Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 23 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025.
This instrument forms an important part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring energy-related products are sustainable and efficient, by enabling new regulations to be enforced as they apply to Northern Ireland. Ecodesign policies aim to reduce environmental impacts of products by reducing their energy consumption, reducing carbon emissions and saving businesses and consumers money on their energy bills. As hon. Members will already understand, following our exit from the European Union, Great Britain assimilated its regulatory regime for energy-related product standards into domestic law, which we may in future amend. Hon. Members will also be aware of the agreement reached by the UK and the EU regarding the Windsor framework, which was passed overwhelmingly by a large majority in this place. The Windsor framework helps to ensure the flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing trade barriers and safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. It allows Northern Ireland to maintain dual market access by continuing to apply EU rules with respect to the regulation of energy-related products. Therefore, it is vital that we keep the enforcement legislation for Northern Ireland up to date.
The instrument will update both the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010 and the Energy Information Regulations 2011 with respect to Northern Ireland. These updates will ensure that the specific Northern Ireland tables in the 2010 and 2011 regulations accurately reflect the latest product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling measures, and enable these measures to be enforced by the relevant market surveillance authority. There are seven new product regulations that will apply in Northern Ireland, which range from smartphones through to tumble dryers and heaters. The ecodesign regulations seek to improve the energy efficiency of all products, while the new energy labelling regulations reflect new labelling standards. Repairability and recyclability of products have been included for the first time under EU ecodesign and certain energy labelling regulations to ensure further sustainability and to benefit consumers.
The statutory instrument will ensure that these schedules continue to reflect the most up-to-date versions of these EU ecodesign and energy labelling measures in force, whether amended or replaced, while minimising the need for further updates to the enforcement regulations. The requirements updated by this instrument will not restrict manufacturers’ ability to sell into the EU or Northern Ireland, unless they are not willing to meet the EU regulations. The EU’s higher standards are likely to become the industry default and we can assume that manufacturers are likely to choose to meet those standards. If that is the case, these measures will have no impact on traders who abide by the relevant standards.
Since Great Britain is looking to achieve higher product efficiency, it is very likely that Great Britain will seek to meet similar standards. As such, we will be consulting as soon as possible on the merits of mirroring the new EU regulations, with the first consultation, on tumble dryers, expected to be launched shortly. Our intention is to apply the measures on a UK-wide basis and maintain the UK’s internal market. Our consultation will be on the appropriate means to achieve that aim. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your charismatic and generous chairship this evening, Dr Huq, and to respond to these regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
We agree that, by ensuring that products meet minimum requirements for energy efficiency, regulation can reduce their negative environmental impact, make them longer lasting and encourage greater recycling. Energy labelling also gives more information to consumers, helping them to make better-informed decisions about their energy usage. In principle, energy efficiency clearly helps to reduce bills and emissions. We understand that these particular regulations need to be implemented as part of the Windsor framework.
However, we offer a word of caution to Ministers. These regulations put a modest compliance cost on manufacturers that sell their goods in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the Government are now considering aligning the whole of the UK with net zero laws written and decided in Brussels. We would be signing up not only to the European Union emissions trading scheme, with its significantly higher carbon price—increasing our carbon price has not been ruled out by Ministers in a succession of answers to our questions—but to a whole slew of regulations that will be enforced by the European Court of Justice.
There certainly needs to be co-operation with our European neighbours, but we must also maintain our sovereignty and flexibility in an increasingly volatile world. Brussels will, understandably, always act in the interests of the European project and its member states. That is why we must protect the interests of our citizens by putting British industry and consumers first.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I rise to oppose these regulations, not because I am against improving energy efficiency, but because in our opinion they represent yet another example of unfair and unnecessary regulation being imposed on Northern Ireland. Although the Government have insisted that these measures are vital, it is noticeable that they are choosing to consult on similar regulations that will be implemented across the rest of the United Kingdom, while simply imposing them in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister: why is it acceptable to consult in one part of the United Kingdom, but not the other?
The Minister referenced some items that the regulations would cover. These regulations will cover air conditioning units, comfort fans, computers, domestic ovens, hobs—there is a catch-all phrase for all electrical and electronic household and office equipment. They will also cover electric motors, electronic displays, dishwashers, tumble dryers, washing machines, light sources, fridges, smartphones, mobile phones, space-saving heaters, vacuum cleaners, water pumps and welders. These regulations have an impact on everyday life and everyday items in Northern Ireland specifically—they will only affect Northern Ireland. The items listed are parts of everyday life for each of us and each of our constituents. I therefore ask Committee members: why, in recognition of the implementation of these regulations, are my constituents of less importance or less worth than those of a Welsh, Scottish or Cornish MP? Why do we have to accept a differential or disruption on supply of these goods being forced on the people of Northern Ireland? Why does Northern Ireland continue to be treated as an afterthought when it comes to regulation?
This instrument, as drafted, follows a pattern we have seen before: Northern Ireland being forced to align with EU-derived rules, while the rest of the United Kingdom retains the flexibility to shape its own policies. The Minister said it was likely that manufacturers would follow the EU standard. I question whether a Government should really draft and implement regulations based on the likelihood of something happening by an outside body that they seek to have no control over.
This is not just an administrative issue; it has consequences. Businesses in Northern Ireland will face additional costs and compliance burdens compared with their counterparts across Great Britain, which may ultimately avoid them or get a say in shaping how the regulations are enforced. That places Northern Ireland and its consumers at a competitive disadvantage, creating yet another barrier to economic growth at a time when we should be supporting, not stifling, investment—something that we had been told, by both this Government and the previous one, would not happen under the Windsor framework. While the goal of improving energy efficiency is commendable, imposing a rigid one-size-fits-all approach does not guarantee real progress. Indeed, it risks increasing costs for manufacturers and consumers, while delivering minimal environmental benefits.
Have we assessed whether the regulations will genuinely reduce energy consumption in a meaningful way, or are we simply enforcing them for the sake of regulatory conformity? There was no consultation for Northern Ireland, no consultation with trade bodies, with consumer rights organisations or with families, who might, when their tumble dryer broke down, have looked for a cheaper or second-hand model, but now will have to buy the one that meets EU standards. Why should a constituent in South Antrim have less access to different products than someone in Southampton?
On consultation, the explanatory memorandum simply says that the bodies were not consulted because of previous consultation outcomes. Why were trade or consumer bodies not consulted in Northern Ireland? Was it because the Government did not want to hear their concerns, or let other hon. Members on this Committee know what they had to say? Or did they simply assume that they would not raise any objections, as they did last time?
Beyond the economic and environmental concerns, there is a broader constitutional issue at play. The Government speak of Northern Ireland as an integral part of this United Kingdom, yet time and again we see it subjected to different rules, dictated by external frameworks. That raises a fundamental question: are we truly committed to regulatory consistency across the UK, or is Northern Ireland to be permanently treated as a special case?
For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the regulations. If consultation is appropriate for Great Britain, it should be appropriate for Northern Ireland as well, as part of the United Kingdom. I believe that anything less is unacceptable, and I urge Members to oppose the measures.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I have nothing further to add on the meat of the debate than what my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk put forward. I rise to explain my delayed arrival to the Committee; I was a Teller in the Divisions in the Chamber, but I came as quickly as I could. I did not mean any rudeness to you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I am sorry for the delay.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The essence of these regulations is that a part of this United Kingdom should be subjected to regulation governing energy-related products, not by the laws made by this Parliament, nor even by the laws made by the devolved Stormont institutions, but by laws made by a foreign Parliament and initiated by an unelected foreign institution—namely, the European Commission. Those are the laws that would be imposed on consumers and citizens of Northern Ireland by these regulations.
Any rational observer might expect that the right to make the laws of any part of a country would rest with the elected representatives of that country—but in fact, pursuant to the protocol/Windsor framework, the right to make those laws was surrendered to a foreign polity. We have an absurd situation, illustrated by these regulations, whereby seven new EU regulations are being enforced automatically upon citizens of the United Kingdom, and the very Parliament of that United Kingdom is prohibited from changing, amending or disapplying them—or doing anything other than applying them—because the lawmaking powers on these issues have been surrendered to the EU.
That is all set out in graphic, frightening detail in annex 2 of the protocol, where we read 289 areas of law where the United Kingdom can no longer make laws for Northern Ireland. These regulations represent one of those ambits or areas of law.
Of course, that has many ramifications, including the important democratic fact that it disenfranchises the people of Northern Ireland. The fundamental principle of this nation, and indeed of any democratic nation, is that people live under the laws made by those whom they elect. These laws, however, are made by those elected not by anyone in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom, but by people in 27 foreign countries. That is the absurdity of what has been imposed in these regulations.
That issue is of immense constitutional significance and, in truth, it is why there is no consultation. There is no consultation about whether these laws should be applied to Northern Ireland for the simple reason that, if there were a consultation, and if that consultation suggested that they should not be applied, it could not be adhered to. It would only show up the impotency of Parliament and the institutions in the United Kingdom, because the right to make these laws has already been surrendered to a foreign Parliament. The view of the Government is that there is no necessity or point to consulting, because their hands are tied.
However, if there is a suggestion that similar regulations might be imposed in Great Britain, there has to be a consultation. Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum says that there will be such a consultation—why? Because that is the normal process. We do not impose something without going through the due process of consulting about it. But what we are doing here tonight is the antithesis of that. We are imposing on Northern Ireland regulations upon which we will not consult, because we have already sold the right to consult and the right to make any decision other than to impose them.
It is not just a constitutional issue; it is a practical economic issue. It applies to the vast range of energy-related products, from smartphones through to tumble dryers. Take tumble dryers as an example. There are basically two types: the convector or vented tumble dryer, and the heat pump tumble dryer. Under the regulations, it will become illegal to have a convector tumble dryer in Northern Ireland, or for a retailer to sell one. It will be impossible for a manufacturer in Great Britain to complete an order for a convector tumble dryer in Northern Ireland. A convector tumble dryer operates at lower ambient temperatures, so many of them are in garages attached to houses, whereas a heat pump tumble dryer would not operate in those colder temperatures. We are saying to the people of Northern Ireland, “You cannot any longer have a British-made convector tumble dryer in your garage. Why? Because the EU says you can’t.”
Think of the magnitude of the absurdity of that: citizens of this United Kingdom are being dictated to not by the democratic mandate of this House but by the undemocratic control of a foreign Parliament. That is the abiding absurdity of the regulations. The Government’s answer to all of that will be to just align the whole of the United Kingdom to the same EU standards, as we will see tomorrow with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill and as we are seeing through their approach to these regulations. What was the point of Brexit? The whole point of Brexit, we were told, was that we could be master in our own house and make our own regulations, but now we will simply reregulate back into line with the EU. That is a very retrograde step.
One other very important thing about the regulations is that they provide that there will be no further debate about such matters when it comes to further new regulations. All there will be is a statement by a Minister that they have come into effect. Courtesy of what is being approved tonight, there will never again be a debate, a discussion, a Delegated Legislation Committee or a debate on the Floor of the House about new measures, because that right is being surrendered as well. That was confirmed by Lord Hunt in the other place.
I say to the members of this Committee—although I know that, whipped as they are, they will not do it—that this is a step they should not take. They should have some thought for their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland, and stand up for the right that they should be governed by laws that this Parliament can make and that this Parliament can change, and not subject them, colony-like—because that is what it is, colony-like—to the laws of others.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. I start by saying that we have our obligations under the Windsor framework, which was passed in this House with an overwhelming majority. We are not here to litigate the rights and wrongs of that process; that has already been done. We are here to discuss the specific regulations that are being put in place. Critically, the regulations are about improving the efficiency of products that we believe will be good for consumers and good for businesses, and will create opportunities.
Jim Allister
Surely the truth is that we are here to impose regulations that the EU thinks will be better for consumers, because it treats Northern Ireland as EU territory. These are not the regulations of the United Kingdom Government.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me say to the hon. Member that we have absolutely looked at the regulations. As the UK Government, we believe that they are good for consumers. In fact, the ambition that has been set by the regulations is one that we wish to mirror ourselves. We will consult on these standards, not because the EU is telling us to but because we think that it is the right thing for UK businesses and consumers.
The vast majority of manufacturers who sell not only in the GB market but in the EU market are already making the transition, because that market is much bigger. They are already driving up product standards. That is good for businesses, and we want to support and encourage that.
I hear the arguments and the caution about not being dictated to by the EU, but please hear me when I say that we think it is right that we drive up standards for our consumers. We would want to do this. The EU has done it, but we would want to do it in our own right. That is why we have tabled this SI and it is why we are also planning to consult on improved standards.
Robin Swann
I thank the Minister for giving way. My opening comment was not about being opposed to the cost or energy savings that the regulations will bring about, but why is it right for them to be enforced in Northern Ireland now? Setting aside the Windsor framework and its implications, as a UK Minister, why does she feel it is right and proper that the rest of the UK is consulted and gets to engage, and that people get to have their say? Or is the Minister really saying to this House, “When the time comes, we will tell you that because it is the right thing to do, we are doing it?” The consultation that she is talking about, mentioned in paragraph 7.2, as well as her explanation of it, are actually fictitious, too, because it sounds to me as though this Government are going to do it anyway, while the Opposition sit on their hands.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are trying to work within the Windsor framework. We are not here to litigate that. It sets out a set of protocols and procedures that we are working under. EU rules have come forward, and it is right that we make sure that we create the legal framework so that these measures apply in Northern Ireland. Critically, irrespective of all that, the basics of what is proposed are good for consumers. They are about improving the efficiency and design of products. In the case of smartphones, it is about improving some of the protections that are available to consumers. The hon. Gentleman and other Members should want that, and we as a Government do want that, irrespective of whether or not we want to litigate the Windsor framework.
We are introducing the SI because we believe it is the right thing to do. We believe it is important that we improve and drive up standards. We will consult on the proposition because we think it is good. Based on the engagement we have had, manufacturers are supportive of the direction of travel. As they want to sell in the EU single market, that sets the default for industry. In that spirit, we propose the SI today and I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 23 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Hobhouse.
The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 25 February, implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. For precision-bred plants in England, they provide the practical and technical details to implement a new, science-based and proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred plants as set out in the Act.
The territorial application of the draft regulations is England only, and they cover the environmental release and marketing of precision-bred plants, as well as their use in food and feed in England. That includes a process administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to confirm that plants are precision-bred and not genetically modified before they can be marketed. Also established is a food and feed marketing authorisation process administered by the Food Standards Agency, which allows products to be placed safely on the market. The regulations also outline details for public registers and enforcement. Today, by passing this secondary legislation, we have the opportunity to transform and modernise our food system to make it fit for the future.
The 21st-century agricultural system faces significant challenges. It must provide enough food to meet the growing demand while becoming more sustainable. It must also survive the threat to productivity posed by climate change. Food security is national security. To help us achieve that, we need innovation in fundamental sectors such as plant breeding. Precision breeding would be transformative for the sector, enabling innovative products to be commercialised in years instead of decades—and we do not have decades.
Through precision breeding, crops can be developed that are more resilient to climate change, resistant to pests and diseases and beneficial to the environment. In turn, that will increase food production, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers, lower emissions and reduce costs for farmers. However, to capture those benefits, we need a regulatory framework with a sound science base that encourages innovation. The scientific consensus across key advisory committees and institutes is that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk to human health or the environment than traditionally bred organisms. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, adding a stifling 74% to the cost of marketing for businesses. That deters investment and limits the companies that can bring products to market and the traits that we can benefit from.
Countries that have kept pace with the science and introduced regulatory reform have seen significant investment. The Americas have attracted over 80% of venture capital investment in the sector, while only 5% comes to Europe. It is paramount that we act now to change that. Through these regulations, we are establishing an approach that is more proportionate to the level of risk. Based on the scientific advice, we are treating precision-bred organisms more like their traditionally bred counterparts. By capitalising on the UK’s existing strengths and reputation for scientific excellence, we have the potential to be a leader in this growing sector internationally. The new regulatory framework will place us at the forefront across Europe and allow us to attract innovators to start and grow their businesses here.
We have worked with industry from the outset. Industry are clear on the opportunities that precision breeding presents and confident in the policy direction we are taking. Exciting research is already taking place in anticipation of the new regulatory framework, with the potential for some products to be on the market in the next few years. Tropic, an SME based in Norwich, has developed a non-browning banana that can reduce food waste and improve farm gate revenues by as much as 50%. Another product close to market is Simplot’s precision-bred strawberry, which would make one of Britain’s favourite fruits available to purchase beyond the summer months—lovely.
We recognise that concerns have been raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, most notably around traceability and labelling, the impact on the organic sector, the UK internal market and trade with the EU. We agree that those issues are important and our work to understand and mitigate implications is ongoing. For example, we are continuing our engagement with devolved Governments and with the relevant sectors, such as the organic industry. We are also exploring ways to further improve transparency and the provision of information about precision-bred plant varieties.
We believe that we have struck the right balance, with an enabling regulatory framework that is proportionate and evidence-based while providing measures for transparency and regulatory oversight. This Government are pro-science and pro-innovation, and we are confident that the provisions in this secondary legislation will translate the benefits of precision breeding into reality.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this instrument. This SI enacts policy from the groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act brought in by the Conservative Government in 2023. While this instrument specifically introduces measures on precision-bred plants, as it relates to that Act I must declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon.
I would also like to make it clear that when debating this issue, we are discussing gene editing or precision breeding rather than genetic modification. It is incredibly important that we make that distinction because the methods are very different. Gene editing is different from genetic modification, in which genetic material from an exogenous, or unrelated, species can be introduced. That does not happen in gene editing, a process in which any changes must be equivalent to those that could have been made using traditional plant or animal breeding methods. Gene editing therefore speeds up the natural process. Does the Minister agree that that distinction is acutely important and we must articulate it, particularly as there are concerns among the public about the use of genetic modification? This enabling legislation, further to the groundbreaking 2023 Act, is a fantastic innovation that we need to welcome and embrace. If we clearly articulate it to the public, they will come on board with us.
To return to the instrument that we are considering today, I very much welcome the Government’s decision to follow the Conservatives and lay these regulations. As I said earlier, this instrument implements the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, introduced by the last Government. Precision breeding has incredible potential; for example, it could lead to increased resilience to pests, diseases and the adverse impacts of climate change. As this instrument relates to plants, it will help to support food production by introducing desirable traits in plants and crops that could otherwise take many years to develop.
The measure could help to improve the nutritional content of plants, or make them more resistant to the threats that they face, including disease and extreme weather events. All that will be a vital tool in the fight for food security in the UK and around the world, with climate-resilient crops meaning a reliable supply of the food on which those living in certain climates depend. It also has environmental benefits, as it reduces the need for pesticides and fertilisers. In other words, this can be a win-win for producers, consumers and the precious environment alike.
Clearly, the most significant component of the regulatory framework of precision breeding must be safety. I hope the Minister will take a moment to reassure us that DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency will regularly review risk, and ensure that all precision-bred plants and crops are safe to be marketed for use in food and as a feedstuff. Does the Minister agree that precision-bred products should not be authorised if they are in any way a risk to animal or human health?
I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are very happy to support these regulations, although I hope that the Government will work at pace to deliver on the other potential benefits for which the previous Government’s legislation set the foundation, specifically gene editing for precision breeding of animals and birds, which once again has huge potential to combat diseases.
In the light of the extremely concerning developments in Europe in recent weeks, including foot and mouth disease in Germany, Hungary and now Slovakia; African swine fever advancing up the continent of Europe; and diseases already present in the UK, such as avian influenza and bluetongue virus, will the Minister give the sector a timeline for the introduction of further secondary legislation on animal and bird breeding?
As an example, much work is being done to develop resistance to avian influenza in birds, and to develop pigs that are resistant to porcine reproduction and respiratory syndrome, or PRRS. Facilitating the roll-out of such innovative research and technology will be of huge assistance with that mission. It will also help to reduce the need for certain medicines and to combat antimicrobial resistance, as well as indirectly, and also very directly, helping human public health. I note that the territorial application for this SI is England only. What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations about ensuring that this technology can benefit all the United Kingdom?
The Minister will be familiar with my repeated calls for action on the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge. Once again I ask her, as I have asked her colleague many times, to make the case to the Treasury for the £1.4 billion of additional funding urgently needed to redevelop its headquarters. That programme was started under the Conservatives, with £1.2 billion committed in 2020, and I note that the Labour Government have committed an additional £208 million. For the sake of agriculture, animal health, rural mental health, biosecurity and national security, please will the Minister and her DEFRA colleagues continue to press that case with the Treasury?
I conclude by reiterating that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are pleased to support this statutory instrument, and we look forward to the Government speedily introducing further legislation on animals and birds.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. I will not say a great deal, but the Minister is quite correct to introduce this statutory instrument. Plainly, its provenance is in measures taken by the previous Government. Since she mentioned where most of this work is under way, I am interested to know how much she expects the legislation to boost the sector in this country, and whether she has had any discussions with the European Union, which will probably take a dim view of some of this. One of the benefits of leaving the European Union is that we can make such legislation, whereas it was previously extremely difficult to do so.
How does the Minister believe that the legislation will impact growth in the sector, and can she assure us that in applying this basic research, we will be able to capitalise on it? Unfortunately, the story in this country is that we are exceptionally good at doing basic research, but other countries and jurisdictions take on that research and we see very little of the uptick or benefit from it. It seems to me that this is a case in point. It would be unfortunate if we were to carry out such research—it will be expensive—in England, only to find that it was exploited elsewhere, particularly in America. What is the Minister doing to make sure that will not be the case? Does she intend the Government to offer any fiscal or other encouragement to companies that might seek to exploit our basic research?
Emma Hardy
I thank the most loyal Opposition for their support with this SI, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. It is incredibly important that we make clear the distinction between genetic modification and what we are talking about here, and that we note how different the two things are. I welcome the Opposition’s support with that clarification.
I will take a moment to reflect on the importance of implementing this legislation. Without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring products to market and which crop species’ traits we can benefit from. The overwhelming scientific advice is that it is not proportionate to apply existing legislation to plants produced by modern biotechnology when those plants could have resulted—this is the key point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest made—from traditional breeding processes. These regulations provide a science-based approach and are proportionate.
I will cover some of the points that have been raised. On animals and birds, I recognise the professional view and real feelings of the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and he is keen to know more about the Government’s plans for implementing the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for animals. While we are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration, no decision has yet been taken on introducing legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to precision-bred animals. I have no further information about that, because only plants are in scope of this SI.
Dr Hudson
I note that no decision has been taken on animals, but I asked about animals and birds. We have the pressing situation of avian influenza, and technology is under development in this country to breed birds that are resistant to that horrific disease. Can I press the Minister to make the case to DEFRA for enabling precision breeding of animals and birds forthwith? Will she write to the Committee with an update on when DEFRA will bring forward that SI?
Emma Hardy
I am happy to clarify that I was talking about animals and birds. I can attempt to provide further information, but without wanting to appear deliberately vague, no decision has been taken. However, if and when one is, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman knows.
Emma Hardy
I will take that point back to the Farming Minister.
As for the assurance on risk, the advice is consistent across scientific sources and is supported by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, as well as institutions such as the Royal Society and the European Food Safety Authority. These principles also underpin regulatory approaches adopted abroad, where England is now aligned with countries such as Canada, Japan and Argentina. I reassure hon. Members that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised that there is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest: we are not talking about the same things.
Devolved Governments were also mentioned. We recognise that there are concerns about divergence in the UK, and that is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Governments. The Farming Minister recently sent letters to his counterparts in the devolved Governments to invite them to discuss these matters further. We recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved nations on these issues and we look forward to those meetings.
On the EU position, which the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned, although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission has published a proposal for the regulation of plants by new genomic techniques. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and note the recent progress made by the European Council on the draft NGT proposal. The proposal is similar in aim to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, but it will take some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU. However, we do not have time to wait.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire made the point about the danger of doing research in this country and it being used by other countries. I take his point, but is there not an opportunity to use this technology in developing countries and provide support in relation to famine?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which was thoughtful, as always, and demonstrated our care for other countries around the world. We have talked about resistance to pests and changes owing to climate change, and this is generally a good and innovative technology that can be used to benefit many people. As I said, although the EU seems to be moving in this area, we are diverging and we do not have time to wait.
Emma Hardy
I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question and then he is welcome to intervene. A report by the Breakthrough Institute and Alliance for Science estimates that the EU’s current regulations on gene editing could result in an annual economic opportunity cost of $182 billion to $356 billion for the EU. That is why we want to act now to place English scientists and breeders at the forefront across Europe to make the most of opportunities presented by precision-breeding technologies.
Dr Murrison
The Minister has pretty much answered the question I was going to put to her, which was: what assessment has she made of the competitive advantage? I am trying to be helpful to the Government. I know that they say they want lots of growth, and this is an opportunity to get growth, is it not? But to get growth we need competitive advantage, not just with the States, but with the EU. So my question really is: how much does she think we will be advantaged by the legislation? She has given me a figure, which sounds like a lot of money. I encourage her to go further and, as Europe becomes more and more restrictive in the technologies that it appears to be fighting scared of, the UK must be able to be rational in how it positions itself. In this area, that means being encouraging to our science base, of course, as well as our ability to exploit the findings of that research here in the UK.
Emma Hardy
As I said, there is an opportunity of $182 billion to $356 billion that we can perhaps not exploit—that is maybe the wrong word—but utilise, or take advantage of.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman—we can capitalise on the opportunity, because we will be the first country that takes this through. As I have noted, the EU position seems to be moving, but we recognise that that will take some time, whereas I hope we will agree to this SI today. On that note, I thank everybody for their contributions and the Opposition for their support.
Question put and agreed to.