Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I think I will be in Stratford-on-Avon in a few weeks, and I may well be able to find time to visit the hon. Gentleman. I have a lot of rivers, and of course the sea, in my own constituency, Suffolk Coastal, which stretches from the River Orwell in the south to the Hundred river in the very north, with many rivers in between. I am very conscious of the importance of this issue to our constituents, and I am proud of the fact that beaches in Felixstowe have had excellent bathing water status pretty much since the qualification arose. I am also aware that the Denes beach in Southwold lost that status, which is why, as a local Member of Parliament, I intervened, along with Anglian Water, to clean up the treatment works in Southwold. I am delighted to say that the beach is now back to a three-star rating. There is a case for ensuring that we have targeted activity, but overall, what I expect as Secretary of State is to receive the plans for every storm overflow that I have requested from the water companies by June.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

My father is a civil and structural engineer and I have engaged with him regularly on the subject of sewage pollution, but I think that one of his more familial aphorisms is particularly important: “To fix a problem, you have to know about it.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that we now have the 90-odd per cent. knowledge of what is going on that allows us to prioritise plans is one of the Government’s key achievements?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is wise in her years, and she is absolutely right. It is a case of trying to ensure that we have the necessary information. I repeat that the process of getting the information out there began a decade ago, and the Environment Act allows us to ensure that near-real-time information is available as well.

Animals (Low Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) for her excellent championing of the Bill. Time is against us, so I will raise just two points.

First, I wish to emphasise the cruelty that the Bill seeks to prevent. As the House may know, I worked as a safari ranger—a field guide—in South Africa and Mozambique in 2008. On my time off, I visited a vineyard, only to find two cheetahs, probably drugged, in a cage, being offered to a drunken tourist to pat at 50 quid a pop. That is not their natural environment. I would not like to see that advertised in this country. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that when she responds to the debate, or when the Bill is in Committee—and I thank my hon. Friend again for allowing me to serve on the Committee. I hope we can use the Bill as an opportunity not only to criminalise advertisements that seek to exploit animals but to help educate the public about what animal distress looks like, which may enable them to make positive choices when they are abroad.

May I offer one small suggestion from my previous experience? If you see an elephant with liquid streaming down the side of its face, it will be in musth if it is a bull elephant, but if that is not the cause, it is an incredibly stressed elephant. I have seen pictures advertising elephant rides in which every single elephant has a stream of liquid running down its face because it is so frightened. I say to the Minister and to the British public: please pay attention, because if things do not look right, the animal is probably telling you that they are not.

Animal (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Angela Richardson]

It does. I will come on to talk about dolphins and other animals later in my speech.

A briefing note circulated by a number of animal welfare charities to members of the Committee highlighted 12 recurring themes in the keeping of animals in low-welfare attractions and facilities. It is prudent to bring them to the attention of the Committee to show the difference that the legislation could make. Animals are taken from the wild, which harms the animal, local wildlife populations and people. Mothers are killed, injured or harmed simply so that their infants can be captured. Breeding mothers are kept and forced to raise their young in low-welfare facilities, as opposed to in the wild. Infants are taken from their mothers far too young. There is a high mortality rate among animals that are in transit or traded.

Animals are kept in situations that are unnatural to them, including close captivity, which can be particularly harmful to long-lived species and to those accustomed to a large range in the wild. Animals are forced to perform unnatural behaviours. The use, or threat, of fear, pain, or drugs is used to control or train animals, and methods of domination are used to traumatise or subdue them. Animals are closely handled by several untrained people, and are often given no option to retreat. There is a risk of zoonotic disease transmission from animals, particularly when they are used as photo props and handled by large volumes of people. Finally, animals who are no longer used for exhibition are kept in cruel surroundings or killed before they have reach the natural end of their life. Those 12 themes paint a picture of a experiences that none of us would wish on an animal in the wild. This legislation will result in fewer animals being treated in that way by bringing about less consumer demand for experiences based on low-welfare treatment.

Let me mention some of the experiences that feature poor conditions for animals, as well as the species that the Bill could have an impact on. I will start with the Asian elephant, used as a tourist attraction for rides, particularly in south-east Asia. Animals from that precious species are brutally taken in the wild at a young age—sometimes their mothers are killed right in front of them—and then subjected to a breaking of their spirits by isolation, starvation, stabbings and beatings to make them submissive when engaged in activities with tourists.

Another experience used in tourist activities around the world is the use of animals as photo props. That can include primates, reptiles and avian life being used for selfies; and big cats, such as tigers, lions and leopards, being used in public interaction.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I would like to add to that list. I have worked as a field guide, a safari ranger, in Africa, and cheetahs are especially vulnerable. I have seen cheetahs in particularly shocking conditions—tigers, cheetahs and others. Does my hon. Friend agree that they need protecting as much as all the other big cats?

[Angela Richardson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her timely intervention. It is right to add to the list. In fact, if I went through a list, it would be a lot longer than I have time for this morning—I do not want to keep everyone in a cold Committee Room longer than is necessary. Yes, cheetahs are affected as well, as is marine life, including dolphins, which are used for feeding and swimming experiences, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley.

Many of us and our constituents will have seen such experiences advertised in the shop windows of travel agents or online, but were not aware of the animal welfare consequences. When we think about low-welfare activities abroad, we first think of the conditions of the animals, but it is important to note that there is a human impact, too. For example, research from Save the Asian Elephants has shown that at least 700 tourists and others have been killed, and more than 900 have suffered sustained injuries, such as crushed chests and internal organs, broken limbs and ribs, and serious head injuries. More widely, experiences involving big cats, marine life and reptiles carry a risk to public safety through the threat of injury and of the zoonotic transmission of disease. The Bill will improve the safety of both the animals involved in tourism abroad and the tourists themselves.

I appreciate that some will be disappointed that the legislation will not cover the whole of the United Kingdom, notably Scotland and Wales. I hope that our colleagues in the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments will be able to introduce legislation in their devolved assemblies that provides a similar framework. Today, we must focus on the first step on that journey, and put the Bill through to the next stage.

Everyone on the Committee and in the House represents a constituency where animal welfare is valued and cherished, as it is in my constituency of Guildford. The Bill will be roundly supported by our constituents. I was pleased to see, both on Second Reading and in an Adjournment debate on the subject in the House in January, that the legislation had cross-party support. There were contributions from Conservative, Labour and SNP Members. I hope that we continue in that cross-party spirit. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and Members on their further views on the Bill.

Avian Influenza Outbreak

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, a fellow Lancashire MP, for giving way. Many of the farmers in her constituency are associated with the farmers in South Ribble. I want to emphasise her point about decisions and the future of the industry. Does she agree that it would be great if the Minister could provide some certainty, not only to clarify the rules on farm access, but to keep people in the industry, because they are seriously considering their future?

[Cat Smith]

I thank my Lancashire neighbour for making that point; she is absolutely right. Farming is a difficult industry. It is not an easy way to make a living. When I speak to farming constituents, many of them tell me that they are concerned about whether their children will go into the industry. In fact, many want their children to have more secure work and an easier way to make a living. That concerns me, because this is an issue of food security. I completely agree with the hon. Lady. To echo her point, I urge the Government to take prompt action and to communicate it clearly with the farming community.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

The only distinction made in the Bill is between processes that could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding techniques and those that could not. That is where things start to get difficult. As the Labour party, scientific societies and stakeholder groups have said a number of times, that is a weak definition, which could feasibly include just about anything—that is what Professor Henderson admitted. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Ribble looks sceptical.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am not looking sceptical. You are describing nature. You are describing the fact that bits of genetic material will get swapped around in a series of different vehicles, especially in plants such as plasmids. What you are asking us to do is—

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough now. I am not proposing anything; the hon. Gentleman is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

It has to go through the regulatory framework to be defined as precision bred, to ensure that any of those precise changes are changes that could have occurred in nature, because we are describing what would happen in nature.

[Katherine Fletcher]

In nature there will be random deletions continually within the genome, so the idea of sections of DNA being taken out or added in is part of the process.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Third sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Yes, you can. The question was not directed to you—again, I am mindful of time—but of course, please do come in.

Dr Campbell: I will be very brief. I just wanted to pick up on one thing said by Mr Stevenson and one by Dr Mills. Mr Stevenson mentioned the scope of the animal welfare advisory body as it is written into the Bill, and I think he is absolutely right. It needs to be increased so that it has a more proactive function and looks at the actual process of precision breeding, not just looking at marketing authorisation applications. I know you talked before I joined the meeting about the interaction between the ASPA and this piece of legislation. I think it is going to be very important to understand that and whether the Bill is proposing to bring some genetic precision breeding out of the ASPA and into a non-ASPA realm. The advisory body will be important there.

That brings me on to the point about the international aspects of this legislation. I am very aware that one can go online now, already, and buy a genetic editing kit for frogs, including live frogs. You have to purchase it in the States—I checked this morning before I joined. We must be careful of having a system in place that carefully regulates professional scientists, but somehow allows others to undertake genetic editing of animals outside of it. That will be very important to protect animal welfare, as well.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Q I am a huge supporter of higher welfare standards for animals—it is really vital. Having lived and worked in Africa, I agree with Dr Mills that we are fortunate in the UK to value the fellow mammals that we share the planet with—we can forgive the odd chicken and not get offended. However, to my mind, the Bill is about enabling science and making sure that we can go forward and use the tools and techniques in institutes such as Roslin. I am not sure why animal welfare would need to go in the Bill if precision breeding is the same as traditional breeding and, in fact, lots of the deficits in traditional breeding techniques are what has produced some of the deleterious conditions that current stock animals find themselves in. I will start with Dr Campbell, but I would welcome anyone else coming in. Dr Campbell, in your practice as a vet, if you identify poor animal welfare, what current legislation would you be using to ensure that that was taken up and prevented? I do not see the link between a different breeding technique and animal welfare standards falling over. Do you see what I am getting at?

Dr Campbell: I think I see what you are getting at. Obviously, in normal, non-experimental areas, one would be looking either at the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or at the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. I think what is different here is the potential for off-target effects, which at the moment are not very well understood and not predictable. We need to have a mechanism for keeping a very close eye on those.

I have one more point. There is—carried over from the consultation on this Bill, I think—an idea that a mutation, effectively, that could occur in the wild is really no different from what we are trying to achieve by genetic editing. And while it is true that a mutation might occur in the wild, that does not necessarily mean that it is not a bad thing. And anyway, when we are doing the genetic editing, we are very deliberately trying to cause something at a very high incidence, and that probably would not be the incidence of the mutation in the wild. So I do think there is a difference between employing these technologies and just more general selective breeding, and so-called traditional breeding is currently ill defined in this Bill.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q There are a couple of points there. Could I just come back to the question that I asked, which was about having animal welfare standards in this Bill, because for me the Bill is about enabling science? Then I would like to ask a brief follow-up question on your point about the techniques.

[The Chair]

Be mindful that we have under three minutes left of the whole sitting.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Okay, I will ask this in one sentence. Current animal welfare standards are not in this Bill, but we have animal welfare standards—is that right?

Dr Campbell: We have animal welfare standards under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, certainly. A noticeable thing about this Bill—I think someone else mentioned the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022—is that, as I understand it, the Bill is relying on the definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act and that of course is less comprehensive than the definition in this year’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act. It does not include cephalopods or decapods, and I am unclear on why that is.

[Katherine Fletcher]

In the interests of time, perhaps we can pick this back up and explore it later. I am conscious that others want to come in, Ms McVey.

[The Chair]

Okay, with two minutes left, is it possible to get Kerry McCarthy and Andrew Bowie in?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q This will possibly have a one-word answer. We have heard quite a few witnesses say that the farm animal welfare codes are sufficient in terms of regulating some of our concerns bout welfare. This question is particularly for Professor Campbell and Mr Stevenson. Do you think they are adequate?

Peter Stevenson: No, the codes do not address breeding issues in any very clear way, other than sometimes through a broad principle to say, “Yes, be careful how you breed in order not to harm animal welfare.” We have a huge amount of legislation in this country, but just one or perhaps two provisions that deal with breeding, and they are so broadly worded that they have never had any impact on the harms done by selective breeding. To go back to Katherine Fletcher’s point, I think it is vital that there is something in this Bill to protect animal welfare, because the current legislation, as I said, has really very little on breeding, which is why we have all these problems. If this Bill is going ahead—I know it is—let us at least have some good, well-crafted animal welfare protections.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Is not the implication of that that you would be telling the scientists what to do?

[The Chair]

Sorry, but we have only 30 seconds left. Can you do a quick question, Andrew Bowie?

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Q Thank you for your time, Professor Dunwell. I am going to cough up that I have a biology undergraduate degree. Listening to some of the questions from Opposition Members, it strikes me that you are in quite an invidious position. You have to describe the messy complexity that is biology—how we evolve and how bits of DNA exist almost in their own right, and that it is humans that say that something is a species or a plant, and so on. We have to try to describe that and codify it into law in a way that allows people to have confidence that they are safe, but also allows for opportunities for scientific innovation, using fewer resources and so on.

This might not be a fair question, but has science ever got to the point where it could effectively give us a legal definition that we could use to erase some of the confusion on the Opposition Front Bench, or is biology itself too complicated?

Professor Dunwell: Biology is not physics—you cannot measure every charge of every atom. The appearance of any plant depends on not just the genes that are in it, but where you grow it.

[Katherine Fletcher]

On what gets switched on and what does not.

Professor Dunwell: Yes. The so-called genotype-environment interaction is what determines how big the weeds in your garden grow. It depends on whether they are watered, whether they have fertiliser, whether they get mildew on them and so on. The plant itself is a consequence of that interaction.

As you say, that is an extraordinarily difficult thing to put down in words to be subject to legal enforcement. I am not a lawyer; I admire the people who put our advice into this Bill. There may be bits that people can tweak, but it is the job of the lawyer to try to compose something that fits legal standards but is also compatible with the kinds of—

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q But would you say that a lawyer may look at a definition and say it is vague because the very nature of biology is vague? Is that fair? I do not want to put words in your mouth.

Professor Dunwell: I have not spoken to the drafting lawyers, but I imagine they have struggled at times with trying to pin down something that is, as you say, flexible and messy. Biology is something that perhaps does not always fit or meet strict definitions.

[Katherine Fletcher]

But is entirely natural.

Professor Dunwell: Yes.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q I want to go back to the idea of environmental release, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith talked about. To my mind, that implies something that would not have been there as part of nature. You are releasing something into the environment—a transgenic animal; a plant that has genes from different species in it that would not be there in nature. Is there anything that would come under that definition of “release” that the Bill allows?

Professor Dunwell: Taking one step back, any form of agriculture and any form of domestication and multiplication of a crop in the last 10,000 years has been to put something into the environment that was not there. In the case of maize 10,000 years ago, someone somewhere in Mexico found a unique plant with characteristics that they had never seen before, and he or she—that very bright individual—said, “This has got attributes that I can see are good and I want to keep.” That was the beginning of the agricultural system.

[Katherine Fletcher]

And she—let us make it a she—almost environmentally released it into a field.

Professor Dunwell: Yes. That is the context, and I think it is important just generally that people—well, that is me producing a sermon. That is the context in which we are now working.

[Ruth Jones]

Q I am interested in the environmental release side. Your advice to DEFRA was that “different parameters” should be applied to the environmental release of gene editing micro-organisms because of the increased risk of gene flow. Can you explain that point about gene flow? Does that mean that micro-organisms are outside the remit of the Bill?

Professor Dunwell: That is a whole other area. Science in this area has not been applied in the same way to a micro-organism. Obviously, it has been applied to animals. You talked before about asking the question about gene edited animals. One of the things I should add before I get to the other question is that the best example of that on the market at the moment is gene edited fish in Japan. There are two varieties of fish whose growth rate has been modified through gene editing, which have been on the market—I do not know whether successfully commercially, but they are one of the prime examples of that.

On micro-organisms, we hope at the next ACRE meeting—we have not had an in-person meeting since covid started—to start to explore the applications in the microbiology area. We have invited people along from outside, as we do quite regularly, for consciousness raising at a scientific level, to get the best experts to say where they see this type of technology going. Microbiology at the moment is not specifically described in here. It will develop over time because there is an increasing interest in applying different microbes—often ones that have been selected, because the soil is full of tens of thousands of microbes, and some of them are good and some are bad. Many companies now have huge collections of hundreds of thousands of microbes that they go through to try to pick ones that may have an antagonistic effect on other microbes, so they can be applied as inoculants into the soil to improve soil health.

All that is really admirable and exciting stuff. It depends, again, on our ability to identify, extract and sequence genetic information. I went to a meeting probably 20 years ago in Paris, when somebody for the first time said that their PhD student, having spent three years, had got the sequence of one bacterium. He was so proud of that student. Now, you can probably do hundreds in a day. The rate of change is orders of magnitude just in 20 years. It is in what grows out of that and how we develop the regulatory boundaries that the challenges lie.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am speaking today in full support of the Bill, precision breeding and our outstanding scientists, who are looking to this House to unlock barriers to solving many of the most important problems facing us on earth. I want to see this Bill unleash their capability and energy on those problems, and I hope to be supporting the Bill throughout the whole of its passage.

Let me explain why I stand up with this bouncy enthusiasm. To take the House back to the 1990s, when I was young and thin, I was honoured to be at the Nottingham University life sciences department doing a biology degree. If the House will bear with me, I have a little practical knowledge of DNA editing techniques, as my undergraduate paper was using transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans as a biological monitor for freshwater sediment toxicity.

[Dr Hudson]

Hear, hear!

[Katherine Fletcher]

Quite. That is a mouthful, but the key here is “transgenic”. We were putting a gene from Escherichia coli—E. coli—into an itty-bitty nematode worm, an animal, and making a cross-species C. elegans. Those little guys were effectively harnessing natural stress repair mechanisms to produce something that we could measure easily.

I was a scientist; I was fascinated by that, but it did not always sit brilliantly with me, and the mechanisms that were used to produce that transgenic environment were at best embryonic and new. It was effectively taking DNA material in vectors such as plasmid, and pebbledashing a target DNA area. We did not know where it was going to land, and we had a lot of wastage where bits of DNA were going in the wrong place. That is not what the Bill is about, and I look forward to going into that in more detail.

[Dr Hudson]

We have heard concerns that people feel that an exogenous species of DNA would be coming in. Does my hon. Friend agree that this technology is not about that? This is not about an external species coming in, and perhaps the Bill could be tightened up by clarifying that, which would appease some of people’s potential fears.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Yes. If the Bill contained a way of opening up the transgenic debate, be that in plants or animals, it would not enjoy my support.

While I have put on a lot of weight since the mid-1990s, science has also massively moved on. In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), this is a bit like comparing a 1997 diesel car with modern zero-emissions vehicles. Yes, they both have wheels, go along in a straight line and are called cars, but the two things are completely different. The British public were right to be cautious at the time, but let us explain why this is different. We now know the genome sequences of other target species and plants, and we have exact tools that are effectively like clever genetic snippers that will go along a genome and only cut in the exact place. There is confidence and science behind that point. We then insert something that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) highlighted, comes from the same species. If we have wheat that does not taste nice but is good at growing in dry conditions, why can we not give it that dry condition gene, so that it tastes nice and is nutritious and can help feed the third world? There are scientists chomping at the bit to have a go at that—I really cannot wait.

As part of my undergraduate degree I went to Rothamsted and saw the scale that has to be put in place for traditional breeding techniques—think fields and fields and fields. Variant 1 has been crossed with variant 2 in a modern way, but it then needs to be tested, because in traditional breeding techniques we basically take the whole genome, throw it up in the air and ask nature to pick one variant out of two. That means we are looking at multiple generations to try to keep the tasty wheat, as well as the dry, coarse wheat. This is a fantastic opportunity to use fewer resources while doing that research, and to use fewer resources from the environment.

Let me highlight some of the extremely exciting opportunities that I have pulled out of the literature: disease-resistant wheat that needs less pesticide, as mentioned by the Secretary of State; tomatoes with a little extra vitamin D; wheat with reduced asparagine to ensure that people are not exposed to carcinogens, especially if, like me, they cannot cook properly and always burn everything; or chickpeas with high protein levels that help those who are making an environmental choice by being vegan or vegetarian. The possibilities for health, climate, environment, farming and our planet are as endless as the natural variation within species that had Darwin so fascinated. We must do this, and I totally support the Bill.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The regulation of genetically modified foods is a devolved issue. It is important to emphasise that at the start because, as in a growing number of policy areas, the UK Government pay only lip service at best to the powers exercised in the Scottish Parliament, while at the same time running roughshod over devolution with their post-Brexit deregulatory agenda.

Although the intended scope of the Bill may be England only, it is explicit that it will have significant impacts on devolved areas. The devolved Administrations were, however, only informed of this just one day before the Bill was introduced, in a letter from the Environment Secretary encouraging them to adopt the Bill’s principles. A UK-wide approach can, of course, sometimes be desirable, but this invite creates an illusion of collaboration and choice when in fact DEFRA is acting unilaterally once again. Frankly, it smacks of contempt for our democratically elected Government.

If the Scottish Parliament refused to allow gene-edited crops to be planted in Scotland, we would still be prevented from stopping GMO products from being sold in our shops under the devolution-violating United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. This is exactly the kind of scenario the SNP warned against when the Tories forced that legislation through this place. I understand that DEFRA officials have now suggested that the Department discuss the UK Government’s plans to diverge from the common UK-wide GM regulatory regimes. Well, thanks very much, I am sure, but any discussions of that nature should have taken place prior to the introduction of the Bill so that potential policy divergence could be properly considered. The fact that they have not is deeply regrettable and unacceptable.

The SNP is committed to ensuring that Scotland operates to the highest environmental standards, and that we protect and enhance the strength of Scottish agriculture and food production. If we end up with unwanted gene-edited products in Scotland, diverging standards with the EU could cause further damage to our sales, risking damage to Scotland’s reputation for high-quality food and drink.

[Katherine Fletcher]

The way the hon. Lady is talking about gene editing implies that one can tell the difference. It brings in variant genes from the same species. It is literally scientifically impossible to identify a gene-edited product if it is done properly.

[Deidre Brock]

I accept the hon. Lady’s experience in this area, but there are many scientists who would differ from that opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I believe that this is a flawed Bill—it is not strategic, it is not clear and it does not do what it says on the tin. Ministers breezily assert that it will deliver access to wonderful new markets, while failing to acknowledge that it actually risks hindering access to our closest significant market, the EU, as we create a divergent regime for regulating genome-edited products. As we have heard, consequences for trade with Northern Ireland are being ignored. With the Scottish and Welsh Governments currently taking a different approach from that of England, the Bill is a recipe for consumer confusion and significant operational difficulties for retailers across the UK.

These big questions are critical, but in the short time that I have, I shall spell out how the Bill falls down on some core principles that render it flawed and not fit for purpose. Those principles are scientific coherence and clarity, properly defined criteria—or the lack of them—and transparency.

On coherence and clarity, in its title and text the Bill uses the phrase “precision breeding”, yet that is neither a specific technology nor a scientific discipline. It is a marketing term: a vague colloquialism for a number of recently developed genetic engineering technologies, which do not form a coherent group of methods, and do not justify being called “precise”—not when the scientific literature contains reports of genetic technologies such as genome editing creating unexpected and unwanted mutations, genetic errors, altered proteins, and extensive deletions and complex rearrangements of DNA in plants. [Interruption.] I will not give way yet.

The Government give a nod to that uncertainty with their caveat that genetic editing of animals will not take place until animal protection can be safeguarded. Engineering the DNA of animals raises major animal welfare and ethical concerns. A wealth of problems are set out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on gene-edited farm animals. As I understand it, there is nothing to prevent biotech-created disease resistance being used as a sticking-plaster for the intensive factory farming practices that are the underlying cause of disease emergence in the first place. That is why, given the current drafting, animals should be removed from the Bill’s scope, full stop.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Nature makes mistakes; that is how evolution comes about. So the mistakes that are reported in the literature are actually further evidence that such technologies effectively replicate a natural process. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As has been said, she clearly has expertise, but I am looking at the scientific evidence that has been put before me, and it is being suggested that the mistakes that can be made in this area, especially when it comes to nature, appear very different from those that are seen in nature.

I move on to the principle of properly defined criteria. Using a term that lacks any proper definition looks like an attempt to obscure the full scope of the proposed deregulation. The terms “precision breeding” and gene editing help promote a particular narrative—that the process is just a simple “cut” or “tweak”. The Government are also at pains to stress that any changes might have occurred “naturally” and do not involve the insertion of transgenes—so-called “foreign” DNA.

I have read that this is to some extent smoke and mirrors. The Bill seeks to deregulate all manner of genetic manipulations, and genome editing can sometimes involve the insertion of foreign DNA. As I understand it, the argument is that in such cases the inserted DNA gets removed before the product goes to market. That may well be the intention; but by using poorly defined criteria in the title and wording of the Bill, the Government are asking us to pass bad legislation.

Government Food Strategy

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We are monitoring the situation, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are some commercially sensitive issues around that. He talks about the potential sale of the site to alternative operators, which I know that the company is investigating. If he would like, I will offer to meet him to update him on some of those issues.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for recently meeting the little pocket of marvellousness made up of the grade 1 agricultural land and glasshouse growers in South Ribble. Banks, Tarleton and Hesketh Bank are producing some of the finest celery, turnips, tomatoes and salad leaves in the world. Glasshouse growers are often forgotten, but I note that the food strategy does not forget them and actually enhances support for them; I welcome the farming innovation fund to help to improve their productivity. I hope to speak on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill later this week, but will he assure me today that he will continue to use the flexibility that he has in the seasonal agricultural workers visa scheme to make sure that 10,000 workers are available to pull the crops out of our grade 1 agricultural land and that he will keep an eye on the situation in case it changes? My farmers rely heavily on that seasonal labour.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

New clause 12 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to control the creation and disposal of plastic waste during fishing activities in all areas of the UK’s exclusive economic zone, except for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish zones. The new clause, as with others we have proposed, has sustainability at its heart.

According to estimates from Greenpeace, 12.7 million tonnes of plastic go into our oceans every year. That is the same as a truckload of rubbish every minute. Of course, that cannot be solely attributed to the fishing industry, and clearly wider societal and environmental action is needed to tackle it in addition to the measures set out in the new clause, but plastic waste generated by fishing is a contributory factor. For example, an estimated 20% of fishing gear is lost at sea in the EU. Another example is the great Pacific garbage patch, which the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, mentioned when the Fisheries Bill was before the House in the last Parliament.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that a huge amount of the plastic in the oceans is coming from the land and running into rivers? The new clause is well intentioned, and I completely share the hon. Lady’s aim to reduce plastic in the environment, but it may create a bigger burden on an industry whose contribution is de minimis to the plastic that is floating around in the ocean.

[Stephanie Peacock]

If the hon. Lady had been listening to my speech, she would have noted that I just said that of course the fishing industry cannot be fully responsible, but it can play its part. Statistics highlighted by The Ocean Cleanup conservation group show an area of floating rubbish totalling 79,000 tonnes, most of which is abandoned fishing gear and other plastic waste. Clearly the UK is not responsible for all fishing gear lost at sea in the EU, or for plastic waste in the Pacific, but there is no reason why we should not set the standard and be world leaders in tackling plastic waste in our own waters.

We have an opportunity with the Bill and with the new clause to tackle this problem and to make an important contribution to broader efforts to protect our environment. The new clause is not radical, nor would it damage the industry or constrain or tie the Government into any particular course of action. I urge the Government to accept the new clause.