Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Water Framework Directive

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Within the constraints of the fact that this is a devolved issue, we are certainly doing that in England. I hope that I have got across to noble Lords, in responses on 7 September, 25 October, 31 October, 2 November and 14 November, my and my department’s determination and commitment to make this work. We are precisely bringing these different organisations together. Interestingly, the reason why rivers fail is, first, because of physical modification—water is impounded, there may be weirs that have to be taken away—secondly, because of pollution from agricultural and rural land, and, thirdly, because of pollution from wastewater. There are also many other reasons. We have to work across society to make sure that this is co-ordinated, that the targets we will announce in January will be effective and that the Government can be held to account on them.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister refers to the power of the Office for Environmental Protection. This week, the OEP said that the retained EU law Bill should include a provision that no legislation should be revoked without an equivalent or enhanced level of protection. Do the Government agree?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Yes.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[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.

Environmental Principles Policy Statement

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the draft environmental principles policy statement, laid before Parliament on 11 May, and the requirement in Section 17(4) of the Environment Act 2021 that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the statement will contribute to the improvement of environmental protection and sustainable development.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, the environmental principles policy statement is one of the four cornerstones of achieving the Government’s environmental ambitions enshrined in the Environment Act, alongside the long-term targets, the OEP—the independent regulator—and the environmental improvement plan, which will chart and drive progress. It is the means to put the environment at the heart of government decision-making, setting out how internationally recognised principles should be interpreted and, as importantly, showing the Government’s ambition for what its use should deliver.

I called for this debate because I have significant concerns that the draft jeopardises delivering on this potential and on the Government’s environmental ambition, which I think we all share: to leave the environment in a better state than that in which we found it. It is not just me who has those concerns. I am privileged to chair the Environment and Climate Change Committee, which had concerns, as did the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, in his place today. His committee drew this to the special attention of the House in its third report of this Session. This debate and the EPPS—I shall use the shortened form or we shall be here all afternoon—are undoubtedly worthy of the scrutiny that the Environment Act affords the opportunity for.

I am extremely grateful to the Government, first, to Minister Pow and her officials for coming before the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 9 June and for engaging with other parliamentary committees. I am also grateful to the Government for finding time for this debate today and for their commitment, despite our now being beyond the allotted time for parliamentary scrutiny, to consider the responses as they draft the final statement.

I was particularly pleased when we had our meeting with Minister Pow to hear of the steps being taken by the MoD to take forward the intentions of the principles, consistent with its role. The exclusion of certain areas of fiscal and defence policy from the duty to have regard to the EPPS was initially of extreme concern to Members of both Houses during the passage of the Environment Act. I therefore applaud the work of the MoD and Defra, which I am sure has been chivvying the MoD along, to pick this up. I say with some degree of confidence that my committee will be keen to look at the progress the departments are making in due course.

The Government have made some welcome changes in light of the consultation they undertook on the first draft, but significant concerns remain, first, about whether it provides clarity to Ministers to know how to interpret the five internationally recognised principles and in so doing achieve the Government’s ambition; and secondly, about their failure to propose any effective monitoring. In a letter to the Minister of 23 June, my committee highlighted a number of areas where we had concerns and I shall focus on a handful today.

First, what constitutes a proportionate approach in applying the principles to policy-making? There is an extremely strong case that the environment remains insufficiently weighted in the articulation of what is a proportionate response. The concern about encouraging an excessive degree of proportionality was raised in debates on the environmental principles during the passage of the Environment Bill and again by many respondents to the Government’s consultation on the first draft. It is disappointing, therefore, that this latest draft does not sufficiently address this. Indeed, it is arguable that the intent is further weakened in the draft EPPS in its definition of what constitutes a proportionate response by Ministers when considering the potential effects of a policy option. The draft says that it depends on whether

“the environmental effects of a policy … are both a) likely to occur, and b) likely to have a significant effect.”

Surely, if we want to capture the consideration of environmental effects into decision-making, the wording should be if they are “possible”, rather than likely to occur and have serious environmental consequences.

The draft is also far clearer on what policymakers should not do rather than what they should. For example, it says:

“Policymakers are not expected to carry out a ‘deep-dive’ assessment into all environmental effects … Nor are policymakers required to replicate the environmental impact assessment process”,


and goes on to allow policymakers to

“apply the policy statement in a lighter-touch way, where appropriate”.

Without any examples of what policymakers should do, the overriding impression is that the intent is to minimise the effort for policymakers to consider the environmental impacts. It is therefore imperative that the proposed toolkit of resources for government departments, to support them in implementing that duty, makes crystal clear what is required.

Therefore, although I appreciate that the interpretation and application of the environmental principles by the Minister should be appropriately balanced between the environmental, social and economic considerations, it is fair to say that I am not yet confident that the articulation of what constitutes a proportionate response in the draft statement protects environmental concerns from being consistently overridden by economic and social interests.

Secondly, my committee agreed with the OEP, which expressed in its letter from Dame Glenys Stacey to Minister Pow, on 8 June, that the interpretation of the precautionary principle creates a risk of allowing preventable environmental harm. The interpretation of the precautionary principle in the draft is different from its established use as a means to deal with uncertainty. It is usually understood to apply where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage, and where potentially damaging action or inaction should be avoided—this is the crucial bit—even if there is a lack of full scientific certainty. The draft seriously qualifies this, however, by stating that

“there must be sufficient evidence that the risk of serious or irreversible damage is plausible and real, and where choices are considered to prevent or reduce the environmental degradation … they should be cost-effective.”

This worrying reinterpretation of the precautionary principle continues in the new duty given to it to incentivise innovation. Incentivising innovation is an entirely laudable policy objective but not an integral part of the precautionary principle itself. The former is an approach to appropriately weigh up and manage the benefits and risks inherent in the latter.

To me, this reinterpretation exposes the tension in the Government over what post-Brexit Britain means. The battle rages on over whether we are to have a bonfire of regulations, moving to a US proof-of-harm approach, or our own version of the EU regulatory model, which supports environmental and social outcomes while creating a level playing field for business. We have Ministers openly and actively criticising the environmental principles, particularly the precautionary principle. It is therefore arguable that this wording is an attempt to reconcile the unreconcilable and meet the divergent aims of the respective wings of the Tory Party. I will not ask the Minister to comment on that but I ask him whether he accepts that, although promoting innovation is an entirely laudable policy objective, it is not by any stretch of the imagination an integral part of the precautionary principle itself.

Thirdly, there is not a sufficient sense of urgency in the description of the prevention principle. It sets out that it would be preferable for environmental damage to be prevented, but that does not appear to be a priority. The need for timeliness and urgency of action could be more ambitiously worded in the description of when to use the principle.

Concerns were raised during the passage of the Environment Act about the urgent need to tackle the appalling environmental and human health impacts of sewage releases into our rivers and streams. In the absence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who cannot be with us today, I contend—though not as well as he could—that there is an extremely strong case for strengthening the phrase:

“The principle is most effective when it is considered at an early stage”


by the addition of:

“Where environmental harm is already occurring, prevention should be applied without delay and as soon as possible.”


Fourthly, on the implementation and monitoring of the EPPS, clearly it is not just the statement itself that is important; the guidance, support and resources will help Ministers and departments to implement it, making clear what they should do to seize the opportunities for the environment rather than just limiting environmental damage. At the meeting with the Minister and her team, we learned that they are still discussing how to roll this out and implement it, with a team working on producing resources such as training, videos and case studies. That is a really important job—arguably as important as the statement itself—and it is critical that it does the job that we need it to do. To ensure that it does so, will the Government commit to asking the OEP to review those resources before they are finalised?

There is, in addition, a deeply worrying omission: a failure to monitor how departments are taking forward the principles and the impacts of their introduction. We all know that what is measured matters. Here I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I will be brief, given that its chair and other members are here to, I am sure, make the case far more eloquently than I ever could. It is essential that the practical implementation and effectiveness of the policy statement, and indeed the principles themselves, are properly monitored and evaluated. If there is no audit trail, it is hard to assess whether the principles or the policy statement have had any effect. Therefore, it is hard not to conclude that the Government are not sufficiently committed to ensuring that they are implemented and deliver the environmental outcomes that the Government say they want.

Getting this EPPS right really matters. The environmental situation we are in requires urgent attention; consider the health of our rivers, our depleted soils and our crashing insect populations, to name but three problems. Last month the OEP produced its first review of the Government’s plan for environmental improvement. It called for a much sharper focus, spelling out that success rests on all government departments —everyone across Whitehall—working well to deliver those goals. A strong EPPS is critical to making that a reality.

The Government really need to get on with it. Progress on implementing is slower than the urgency of the task to turn this around demands. It is unclear what the timetable is for producing a final statement and how much time is allowed for departments to prepare for the duty. It is not just Greener UK which has been championing this. The business group Aldersgate, with members including BT, Nestlé, Siemens, IKEA and Scottish Power, has been calling for rapid implementation. When do we anticipate that it will come into effect?

The EPPS could have enormous potential to deliver on the Government’s ambitions but, as it stands, it is insufficiently clear to Ministers what they need to do and it lacks a necessary audit trail. The Government need to take the chance to revise it further as it moves to a final version. Without that, it is hard to see how the Secretary of State could meet requirement of Section 17 of the Environment Act—that they are satisfied that this policy statement will

“contribute to … the improvement of environmental protection, and … sustainable development.”

I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think it was worth bringing this to the attention of the Committee. As was mentioned by the Labour Front Bench, if I had not, there would not have been any opportunity to debate it because it is a new process. It was worth while and I am grateful to all noble Lords for speaking and for what they said.

I also thank the Minister for his reply. I would particularly like to respond to his very heartfelt point that this really matters to him. We know that; I do not think anyone in this room would doubt it. His actions show that. We know him and absolutely believe that this matters to him. However, it is important for us to discuss this because, as other noble Lords have made clear, there are Ministers in the current Administration—and there may well be future Ministers—not of the same persuasion and who do not treat this as seriously. That is why the wording matters. It is one way to try to drive the environmental concern right across the heart of government. It is important to discuss this and the text matters.

I heard the Minister’s justifications and responses to a number of the comments made. I note them and will go away and reflect on them. For me, the most galling issue in the policy statement as it stands is the undesirable coupling of the precautionary principle with innovation. It is just not possible to achieve that. I asked the Minister to respond to that and he chose not to. I accept why he chose not to, but that odd coupling stands.

It is not just the text. The text is important but so are the resources. I am grateful to the Minister for expanding further on the very significant work that his department will be doing to try to drive this across government. I wish them well in that task, but the Minister did not respond to my point about whether the Government will let the OEP review that. That would give all of us and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, pointed out, the public confidence in the process. If they could see that the OEP has been part of that, that would really drive confidence, so I urge the Minister to think about putting those key resources to the OEP.

Of course, we are not just here to discuss this policy statement’s impact on driving environmental ambitions across government, important though that is. As the noble Lord said, this is a historic document. It is the first of its type in terms of process. It is really important that the House discusses this as a process. I say as a committee chair that we struggled to find the time, given the very tight turnaround in the Environment Act, which we did not spot. I hold my hands up; I am as guilty as anyone, though I was not a committee chair at that time. In no way is 21 days adequate time to enable a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny. The process as it stands in that Act is deficient, to my mind, and we need to make sure it is not deficient in future Bills.

There will be more of these policy statements in future, given that there are so many framework Bills. I cite one example: the Procurement Bill, which starts its Committee stage on Monday and to which I have drafted an amendment, was not even proposing a draft policy statement. It was proposing just going straight from the framework Bill, saying, “We will produce a policy statement about government procurement” —a business of some billions of pounds. It will go straight to a final statement for parliamentary scrutiny and the timings are again unclear. There needs to be a really serious look at the processes around these policy statements in future.

Finally, I do not need to repeat why this is important. We look forward to receiving the Government’s response, which I hear we will have in the autumn. We hope they will consider a number of the points we have made. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is one of the four cornerstones of environmental protection that this Government will use in the future. I think it is appropriate to say in this Room that if some amendments are not made, those cornerstones will be part of a house built on sand.

Motion agreed.

Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

These regulations are very clearly about releasing plants with genetic modifications which specifically could have been produced by traditional breeding, and only for non-marketing purposes. That latter point may address the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The important message is for the Government to engage more widely, but I would not want to stand in the way of the first, tentative step represented by these regulations. Like other noble Lords, I strongly support them.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, the point of regulation is to balance the benefits and any potential harms of a given process. This SI changes the regulation from a precautionary principle to an American proof of harm, a fundamental change enabled only because we have now left the European Union and are no longer subject to its positions on the precautionary principle. While we had many debates in this House on the then Agriculture Bill and the fact that the Government were maintaining the precautionary principle, we are going to have many debates where the use is very much qualified by the term “proportionate”. This is the first example where we are seeing just how proportionate everyone’s commitment to the precautionary principle is going to be. We can only worry what the Prime Minister’s promised Brexit freedoms Bill will deliver, when we see this being the first instance of what the precautionary principle actually means.

The question is whether the evidence is so overwhelming that it is right that the regulatory framework should be changed. While the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others point to benefits, of which I am sure there are some, there are also harms. The question therefore is whether the balance is right. In the justification that the Government have given in the Explanatory Memorandum, they cite only ACRE principally as the scientific body. I am not sure that I would go so far as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in questioning the motives and links of some of the people in ACRE, but it is but one body, and it is clear from the consultation itself that there is not unanimity among that scientific body.

We are signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is brought together by biological and scientific experts around the world, and they say that, with regard to synthetic biology, nations should take a precautionary approach. The Convention on Biological Diversity says we should take a precautionary approach, yet the Government are saying that we will move to the American model of proof of harm. I notice that the Minister very carefully referred to the Americans but not to the European Union. While some may claim that the Europeans are looking to move, they have not moved yet. They are still fixed on not allowing this form of gene editing and, given that our biggest agricultural market is the European Union, it raises the question of where we are actually going to market these products in the long term.

But I do not want to repeat points that have already been made. I want to make two points. The first is that there is no public mandate for this. The Explanatory Memorandum, which gives figures for how many people respond to the government consultation, makes it absolutely clear that the public are overwhelmingly opposed and businesses are overwhelmingly opposed. The Government are setting off down a track where there is no market in the UK at present—and, as I just said, our biggest agricultural trading partner, if we were to go down this route in the future, does not allow it. So, the Government have a fundamental question to answer: where is their mandate for this?

Equally, if the Government say, as I suspect the Minister will, that they will be consulting with the public on this in the future, it seems odd to me to bring forward the regulatory framework without setting out first how to consult the public. It is as important, if not more important, at this opening stage in this salvo, that the Government are committed to labelling these products, if they are going to end up on the food markets in the future. You should not set off down a track without making a firm commitment to those members of the public who do not want this technology—and, as I said, the majority of people say they do not—that you are going to label this in the future. I would hope the Minister will be able to say in summing up that the Government are committed—if they are prepared to be open to this by changing the regulation today—to labelling. So my first point is around: where is the mandate for this?

My second point is, for me, a really powerful one. In this country, we are committed to environmental justice. We are signatories to the Aarhus convention, which gives members of the public the right to challenge decisions that have gone ahead at all stages in the future. In a democracy, things happen that people do not like, and that is fine. But, in order to be able to undertake that job of challenge, members of the public have to be able to have the information about trials and initiatives. Yet, going through the SI, looking at the prescribed information, I see we are getting away from all this information that used to be provided to the public. All we are going to be asking these companies to provide is the name, address, telephone number and email address of the person with overall responsibility for the project—nothing about the locale or location.

If I was doing my gardening on my allotment—after this SI goes through, as I am sure it will—I might want to find out why some of my crops might be changing their genetic formulation. Forgive me, I did my degree in theology, so my awareness of scientific terms is limited. But the basic point is that if you want to make a challenge, you need to know where it is. Yet under this SI, in the prescribed information, members of the public are not able to know where these are taking place. That seems contrary to our commitments under the Aarhus convention and, more importantly than that, our commitment to allow people to have environmental justice.

If this Government want this to go ahead, they should at least have the decency to allow people who oppose it in the future to have the information at their disposal to make their complaints. The wording in this SI does not give me confidence that people have the right to environmental justice that I think they should have in this country. It is for that reason, principally—although other matters are important too—that this SI fails to give people environmental justice, that I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I must begin by declaring my interests as a farmer and also by saying to your Lordships that I have some knowledge of the science, in that I have a degree in agriculture. In its final comment, the Select Committee said:

“The draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they are politically or legally important and give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.


I agree with that so much. These are very important issues.

Years ago, soon after becoming a Member of your Lordships’ House, I was a member of a Select Committee chaired by that admirable chairman, the late Lord Reay. We did a study, which lasted for quite some time, on genetic modification. At the end of it, we shone a green light on continued development of the production of genetically modified crops and animals. But we also raised a very strong caveat that we had to be very careful not to go hell-bent on developing this science, because there were so many imponderables in it. The point of our committee’s report was that we ought to do everything we could to encourage the science to find out what was sensible to develop and what was dangerous to develop. One issue that I remember was over salmon, which had not been handled very well and which was dangerous. However, we acknowledged that the importance of genetic modification was something that one had to take very seriously.

Somebody made the point that I have often made, which is that, although some say that genetic modification is just a development of normal breeding, hybrid breeding and so on, it is not. Somebody—I forget who—made the point that this is the first time that we have been able as scientists to cross an elephant with an oak tree, putting it to its extremes. This is the first time that one could think of doing that, and so it is very important. Genetic modification could be crucial in dealing with some of the horrors which could lie ahead of us, of increasing world population, and of water shortage and climate change causing difficulties in food production. We are back to Malthus here. Genetic modification could become a very important tool in combating the possibilities—not the probabilities—of world starvation in the future.

I remember very well that, when I first became Minister of Agriculture, years ago in the 1980s, a very distinguished scientist told me that one of the great breakthroughs would be the possibility, through genetic engineering, of being able to amalgamate wheat with the capabilities of legume crops, which as we know extract nitrogen from the air, like clovers and other plants. The wheat itself could then extract nitrogen from the air. That was a possibility. It has not worked, but it is an example of what might have worked and might possibly work in the future. It is only science that will take us this way, and that is why these regulations are important and helpful. As my noble friend the Minister said, this encourages the scientists to develop these possibilities.

Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee Report

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, as with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, it was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and staffed by our in-House team and the special advisers. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, the committee put forward a very impressive bid to tackle this issue holistically and coherently, looking in parallel at the issues of hunger, health and sustainability to try to develop some coherent policies.

My remarks will be brief because I must apologise to the House that I have to leave shortly for a meeting. I shall not be able to listen to everybody’s speeches. Therefore, I thought your Lordships should be saved from listening to me drone on.

Like the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Krebs, I was disappointed by the Government’s response. Since the report was published and the Government published their response, there have been several initiatives by the Government in this field, notably in the obesity strategy, where some of the approaches that they look to take will have unintended consequences—but there will be time enough to discuss those when the regulations on calorie labelling come before this House shortly. Other of the Government’s initiatives are far more welcome. I am sure that few Members of this House do not look favourably on the provisions in the Environment Bill to mandate weekly collections for food waste, which is an important step forward.

However, the stock response to the report seemed very much to be, “Well, we’re waiting for the food strategy from Henry Dimbleby and we will publish a White Paper in due course.” I wish to make one suggestion in regard to that. Our recommendation 51 was:

“The Government’s White Paper … must include a definitive outline of what constitutes a sustainable diet with regards to health, social and environmental impacts. It must be accompanied with a graded … plan and communications strategy to move towards this diet.”


Choice is what we have in this country, and choice is what people should have in their diets, but I contend that it is the role of a responsible Government to give advice to individuals as consumers about what constitutes a diet that will support their health and the health of the planet. Since our report and the Government’s response were published, the Government have accepted as the sixth carbon budget the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee, outlining that they support the delivery of a target of a 78% reduction on 1990 levels by 2035.

However, the Climate Change Committee was absolutely clear that a fundamental tool to achieve that target was a 20% shift away from meat and dairy towards more plant-based diets. We have yet to see the Government’s net-zero strategy, which will show us in some detail how they intend to deliver their new, welcome target for 2035, but it is hard to see how they would achieve it without taking forward the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee on diets. Not only should they accept those recommendations but, as the committee said:

“An effective strategy to tackle awareness of the climate impacts of what we eat is an essential part of our pathway.”


That was something that our committee made absolutely clear: that, as we move forward, the Government need to communicate clearly with the public, educating them about what constitutes a sustainable and healthy diet. When the Climate Assembly was brought together to look at how we can bring people along with us on the journey towards net zero, it was very strong on the need for people to be supported, educated and communicated with about the issues of a sustainable diet. It focused particularly on the areas of education, procurement and waste.

I can hear the Minister now saying, “Oh, it’s fine. She’s saying things which are all about the national food strategy and we can just say, ‘It’s lovely to hear what the House is saying and, of course, we will reply in due course’.” I am expecting that, so why did I bother to make my one point today? I made it because, before we get to the White Paper following the national food strategy, we need to address this issue of communication.

Of course, Public Health England has been disbanded, and, by this autumn, we will have a new centre for health promotion, which will be an in-house department—part of the Department of Health and Social Care. Therefore, there is a genuine question that needs to be answered now—I hope that the Minister will respond to this in his remarks at the end—about what Defra is doing now in terms of discussing the constitution of that new body to make sure that the issues around sustainable diet will be addressed at the same time as the laudable aims for tackling the nation’s health, making sure that the resources are there, the connections are made and the remit includes the issue of sustainability so that we can make those joined-up solutions. It will be a wasted opportunity if, by the time we come to the Government’s response in their White Paper, this new body, which will have significant resources to promote public health, has been set up and it is too late to include sustainability in its remit.

Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Wine) (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2021

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for agreeing to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, yesterday to discuss this SI, which as he says is a simple one that corrects a technical omission. I thank him for his gracious mea culpa at the beginning; we all make mistakes, but it is important to acknowledge them. As Peers are always busy dealing with SIs, the fewer we have of them in future, the better.

I do not think that the omission does anything to suggest that the Government are not serious in how they treat the issue of GI schemes. I believe that they understand their value, to both consumers and the trade, in delivering benefits to both. I would like the Minister to commend the staff for spotting this error. I think there was a nine-week period during which these regulations could have been exploited so, as I say, they should be commended. During that time, there was no protection for the investment made by companies that have invested in these high-quality products. As other noble Lords have said, those are mainly from Europe, with brands such as champagne and rioja but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, says there is a growing number of English sparkling wines, which we should be and are proud of—not just in Hampshire, I would like to say, but in the neighbouring county of Surrey, where I live.

I have no wish to prolong the debate, but I ask the Minister one question. When we last debated this matter, a number of noble Lords outlined the concerns that they had around the problems that people were having in importing wine from European countries. Can the Minister update us on the situation vis-à-vis imports of European wine into the UK, given that half of all the wine that we import into this country comes from the European Union? Therefore, a problem with the amounts of importing from Europe would be a significant blow to those who enjoy drinking those products.

Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for arranging with his officials a debrief on the SIs in advance of today. That was extremely helpful. I certainly do not oppose this SI. As the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said, it is a complex task to find a system that protects both consumers and traders as we move post Brexit. However, this is the second such SI in less than two months. I am glad that the Minister has not said what a colleague of his said on the earlier one—that he was confident that these statutory instruments had been drafted to make the new system work. It is clear that this is complex and that we will need more of them. This SI recognises in a welcome way the mutual recognition of organic standards between the EU and the UK until the end of the year. As some noble Lords will know, the TCA recognises those mutual standards until the end of 2023, so we will certainly need another SI in the future, if not the near future, on that.

The bridging arrangements proposed are reasonable, as are the proposals for the new category for the Japanese rush grass. I particularly commend the remarks of my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the future arrangements for wine. However, as Baroness Parminter, of Godalming, I fear I should declare an interest, given that the Sainsbury’s food survey at the end of 2020 showed that Godalming took the title for having consumed the most wine in the whole year.

One figure that was not referred to by my noble friend Lord German about just how much wine came to the UK from the EU was the number of bottles, which puts into perspective for me the amount we are talking about. Yes, over half our wine comes from the EU, but on an annual basis that is just under a billion bottles, so how these matters are handled is significant. Given that wine importers were not previously required to have certification for coming from the EU, that could well be another cost from Brexit passed on to consumers. I certainly echo my noble friend’s comments and hope that the matter can be pursued speedily with the relevant wine association.

The issue that I want to raise that has not been touched on by noble Lords is the fact that the SI amends the regulations concerning geographic indications. Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum specifically refers—I apologise in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—to Lough Neagh eels. I learned today that, due to Brexit and the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland fishermen will not be able to sell one-fifth of their catch in Britain. In the past, it has gone to Billingsgate for sale as jellied eels, and there are issues about restocking the lough with juvenile fish, which previously came from other parts of the UK. On the SI on 30 November we discussed this, the issue of GI logos post Brexit—including four Northern Ireland products, one of which being Lough Neagh eels—the requirement to carry on using the EU logo and being under EU regulations for any implementation of the GI scheme, and the possibility of joining the UK GI scheme as well if that were wished.

The Explanatory Memorandum of the 30 November SI also mentioned Lough Neagh eels, yet there was no mention then or today of this problem being a result of Brexit and the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Given that the ban of sales with any country outside the EU has been as part of the wider conservation measures in EU legislation since 2010, I must ask the Minister why the issue was not mentioned in the debate on the previous SI or today. Given that those specific GI eels cannot be sold now in the UK, does Brexit mean that jellied eels are off the menu in Britain, or is he confident that there are adequate supplies in the rest of the UK so that the British appetite for those jellied eels can be satisfied?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We had technical difficulties of various kinds earlier with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Naseby, so I will see whether we can deal with that now. I call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. No? We do not seem to be having much luck there, so let us move on to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is vital that we support the organic industry, given that it is critical to meeting our climate and ecological challenges while producing the food we need. It is to be applauded for using fewer pesticides, reducing soil erosion, and helping us to tackle biodiversity loss. I do not oppose—in many regards, I welcome—this statutory instrument, but I query why it has been tabled with urgency and therefore without a draft instrument being laid in advance.

I query that because the SI removes the mandatory EU logo being placed on UK organic produce, yet we have agreed an equivalence of standards with the rest of Europe until the end of 2023—which I am pleased about. I understand why we might wish to remove the mandatory element, but I am not sure why it has to be so urgent. Similarly, I cannot understand why it is urgent to make this SI, given that, when we had a meeting with the Minister and his team in advance of another SI, he kindly informed us that Defra had “no plans, at present” to bring forward a logo.

It is puzzling, because the Explanatory Memorandum itself sets out no rationale for the UK to introduce its own organic logo. When the EU introduced its logo, 10 years ago, it was absolutely clear. It had a strategy to increase the percentage of organic farming in the European Union and, given that there was a plethora of organic labels, it decided to create one EU logo and promote it vociferously to consumers. Indeed, this year, I understand that the EU is hoping to introduce a new organic farm action plan with a target of 25% of agricultural land in the EU being put into organic farming by 2030. It has set aside €40 million for the promotion of organic farming. On the last day before I stopped coming into the Lords because of the lockdown, I remember standing on Godalming station facing a massive poster for the promotion of EU organic apples. Yet here in the UK, we have no strategy to increase organic farming and there is no mention in the Explanatory Memorandum of any guaranteed funding for any logo that might result from it.

Equally, we have no design, yet we know that designing logos is controversial, given that it will relate to issues of land and identity and will require the consent of the devolved Administrations. Nor is there any mention of any commitment to consult the public, yet the public are the people who must understand any resulting logo. When we had an SI recently on the three new logos for geographical indications and foods that the Government produced, they had already consulted on the logos, including with the public, and the designs are available for all of us to see on the government website. Yet in this instance, it is somehow urgent to make a requirement that people in future use a logo, but we as parliamentarians have had no guarantees on who will be consulted on a controversial issue and no sight of said logos, when we had that for the three GI protected logos which were produced recently.

Similarly, I should like the Minister to reassure me that this is not a case of putting the cart before the horse, given the Government’s welcome commitment to introduce mandatory “method of production” labelling in future. They said that proposals for consultation would come forward fairly shortly, so why insist on doing this organic logo in advance? We could well end up with logo proliferation such as we see on a young person’s Scout sleeve.

In conclusion, as I said, I do not oppose this SI, but I very much hope that the Minister will be able to commit in his remarks that no logo will be produced in the absence of a strategy to increase organic farming or without a commitment to full public consultation and guaranteed funding to promote the logo and, through it, the valuable organic farm businesses that we need to support. Without those three things, this SI will not achieve what I hope all of us in the Grand Committee want, which is an increase in the percentage of farmed land in the UK given up to organic farming.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, broadband and mobile connectivity in the countryside is clearly very important, which is why the Chancellor announced the first £1.2 billion, as I recall, of the £5 billion scheme that we wish to roll out. Clearly, this is a project of huge importance in rural areas. As the Minister for Rural Affairs, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that I am constantly in communication with DCMS about this.

The right reverend Prelate is right in using word “bureaucracy”. That is why we have wanted to simplify the BPS and, as we move forward, remove some of its most complex aspects by removing greening rules and improving arrangements for cross-border farmers, and removing the complicated rule that required farmers to claim payments on their entitlements every two years.

I understand the frustration about whether there should have been more detail but, in our quest for a less bureaucratic ELMS—a less bureaucratic arrangement —I emphasise that we must co-design these schemes with farmers so that the farmer sees it is as their scheme, not the state scheme. We want to make sure that it is not bureaucratic. The advice, support and guidance that will be available to farmers will ensure that, while there will undoubtedly always be worry, they get a helping hand rather than a heavy hand, so that they understand what schemes are available and, I hope, will apply for them and be successful.

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Statement refers to a modern approach to regulation. When will a formal timeline for farm regulatory reform be published so that taxpayers can have confidence that this new approach genuinely delivers public goods for public money?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

We want to ensure accountability and value for money; we think that the situation has been unduly draconian under previous regimes. This came up with regard to regulatory models in the health and harmony consultation and, indeed, in the Dame Glenys Stacey review. There are key improvements that we can make next year: increasing the use of warning letters instead of resorting always to penalties, introducing a greater range of more proportionate penalties for some breaches, improving inspection experience and simplifying, for instance, the cross-compliance guidance. Of course, all this is predicated on ensuring that there is value for money. We will be consulting on this so that we get the appropriate regulatory regime and can ensure that the taxpayer—and anyone else—realises that not doing the right thing has consequences. However, we think that the previous regime was not proportionate.