Other Members have spoken about Scotland and Wales. I know that the Minister has a very close working relationship with the Minister responsible for farming in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Edwin Poots. Has this Minister had any opportunity to discuss these matters with him, so that we in Northern Ireland can take advantage of what will happen here?
Mark Spencer
Of course, our door is always open for those conversations with the devolved Administrations. I look forward to speaking to Minister Poots at the earliest convenience, so that Northern Ireland can embrace this technology, as soon as we get Stormont up and running, of course. I know that the hon. Gentleman is as keen as I am to see that. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 17 agreed to.
Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill (Ways and Means)
Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mark Spencer.)
Royal Assent
Thursday 23rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 Jan 2023)