Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I shall intervene very briefly on the issue that was highlighted in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report on the impact on the UK internal market. As we have heard, products of precision breeding that are approved for sale in England can be sold into Scotland and Wales, and we have had a bit of discussion on that, but at paragraph 47, the committee said:

“In relation to Northern Ireland, Defra explained: ‘Under the Windsor Framework, mutual recognition does not apply to precision bred organism legislation. Therefore, precision bred products must comply with GM legislation before it can be sold in Northern Ireland’.”


At paragraph 48, it said that

“because PBOs are currently not recognised in the EU and therefore in NI”—

since we are under EU law and jurisdiction, despite Brexit—

“producers with PBO authorisation in England will have to label their products as GMO for trade with NI or the EU. This is a matter of concern”.

It talks about the submissions that were made raising fundamental questions about the ability to trade with our EU neighbours. Therefore, I ask the Minister when she comes to reply just to explain and clarify the position of Northern Ireland. What is the impact on Northern Ireland of this particular situation that Northern Ireland finds itself in, compared even to Scotland and Wales?

The fact is that these issues, as the committee says at paragraph 49, could not be addressed in any detail whatever through a de minimis impact assessment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, discussions are happening with the devolved Administrations. I would be very interested to hear what stage they are at. What discussion is happening with the Northern Ireland DAERA Minister? I have certainly not heard anything being reported in the Northern Ireland Assembly on this matter, so I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify those very important issues, which have been highlighted in the report, with regard to Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly on this issue, mainly because I followed the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, into that portfolio in MAFF, which was something of a poisoned chalice at the time, and lived through some of the very bitter and divisive debates around GMOs. I work often and very closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I think I did not agree with almost anything that she said this evening. At the time, a quarter of a century ago, the debate was almost impossible to have with any clarity or without high emotion, and that was terribly destructive on all sorts of levels. In particular—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said this, and I think he was so right—that somehow a technology in itself became something that people either believed in or did not believe in, instead of looking at the application of that technology, what its effects were, whether those effects should be allowed but people should be aware of them, or whether they had no traceable consequences, and therefore labelling was in some ways itself dishonest.

The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, made a very interesting speech about trust, and I agree with her. However, there is a problem if we pretend that there is something that can be identified and that ought to be flagged up, against the advice of the FSA, the department and all those who spend years of their lives looking at these issues, because 1.5% of respondents to the survey, when asked specifically whether this is something they would like to be informed about, say that they think that is a good idea. We could put the most enormous list of things that 1.5% of the population would be interested in being informed about when they buy something. It is a really interesting and important debate, but I do not believe that it is relevant to this subject.

All I will say is that I formed my view on this issue not only on those rational, scientific grounds, but because I went to the John Innes Centre very early on in my ministerial job. There, I met young scientists and agronomists from Africa, who were so enthused about and grateful for the opportunity to spend time in that scientific institution, because they thought of the relevance that this work could have for their populations and their agriculture.

I went back to John Innes a few months ago with the Action Against Hunger group. That same commitment, not to the agro-industry conglomerates nor to business, but to the improvement of crops that will help the world—and help agriculture in this country—and which could have such potential, was still there. They had kept the faith over those 25 difficult years when we did not make progress, so I am absolutely delighted to support these regulations tonight.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make just a brief contribution. It is nice to be able to enter a debate where we are not confusing genetically modified organisms with gene editing; that has been the problem in the past.

I think the Government have got it right. We have been around the labelling track and seen how practically impossible that is. They have got it right because there is a balance to be struck, but if we are not careful, the perfect will be the enemy of the good, and we know this is good for so many different reasons—some of which were outlined by the previous speakers.

I welcome the Government’s approach. It is right, it is evidence-based and it is designed to take us on a path which will improve food security in this country and throughout the world.

High Seas Treaty

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much for that Answer. It is very good news to hear that we are limiting bottom trawling in MPAs, but the point of my Question was to ask whether we have a Bill going through the noble Baroness’s department—or, indeed, the FCDO—which will ratify the global ocean treaty. The UN conference will happen in June. If we have not ratified our treaties, as I understand it, we will not have a seat at the first ocean COP.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The UK will continue to be proactive in preparing for implementation and entry. We are committed to partnering with others, in particular the global South and the Commonwealth Secretariat, to ratify and implement the agreement. We are actively engaging in that. The first meeting will take place at the UN in New York this April. We very much support this, and we are working with others to move forward.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, as Environment Secretary, I visited several marine protected areas in 2023. I accompanied my noble friend Lord Ahmad when the United Kingdom signed the agreement in New York. I am really concerned, given that officials had shared with MPs and Peers last year that a Bill would be ready by the end of 2024. I am sure that there is sufficient agreement on both sides of the House to get this legislation through in time for the conference to which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, referred. It would be really embarrassing for the United Kingdom not to be a full member of the first UN ocean COP in June.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We meet very regularly with the port health authorities, which are of course responsible for managing any illegal imports into this country. Dover has picked up more illegal meat imports recently than at any other time, so the authorities are clearly doing an excellent job. Of course, we work very closely with them and with APHA to ensure they have what they need to manage any imports. There are issues around the mental health of farmers across many areas. It has been a struggle for them over many years, and the Government and Defra offer support in that regard.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I wish the Minister well in this situation. As Animal Health Minister, I announced to Parliament what we thought was the first case of foot and mouth in February 2001. In fact, we later found that there were already probably 78 other cases in the country. That leads me to the conclusion that you do not have a lot of time to plan or to implement when you have the first case. What contingencies have been made, and what consideration has been given to vaccination, particularly ring vaccination? We had not developed plans for that, but it could have changed the progress of the disease.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The current policy reflects our experience of responding to past outbreaks and is in line with international standards of best practice for controlling the disease. Alongside culling and immediate movement controls, we are now looking at deploying vaccination as a control option. In order to achieve that, we now have a vaccine bank for a range of foot and mouth disease stereotypes.