Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The first opposes Clause 3 standing part of the Bill, and the second is Amendment 75. I am grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for the meeting we had. The earlier amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and those in my name and others, possibly reflected the fact that the meaning of “emergency overflow” in Clause 3 is not quite as clear as it should be. This is simply an attempt to ask the Minister and, through her, the department, whether they are entirely convinced that the Bill is as clear as it might be in this regard.

I shall focus my remarks on Amendment 75. I am grateful that it has been included in this group, where it is most relevant. Doing so saves a separate debate on it at a later stage, where I felt it did not fit in. Subsection (2)(d), under the heading “meaning of ‘emergency overflow’”, concerns

“blockage of a sewer downstream of sewerage disposal works.”

That brought to mind the typical problem we encounter: fatbergs associated with restaurants and intense food production, which is very regrettable indeed. Are the Minister and the department minded to foresee an exemption from the provision for an emergency overflow and the conditions flowing therefrom? For example, such an issue is not within the power and authority of a sewerage undertaker or water company, which cannot be held responsible for fatbergs from cooking fat, wet wipes, et cetera. I welcome the fact that we have now banned wet wipes. That is a great development, but I do not know what the solution is to fatbergs entering downstream, causing these blockages and potentially leading to an emergency overflow. Does the Minister agree that it is very difficult to link that to the responsibility of a sewerage undertaker or water company, given that it really is not within their power to prevent it?

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 59 follows on very neatly from those put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It too is very much a probing amendment and is largely designed to expose an issue or problem, and to alert the proposed industry review to possible solutions. It arises from a worry that I have had for many years: that we do not really know what is going on in our rivers. A decade or so ago, I remember hearing about a farmer who reportedly said that the chance of his small river being inspected by the Environment Agency was roughly one in 200 years, and thus he was not worried about what he or others might be doing to that river. This may have been an exaggeration, but the point he was making has a ring of truth to it even now, some 10 years later.

Then, the problem was that the Environment Agency had been starved of funds and, in many respects, chained to its desk. The number of staff deployed on the actual rivers had dropped away to the point of insignificance. However, the agency has always monitored our rivers, and certainly does nowadays. Specifically, it monitors downstream of major sewage works and CSOs, but it does so on a random basis. I should say at this point that it is a very skilled job taking a water sample and ensuring that it is a true sample and not contaminated either by the sampler—disturbing the river bed, for instance—or by some very localised issue in or near that point of the river.

Let us say that, in your sampling programme, you aim to take a sample once a month where it matters. That does not sound very much, but if noble Lords think about the hundreds of rivers in England and the literally thousands of sewage works and other licensed discharge points, even that would be a mammoth task for a whole regiment of inspectors. As a result, there is probably only a one in 100 chance of any sample being taken in any river which would coincide with the sort of event we need to know about.

The science of river quality shows—I am sure we all know this—that rivers are constantly changing. We all know the Chinese proverb: you can step into the same river only once. When we get a wet weather downpour, not only do we get overflows from sewers and CSOs, which can be very damaging to the aquatic environment; we also get discharges from urban run-off, often containing severe chemical pollution, including the possibility of persistent chemicals, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her amendment. Of course, during this same wet weather incident we also get agricultural run-off and pollution, which I know, as a farmer, is as damaging as anything else to our biodiversity, particularly when it involves excess phosphate or silage effluent.

On the subject of biodiversity, I should say at this point that the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology— I declare an interest, as I am about to retire as its chair—reckons that since 1970 there has been an 83% decline in our freshwater populations, which is a pretty devastating figure.

As I say, the chances are in excess of one in 100 of any random river sample being taken immediately after one of these wet weather incidents, especially when it happens to be a night-time storm or incident, so we never really know the true condition of any of our rivers; nor can we calculate the short-term or long- term ecological consequences of all those wet weather discharges—except that there has been an 83% decline in our freshwater populations. But there is a solution: continuous monitoring using telemetry. Install a monitor in a river and it can record the state of that river every hour, or even every half hour. Before noble Lords think that hundreds of monitors reporting every half hour would provide an excessive amount of information that would overwhelm the watchers, I should say that these machines can be preset to produce an alarm only when a particular parameter is broken. In other words, you are woken up in the middle of the night only when, for example, there is a shortage of oxygen in the river or an excess of E. coli.

The real point is that we can find out more about the long-term state of our rivers from continuous monitoring in, say, two weeks than we would probably find out in many years of random sampling. But—and this is a big “but”, which is why this is very much a probing amendment—although this technology is developing fast, I am afraid it is still very expensive. The price goes up according to the number of pollutants being monitored. Each pollutant needs a different way of measuring, and each sensor, for each pollutant, can cost an average of about £10,000. If you want a machine that monitors and reports on just five key pollutants, it would currently cost about £50,000, while a machine that monitors almost everything would cost around £100,000.

That is an awful lot of money, especially if you think about our desperate need for hundreds of these machines. There is no doubt that, if we were to develop and order hundreds of them, the price would fall dramatically. I put the amendment out there largely for the new independent water review commission to consider. Bearing in mind

“The water sector needs a complete reset”,—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/24; col. 279.]


it has to ask itself what price we put on the cleanliness of our rivers and our ability to truly monitor them.

Rural Communities

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on introducing this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on his maiden speech.

There is a perception, in our towns and cities at any rate, that people in rural England lead a picture-postcard existence, but for the majority this is certainly not the case, and many struggle to live decent lives. In 2017, the Social Mobility Commission reported that social mobility and inter-generational poverty was as bad, if not worse, in rural England than in some of our most deprived urban slums. One of the reasons for this sad reality is the gross imbalance in the funding provided by government for nearly all our rural services. For example, in central government support for local government, urban areas get some 45% more per head than rural. This means that rural council tax payers pay an average of 17% more than their urban cousins —nearly £100 per head more. It also means that the services now provided in our rural shires are the bare minimum.

In education, our average rural LEAs get fewer grants per pupil than the urban LEAs. This is not fair on our rural young. Turning to health, I say that the most expensive time for anyone medically is from 65 to death. While the over-65s represent 16% of our urban population, in the countryside that figure is 24%—a big difference. In Devon, an attractive county to retire to, some 26% of the population are over 65. Why is funding for public health services in Devon some 40% lower per head than the national average? A similar nationwide discrepancy means that there are fewer than half the medical professionals per 1,000 people in rural England than urban England: 50 versus 109. That is quite a difference.

There are almost no magistrates’ courts left in rural England. To get justice in our countryside costs the individual a lot of time and money. Also, as has already been mentioned, reliable buses are pretty hard to find. Thus ordinary life in rural England— shopping, doctor’s visits or even sports for the kids—is immensely hard when your only, but vital, family car has to go to work with the breadwinner.

For me, the worst aspect of rural deprivation is that there are almost no affordable homes to be found in rural communities, either to let or certainly to buy. Rural houses sell at a huge premium. In rural Cornwall, where I live, the average house price is some 12 times the average wage. The young just have to leave. This Labour Government were right, in their election campaign, to major on this shortage of housing. I was as pleased as punch, but I hope that they actually deliver—not only in towns but, vitally, in rural communities—and maybe even create completely new rural communities.

I realise that Defra will not be able to solve any of the problems I have mentioned so far, but I sincerely hope that it is seriously engaged in rural-proofing and in driving an understanding of the difficulties of rural living in all other departments. That is the key to the future of our rural communities.

I move from the problems to my dreams. In the words of the old Mars advert, I believe that all rural communities should be places where you can work, rest and play, so we need workspace, first, to create local jobs within the community. It used to be the butcher, the baker and the candlestick-maker—and still could be—but now you can add to that the possibility of online services in almost every field known to man, including to man on the other side of the world. For that, we need fast broadband in every community and possibly a change of planning rules.

Above all, for our work, rest and play we need housing, especially affordable housing. As I have said before in this House, we need to restore council houses. After all, local authorities have lots of land available, but we have to abolish or at least amend the right to buy. My favoured amendment would mean that occupants have to live in a council house for at least 10 years, or even 12, before they can exercise their right. Above all, the money then raised has to go back to the local council to build more houses and not to the Treasury.

Given more time, I would have spoken on the huge potential for economic growth in our countryside, which we know is a priority for this Government. I just say this: a recent report said that, if our rural economy could rival the rural economies of Scandinavian countries in GVA per head, the Treasury could expect to see £9 billion to £19 billion extra revenue per annum. That is quite a lot.

If the Government want growth in our countryside, they have to provide workspace for new innovative businesses, good broadband, housing for employees, good roads and infrastructure, as well as a medical service that can cope and local authorities that are not on the point of going bankrupt.

Land Use Framework

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The Government are not currently planning to consult formally on the framework. We are not convinced that the benefits of formal consultation outweigh the burdens it could place on the many sectors involved in land management. We have engaged with relevant groups during the development of the land use framework, including other government departments, as I said, the devolved Administrations, and academics, including the Royal Society. We intend to engage more widely ahead of the framework’s publication. Most importantly, the development of the framework has also been informed by those managing land and farming. We have worked with farmer groups and investigated the decision-making processes of those farming in different landscapes across England.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has answered the questions about the involvement of other departments and about getting expertise in from the outside. The House of Lords report was adamant that this should be an ongoing process. How often do Defra and the Government envisage that this strategy should be renewed? Would it, for instance, be coincidental to the three-yearly statutory obligation on Defra to report on the self-sufficiency of UK food supplies? I would hope that we could combine the two. All the consultation that is being described is quite a big exercise. I hope that we can have a consistent body to further this process.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord and to the other members of his committee for their excellent report. He rightly points out that this is an iterative process; we are not going to do it just once to put it into a file where it will sit for ever as a rigid structure. I do not yet have the exact details as to how this process will be updated. I very much hope that this will form part of the final report when it comes from the Secretary of State shortly.

Water and Sewage Regulation (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I must first declare my interests as a farmer and chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.

Rivers are an important source of life. They host a huge range of species, both above and below the waterline—too many to list in a five-minute speech. They also have a life force of their own, having run through our landscapes for millennia. We are here today and gone tomorrow compared to these moving symbols of what should be our national pride. They are also a force for cohesion. The early Babylonian and Egyptian empires, for instance, were founded on their management of water. Even today—this is a topical point—with all the violence in Israel, there is a movement there called the Blue Peace, the theory being that the management of water is too serious an issue to be disturbed by nationalistic politics. People from all sides have indeed kept talking, whatever the extremists are up to.

I mention all that because I am trying to emphasise a point, well made in the report and by other speakers today. As a nation, we are currently failing our rivers and must now make more effort to all work together to ensure they are restored to the historic institutions they should be: places as sacred as our cathedrals, where nature and mankind should thrive together. It is obvious, as others have said, that we are currently failing to achieve that end. It is also obvious that any campaign for instant renewal of our rivers is way beyond the current resources of this nation or its water consumers, but we have to start now to turn the situation around.

First—this is a practical point—in order to make a realistically costed plan, which sorts out the essential from the merely good to have, we need a map of the detailed condition of all our rivers, from headwaters to estuaries. The only way we will achieve that is by testing all the waters on a more regular basis. Where possible, we should have remote electronic monitors up and down all our rivers. I know these monitors are costly at the moment, and slightly limited in the information they provide, but their efficiency will improve, and their price will drop if the quantity is guaranteed. I believe we need thousands of them.

Sampling by staff is an extremely skilled job and takes time. It is therefore expensive, so random sampling is rare. I have heard stories from farmers—possibly exaggerated—that the chance of their bit of river being randomly tested is less than once in 100 years. We need to know on a daily basis what is happening to our rivers so that we can decide what our financial priorities ought to be. Sampling by staff, for instance, does not happen at night, nor usually at that vital time when it is raining.

With money short and rivers below par, we need to know what our priorities should be. For example, are the phosphates too high in the night or the day, or before or after rain? Is it the nitrates or the microplastics, nanoplastics, chemicals or a lack of oxygen that is the more pressing problem in each river? You can find out more from continuous monitoring in two weeks than you will probably find after many years of random sampling. We need to know how and where to spend our money.

I will touch quickly on a couple more points. I strongly support the report’s emphasis on building up more water supplies through new reservoirs and water transfers. The less water we take out of our headwaters and iconic rivers such as chalk streams, the less will be the effects of whatever pollution is seeping into system.

Finally, we need everyone, led by the Government, to come together—it is that cohesion agenda again—to promote better behaviour by water users. Thames Water has said that 85% of the 75,000 blockages it clears annually are caused by things that should go in the bin. We all know about wet wipes, but the public also need to know about the dangers of antibiotics, medicines and other no-nos getting into the system. We need a campaign to educate the public about not using the sewage system as an alternative to rubbish collection. I can see it being quite an amusing and imaginative campaign.

It is going to take a lot of work, money and time to get our rivers right again, but that work has to start now. I thoroughly commend this report.

Land Use in England Committee Report

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Tuesday 25th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Land Use in England Committee Making the most out of England’s land (HL Paper 105).

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, it is funny—when I stand up, everyone seems to leave.

First, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner and as the chair of the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UKCEH. I thank all those involved in our report—first, those Lordships who diligently served on the committee but, above all, thanks are due to our clerk, Simon Keal, and his team, Stephen Reed and Katie Barraclough. We just asked the questions—they produced the report. Thanks are also due to our academic adviser, Alister Scott, whose advice was invaluable.

The premise of our work was the fact that since World War II our countryside has been overfocused on producing as much food as possible, almost to the exclusion of everything else. In 1939, we were only 39% self-sufficient in food, and that fact very nearly lost us the war. We all accept that we must never go there again, but we now produce some 60% of our food, and we think that is a good percentage to maintain. That can be done with the right sort of planning even if, overall, less land is being used for actual food production.

However, the demands for land use have changed considerably in recent years. Apart from food, outputs from land now include, first and crucially, biodiversity. Our record here is one of the worst in the world: we have lost nearly 50% of our biodiversity in the past 50 years; 41% of our species have declined; 26% of our mammals are at risk of extinction; and, worse, some 60% of our insects have disappeared. I say worse because insects are to me the source of all life. Although it is true that 25% of our species, such as otters, are now growing, in general it is a terrible story. In land use, action for biodiversity is definitely required.

It is quite encouraging that, from the farmers we interviewed as a committee, to the groups of farmers I have subsequently spoken to about all this, there is a real recognition, even enthusiasm, for the need to make changes. If the Government can have real clarity in their ELMS programmes—that has yet to be achieved, I fear—and then maintain that clarity and funding for the long term, it is really possible for us all to turn that situation around. However, a farmer said to me the other day, “I know how to grow wheat but I do not know how to grow skylarks”. It could have been curlews—but the point that he was making is that existing farmers—do not forget that they have an average age of 58, or maybe now 59—have almost no training in how to nurture nature. As an aside, that is an area where we need some government help or incentivisation.

The second land use is to help in the race to net zero. Growing more trees could help, and preservation of both upland and lowland peat would definitely help. But we need metrics here: how do you measure a farm’s carbon output? There are more than 50 different companies out there measuring it in as many different ways. There is a desperate need for environmental outcome metrics from government, on everything from biodiversity through soil health to net emissions, to name but a few. The corporate sector also needs guidelines in this respect. If it is going to part-fund many of these different outputs, as the Government hope, guidelines and metrics are going to be essential to ensure that shareholders and others can be satisfied that they are getting good value for their money.

Thirdly, flood relief schemes are another modern output from land which could or should be well rewarded. I see localised ELMS as the most appropriate means of delivery here, via local authorities or maybe the Environment Agency, if that were properly funded.

Fourthly, as we all know, only 10% of England is covered in forestry, the lowest amount in Europe, and we need considerably more if we are to get to net zero, help our biodiversity, increase our leisure facilities, clean our air—it is not well known that trees are a great remover of particulates—and reduce our huge timber imports. We import some 90% of our timber, at a terrifying cost of £8.5 billion per annum. I have been quite impressed with Defra’s recent focus on trees and forestry. However, most farmers are nervous about growing trees: they will lose that flexibility of land use that is the key to long-term successful land management. Also, farmers know very little about growing trees; all they know is that they will not get much income from them for a very long time. But there is land—not our best land—where a farming family, in it for the long term, could be encouraged to grow more trees, so I hope that Defra can succeed with its plans.

Fifthly, we need more renewable energy, and it cannot all be done in the North Sea, so we need onshore wind farms and solar panels—but in the right place and not on productive agricultural land. I came across an interesting statistic the other day: if we were to triple our onshore wind energy, it would mean that wind farms would then occupy only one-fifth of the land currently used for golf courses. Wind farms are now becoming attractive to communities when the promoter is prepared to offer them electricity discounts or some share of the profits, but National Grid needs to get its act together to receive the power from these multiple sources of renewable energy.

Sixthly, since Covid, the demand for land for access has risen considerably in recent years. Our physical and mental health both depend on it, particularly near town centres. That output occupied quite a bit of our report, rightly, so I shall not repeat our messages here in this short speech.

Finally and seventhly, I am afraid that we undoubtedly need more land for good housing—but, again, in the right places. I said this yesterday in a debate: I believe that the political party that can provide a solution to this desperate shortage of affordable housing, to rent or to buy, in rural England, will win much of that vote at the next election.

Our committee believes that we can satisfy all these land use demands if we get the right sort of analysis, planning and frameworks in place. This is a whole new agenda for government to get to grips with. I stress that what we are looking for is a flexible framework of flexible encouragement, and definitely not a top-down, or even a bottom-up, dictatorial approach. It is not rocket science, and to me it is obvious: the changing pressures on land mean that we need now to really plan our land use on this our very small but densely populated island. The Government have already promised 1 million acres of new forestry, 1 million acres of new habitats, and 1.8 million acres of new national parks and AONBs. I should point out that 1 million acres would take up a county the size of Kent—so we have to ask: where are all these Kents coming from, without some sort of plan?

The key to such a plan, in our view, is multifunctionality. Where you have food production, you can also have biodiversity. With conservation headlands, you get minimal reduction in yield but a massive explosion in biodiversity. Where you have energy, you can mostly have food production as well, or you can also have biodiversity. On our family farm in Somerset, our FWAG officer declared that our field array of solar panels was one of the best wildlife sites in the county. Where you have woodland, you can also have access and biodiversity—et cetera. As I say, it is not rocket science.

All this is possible, but we need to constantly monitor what we have on the ground and plan, both from the top down, through a dedicated land-use commission, in our view, and the drawing-up of a national land-use framework, producing the statistics and advising all government departments on policies and the promotion of best practice locally on the ground, but also—this is really important—it is vital that we work from the bottom up, using local authorities and in particular the new local nature recovery strategies, the LNRSs. It is a great shame that we have lost the LNRS section of ELMS, because local authorities have absolutely no money to buy these services. I get the impression, from conversations that I have had, that if, as I have said, farmers are keen on this new multifaceted agenda, county councils are also enthusiastic about maximising the outputs from all the land in their public ownership, if only to set an example to other land managers—but they do need help with the data and the metrics.

Turning to the land-use commission issue, I know that Defra is not very keen on the idea and is trying instead to work, this year, alongside other relevant departments to bring together the necessary expertise, but my point, and the point of the committee, is that this is not a one-off. This plan or framework is not a “devise, report and finish” exercise; the project will be going on from year to year. It will have to include a constant, flexible analysis of the data, different aspects of which might have to be specifically commissioned in any given year. It will have to be flexible enough to adapt over the years to changing national and international circumstances and needs. For instance, just last week the Government added a whole raft of new land uses required by their Third National Climate Adaptation Programme. It is bound to be an ever-changing framework.

The question the Government have to ask themselves is whether it is better to have a commission, or whatever we want to call it—a panel, perhaps—with a few dedicated employees and part-time board members who become experienced in these various multidepartmental fields; or whether it is better to have to work hard to convene annual one-off get-togethers of people from different departments who, each year, will be struggling to keep up with the knowledge and data requirements which require a lot of work to manage. I have to say to the Government that having a dedicated interdepartmental body—or panel, if you like—must surely be the more efficient and also the cheaper answer.

I might add, in this respect, that in New Zealand, where they have far less pressure on the use of their land than in our very crowded England, they have a national Spatial Planning Policy Unit. This SPPU reports to an executive board, made up of politicians in their case, and it creates a unifying link with regional spatial planning bodies, providing the models of best regional practice, as proposed in our report. I do hope the Government can reconsider their view on a central land-use body, panel or commission. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I must first thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, especially the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, who has contributed so much to this House. I join others in wishing him well in his retirement, although I suspect that, like most people who are born contributors, his retirement will not be retirement in the sense that a lot of people think of it. I also thank the Minister and his team for the meeting we had last week, and I thank the Minister for his concluding remarks just now.

As I hope I managed to get across in my introduction, the main point is that this subject is not business as usual in the countryside. The Government, I hope led by Defra, has to plan, manipulate and flexibly manage—I am not quite sure what the right word is—our land use going into the future. I emphasise to those noble Lords who expressed concern that we on the committee were not proposing that some large commission would take over and command not necessarily the nationalisation of land but the nationalisation of land use. That is definitely not what we were looking for. We were looking for a small panel with data-collecting and analysis ability, taking the long view, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned; definitely no dictatorial powers, either from the bottom or the top. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, you will not achieve your wanted outputs unless you have collaboration. Demanding outputs will never work, and we are very well aware of that. If you want more skylarks, you have to put up the rewards for skylarks. If you want more forestry, you put up the planting grants. You just have to analyse it and work it all out.

On both those subjects, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, training is so important. You get people involved. I was on the Glover review and I remember visiting the Cranborne Chase AONB, where there was a local scheme to encourage more plovers’ nests. I visited a farmer there and, that night, a fox had killed two of his plovers. He was in tears—he was emotionally involved in what he was trying to achieve. It is not all about the money; it is about involving the farmers. Certainly, I am aware that all the farmers I have spoken to on this subject, both before and since we produced our report, have become emotionally involved. However, they need guidance, and for Defra and the Government to help them.

Probably the most important role of our proposed panel, or commission, will be to advise Defra and other departments as to their role in maximising the numerous outputs from rural land and promulgating best practice to both landowners and local authorities. We must know what we have and know the best way to deliver what we want. Just as under the Agriculture Act the Government are duty-bound to report on our food self-sufficiency every three years, and in the same way the Environment Act requires them to report on the delivery of their environmental improvement plans, so too in my view the Government should be reporting on the state of play of the other interdepartmental outputs that I mentioned in my introduction. It should not be a smorgasbord—if that is the right word—of independent departments delivering their bits in separate silos. At the risk of mixing my metaphors, this is an orchestra and desperately in need of an independent conductor; it is a whole new ball game.

I am still of the impression that the Secretary of State at Defra—noble Lords will note that I am not including the Minister in this category—does not really get that this is not business as usual. Our proposals are to help the people of the countryside, the managers of land, to be incentivised to deliver all the various outputs of land. I admit that we did miss out on salt marshes and wetlands, and indeed on the whole subject of water we could perhaps have done a bit more. We want to see all these outputs of land delivered to the nation, particularly to the 83% who live in our towns and cities. We really want to get these outputs from our wonderful countryside.

This incentivisation needs to be bottom-up and top-down, supported by government. It needs the Government’s expertise, best practice and, above all, data, on a continuous basis. Our countryside is precious, and we must maximise all that it has to offer us. I thank all noble Lords again for their input to this debate.

Motion agreed.

Land Use Commission

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend raises really important points. In its Multifunctional Landscapes report, published this year, the Royal Society referred to the UK rather than England; of course, we have to operate within the system that we have. It bases its assumptions about the total areas required by government targets on figures that it describes in the report as “illustrative”. However, we do not want to prescribe particular uses to landowners or land managers from a national level. We would rather make sure that they have the information and guidance they require to make efficient decisions based on local knowledge. I give the example of local nature recovery strategies, which help to steer nature restoration projects to the areas where they can be most beneficial.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, in devising a continuous renewal of their land use strategy, how will the Government recruit and accommodate the necessary expertise in areas such as energy, leisure and housing—to take a few—which are outside Defra’s normal remit? How will they arrange for interdepartmental co-operation or even an interdepartmental commission or committee?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I compliment the noble Lord on his leadership of the committee that produced this excellent report. We are involved in discussions right across government, including with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The noble Lord’s crucial point about skills and expertise is completely understood. In line with the recommendations on skills from the Independent Review of Net Zero, the renewables industry is working with the Green Jobs Delivery Group to develop net-zero skills and a workforce action plan. We are definitely considering the necessary skills and expertise as we prepare the land use framework.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendments 17, 18 and 26. The Government have responded well to the concerns expressed in Committee about the number of negative procedures on some critical issues. Amendments 17 and 18 relate to Clause 11, “Application for precision bred animal marketing authorisation”, which is a key element of the Bill. Regulations under subsection (5) are moved to affirmative, and only subsection (9), which deals with regulations for precision-bred animal marketing authorisations for a relevant animal, are negative and reserved to the Secretary of State. While it would have been preferable for all that clause to be affirmative, we are pleased with this movement, as the change allows more debate on these issues in future.

I turn now to Amendments 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I have added my name—she introduced them fully, as always. The Government have been trying for a long time to introduce gene editing of plants and animals. Changing the name of this process to “precision engineering” has somewhat helped their case. At the heart of previous and current objections which have been raised over time against precision engineering is animal welfare.

Whenever a man, woman or child is to undergo a surgical or medical procedure, numerous forms have to be completed, and a consent form signed; in the case of a child, a parent or guardian signs. Animals undergoing genetic change have no such individual guardian, and they certainly cannot speak for themselves. It is therefore necessary for those of us in this Chamber to ensure that safeguards and trust are in place which will be robust. This trust is placed in the welfare advisory body. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to ethics in his comments on the first group of amendments, and the issue runs all through the Bill. The process is that the notifier applies to the Secretary of State for an authorisation in relation to an animal, and the Secretary of State then refers the application to the welfare advisory body, which in turn provides a report for the Secretary of State. Amendment 19 requires the welfare advisory body to ensure that the notifier has a record which provides the necessary reassurance that animal welfare will not be compromised in any way. Precision engineering can take place, but not at the expense of the animal’s suffering. Amendment 20 is consequential on Amendment 19.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has also spoken to her Amendment 21, which proposes a new clause. This lists some additional factors which the welfare advisory body or the Secretary of State must consider before granting a marketing authorisation. The Minister has said that he does not feel that this is necessary, but such is the interest in the Bill and the consequences which flow from it that we believe a belt-and-braces approach is necessary.

We on these Benches do not wish to interrupt the passage of the Bill, but we support all efforts to ensure that animal safety and welfare are protected. This is not the stage of the Bill at which to relate cases of experimentation on animals which have gone horribly wrong and ended with considerable suffering to the animals concerned. Animal welfare is our prime concern, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is not satisfied with it and decides to divide the House, we will support her.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, for the purposes of Report, I declare my interests: I am still involved in a family farming enterprise growing crops and rearing livestock, I chair the board of the UK Centre of Ecology & Hydrology, and I am president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers.

As the House knows, I am a very strong supporter of the Bill and everything it stands for. It is only to strengthen the Bill that I have added my name to Amendment 19 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell, because here again we touch on the same weakness in the Bill that I referred to at earlier stages—notably, the oversight of the ongoing welfare of animals and their ensuing progeny affected by these processes. As I said at Second Reading:

“To my mind, however, there is too much responsibility, certainly in the latter stages of the proposed development process, for the notifiers themselves to keep the welfare advisory body informed. It appears that the notifiers are in the driving seat.”—[Official Report, 21/11/22; col. 1218.]


These notifiers will be the ones who have probably invested millions of pounds, and almost certainly years of man-hours and academic endeavour in the process, and will therefore be very strongly motivated to ensure that the results give them some sort of positive return. I am not saying that they will necessarily falsify the evidence, although that may not be beyond the realm of possibility, but they will surely be sorely tempted to slant the results—if only for the sake of their commitment to what they see as the greater good. For instance, one person’s definition of bovine, ovine or avian distress might be another person’s idea of, say, satisfactory close family living. Therefore, it is essential that the welfare advisory body has the duty to audit and check up on these notifiers.

I know that the Government—any Government—have a priority to repel all boarders when it comes to amendments to their legislation, but I cannot see how or why they would want to tell the public that their new welfare advisory body would not have an obligation to check up on and satisfy itself that the notifier is conforming to the codes of practice set out in existing legislation. I am sure that the Government will tell us that this is not necessary—in fact, they have already done so—that there are other bodies involved, and that the notifiers already have an obligation. However, unless the welfare advisory body has a specific duty to check on and audit the notifier, it is quite possible that such persons or bodies could slip through the Met. Oh! That is not necessarily a Freudian slip—I mean “the net”, of course, but after last week’s revelations about rogue policemen I expect you can see how my mind is working. The welfare advisory body needs a specific duty spelled out in the legislation to ensure that there are no rogue notifiers.

I hope that the Government will see fit to accept this amendment, or undertake to discuss a positively worded government replacement amendment to be introduced at Third Reading, either for Amendment 19, to which I put my name, or Amendment 21, or indeed Amendment 22 in the next grouping. There has to be some give here on their part to persuade me, and I would like to think to persuade the House, that a vote on this matter of animal welfare is not necessary.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, during the proceedings on the Bill—I spoke at Second Reading—it has been clear that some people, both inside and outside the House, do not want anything to do with genetics in terms of food production, and think that its application is anathema. I understand that and I do not blame them in the least, although I do not agree with it, but I have been looking at Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and I ask her whether she thinks that the provision in proposed new subsection (3)(b) might well give an opportunity for one of those people. Its wording is about progeny being

“likely to experience … lasting harm”

resulting from “faster growth” If you take that to its logical conclusion and encourage faster growth in an animal used in the meat trade, it is fairly clear that the animal will become suitable for slaughter at an earlier stage than if it had not had the influence of genetics. If you create faster growth by the application of genetics that ends up with the animal having a shorter life, is that not lasting harm? Some people could argue that, and I ask the noble Baroness if she would like to comment on that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her thorough introduction to her two amendments, to which I am very pleased to have added my name. We strongly support what she is trying to achieve. We believe that there does need to be a reporting process for the adverse effects on the health and welfare of animals and, of course, their progeny. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talked about the importance of evidence being retained to inform future research, as did the noble Lord, Lord Trees. This is also about public benefit; we discussed public benefit a lot in Committee, and it does need to be central to the Bill.

As the noble Baroness also said, we need to understand any lessons that can be learned. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, put it very clearly and succinctly when he talked about “robust” feedback. When we look at the first tranche of animals, we need to have the confidence that the industry is acting appropriately, that the outcomes are what we would hope to see and that we can catch anything that perhaps is not what we hoped for.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked, importantly, about public confidence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. If we are to carry the public with us, the future monitoring of animal health and welfare, consequences and outcomes is really important. Understanding adverse events is therefore terribly important. The noble Lord talked about drug introductions in the veterinary field, and we should have the same principles here, I believe, if we are to carry the public with us.

It does not seem to me that this amendment is disproportionate in any way. Instead, it would bring in some really important checks and balances and underpin what the Government are trying to achieve. I urge the Minister to consider very carefully what noble Lords have said. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, she will have our support.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I repeat, again, that I am a very strong supporter of this Bill and everything it stands for. However, again, as I have said at every stage and indeed a moment ago on the previous grouping, the one weakness of the Bill is around animal welfare. Anyone reading the Hansard of the passage of this Bill through the Commons will note that it was the greatest concern of MPs too, but they failed to make even a dent in the Government’s protective carapace on this issue.

In Committee, many noble Lords from all sides of the House—myself included—put down amendments to try to minimise the possibility of any genetic change being proposed or implemented that could result in the future suffering or discomfort of, or distress to, animals or their progeny involved in the process. However, none of these amendments was put to the vote. We now have a well-thought-out amendment—or two—which precisely covers the worries that we all had and attempts to avoid them. The Government should think seriously before they reject them.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this important issue. I am grateful for the meetings that I have had with noble Lords from across the House on this and for them taking the time to share their thoughts with me and with the House on this occasion. I have found it constructive and enlightening.

We recognise that there is a need to safeguard animal welfare in the new regulatory regime; we are all united on this. That is why we are taking a step-by-step approach with regulatory changes for plants first, followed by animals. The measures in this Bill in relation to precision-bred animals will come into force, as I said before, only when safeguards for animal welfare are in place. This will include a monitoring and reporting system for the precision-bred animals once they are placed on the market.

The Bill will give us the ability to place a time-limited and proportionate duty on breeders and developers to monitor for significant health and welfare outcomes in animals that could be linked to their new traits and to report such outcomes to Defra. This monitoring and reporting system will be informed by research that we intend to carry out—which I have already spoken about—to help us identify the specific outcomes that must be reported, as well as appropriate timeframes and numbers of generations that must be monitored for each species or type of animal.

We believe that the powers in the Bill are sufficient to enable us to put this monitoring system in place. Clause 14 sets out that regulations may require the notifier, or any other person specified, to provide information to the Secretary of State about the welfare of the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny. The regulations may set requirements on the information that must be collected, and they allow the Secretary of State to apply reporting requirements in a bespoke manner. This flexibility is essential to ensure that any obligations placed on businesses are proportionate to risk—this is the key point that I hope I may be successful in getting across.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch; I thank her for introducing both this amendment and the other one in this group so eloquently. Amendment 31 makes a modest and perfectly reasonable request. As I said at Second Reading and intend to go on in boring detail about, precision breeding has the potential to be an important tool in the toolbox for creating a doubly green revolution, producing more food with less impact on the environment. If we accept that proposition, we should be in favour of taking into account the wider effects of gene editing.

I do not need to repeat what the noble Baroness said so clearly, but we know without doubt that many of the changes in agriculture that arose during the green revolution were bad for their environments. Loss of habitats, overextraction of water, water and air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, loss of soil health, loss of biodiversity—those are just a few of the adverse effects of the agricultural revolution that we have enjoyed over the past 60 years or so. Amendment 31 makes the modest request that the advisory committee should take into account these kinds of effects so that, when we create precision-bred organisms, we do not inadvertently make things worse for the environment rather than better. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 31. First, for the purposes of this Committee, I declare my interests: I am still involved in a family farming enterprise, growing crops and rearing livestock; I chair the board of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; and I am the president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers.

Amendment 31 is similar to the two amendments that I put down in a later group on animal welfare, stressing the importance of following new strains of wheat, grass and maize—in my case, cows, pigs, sheep and dogs—down through many generations on to the farm, even into the home. As has already been said, the point is that we need to watch for the good effects, hopefully, but we must also look out for the possible unintended consequences that might arise. To be honest, I would hope that this already happens because, obviously, unintended consequences were even more likely to happen in the past under the random mutations of traditional breeding; if not, such measures should certainly be introduced now. It would be good to be reassured of that by the Minister.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, gave a very good introduction to these two amendments. Several of the speakers at Second Reading referred to the benefits of gene editing to enable crops to be hardier with regard to resisting drought and flood and the ability to repel insects. It is obvious to all that climate change is having a dramatic effect on crops; in many cases, it is devastating. Unlike the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, my technical knowledge on gene editing is woefully inadequate. However, I will do my best.

Not only in England but in other countries as well, farmers are finding their crops destroyed by the forces of nature, which they are powerless to combat. In many cases, this has led to a shortage of crops to feed indigenous populations, resulting in food loss and, in some instances, the starvation of large numbers of populations. Attempting to ensure that crops are more resilient is important. However, at the same time, it is essential that the natural cycle of our wild plants is protected. Both the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act focused on the loss of biodiversity in our natural habitats in fields and hedgerows. The environmental land management schemes are intended to help biodiversity recover so that natural species of plants, birds and small animals recover to a sustainable level. However, if the gene editing of crops and plants affects ecosystems to such an extent that it alters their natural cycle, this will undoubtedly have an effect on wild flowers, which in turn will affect birds and small mammals.

This comes down to the precautionary principle and ensuring that action taken as a result of this Bill is closely monitored and does more good than harm. When moving forward with technology, which although tested is likely to move more quickly than traditional methods in the past, the prevention principle should also form a part of the equation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke eloquently at Second Reading of the last time gene editing was debated and how the debate got bogged down to such an extent that it had to be abandoned. It is not our intention on these Benches to see this happen a second time. It is time to move on, but we are looking for safeguards for the future. Without the necessary safeguards, unintended consequences could be hard to reverse. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made very powerful points in their arguments, with which I agree. I hope the Minister will be able to give the reassurances which are sought around the workings of the advisory committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 9 is in my name. I will be very brief about that, but I agree that we should be extremely cautious generally about animals at this stage. There is a lot of concern. From the example of dealing with pigs in a genome environment, I know that they are very different from some of the other mammals that we have been experimenting with. We may come to that issue later on when it comes to licensing.

With regard to Amendment 9, there is a strong case as well for limiting this to farm animals, if we go ahead at all—and if we do I would like to see equines excluded, for pretty obvious reasons. Some time ago, when I was working with an anaesthetist who was looking at equine metabolism, it was amazing how suspiciously the horse-breeding industry looked at our work—so much so that we could not share our data on their metabolism. It was very clear that we would have great difficulty with the restrictions that are proposed on that industry.

With regard to the great apes, it would be wrong to consider them in the same way as other mammals. It seems to me that these sapient creatures are so close to humans that they ought not to be included in the Bill. There are restrictions, of course, on the use of rhesus monkeys in research. I have worked with rhesus monkeys, not in Britain but in the United States. As a research worker, I always found that extremely distressing because I saw their response to even just a visit from us, when they knew we were going to do something which they thought would be unpleasant. I feel strongly that there has to be a very strong case for modifying sapient creatures, perhaps even to make them less sapient—so I propose Amendment 9 on that basis.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I realise that these are mostly probing amendments and, as ever, we await the Minister’s remarks with bated breath. But I cannot let the proposal to exclude all animals pass without comment because, like my noble friend Lord Trees, I believe that if we were to exclude all animals from the Bill, it would be an opportunity wasted to enable us to remove a lot of suffering on their behalf. My noble friend and I both mentioned the disease PRRS in pigs at Second Reading. It is a devastating disease for any herd, outdoors or indoors, organic or whatever. As a farmer, you just have to cull drastically to eliminate as much suffering as possible, and killing your herd is not a very pleasant thing to have to do. Breeding resistance to the disease is therefore a much more humane approach.

One of the great positives of the Bill is that if you alter the genes of one animal, say, to make them resistant to a particular disease, and succeed in making this a hereditary and stable characteristic—not always a given—you can get huge benefits for animals and even humans, because you will be taking more antibiotics out of our environment. Breeding resistance into future generations is so much more sensible than the ongoing use of antibiotics, medicines and even vaccines as a way to help animals live pain-free and disease-free lives.

The key to making the Bill work fairly and humanely for animals is to ensure that we continue to have the strictest monitoring and regulation every step of the way: in the laboratory and on the farm, and for plants and particularly with animals. We will obviously come to the tightening of some of these regulations later in our deliberations.

On the companion animal debate, I fear I disagree with my noble friend Lord Krebs, who I very rarely disagree with. I realise that they seem to present a slightly more unregulated environment than that of farm animals; people keeping pets are not subject to the strict regulations that exist on our farms—regulations that are, in theory, enforced by a variety of inspectors, not least those who come from the supermarkets, on which the farmers depend for their livelihoods. However, we are not debating how the pets are being kept: it is the ability of breeders to get the relevant licence and approval from the Home Office, and now from the welfare advisory body. If we had some form of guarantee that the welfare advisory body will have a remit—nay, a duty—to investigate in the home and on the farm the future quality of life of any relevant animal and its progeny, along the lines of my later amendments, I do not see it as necessary to exclude companion animals in total from this Bill.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, at the risk of appearing to be part of a Cross-Bench cabal, I would like to support the comments of my colleagues on the Cross Benches and include animals in the Bill.

This is a very minor point, but I would like to respond to the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on productivity. This is not, in my view, about ever-increasing yields of crops, the growth of animals, the yields of dairy cows or the growth of chickens, but about improving what is real productivity, which is reducing the cost per unit of production, and improving the welfare and well-being of the animals by reducing their susceptibility to disease. It is the cost of producing the unit of production that is the true measurement of productivity, not ever-increasing yields. I believe that to be able to use these techniques to do that will be of huge benefit to both the animals themselves and to those who farm them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, surely the whole point of this Bill is to speed up the process of bringing into being the plants and animals that the world really needs, as a matter of some urgency, to prevent our populations at home and abroad—I mentioned lots of examples in sub-Saharan Africa at Second Reading—starving, and to avoid further destroying our planet. We hope that our scientists will be able to make a difference sooner rather than later and show the world what can be done. We must lead on this and encourage others to follow, hopefully in the EU and sub-Saharan Africa. So why on earth should we as politicians want to delay this process? Surely that is going against everything that this Bill is trying to achieve.

It might be helpful if I gave some examples of how the whole process will work. Let us say a seed-breeding company finds and edits a variety of wheat for a trait of value—such as stronger straw that does not go flat just before harvest, or resistance to drought or Septoria. We then have its in-house testing for off-target characteristics and, above all, for the stability of the crop through the generations. I am advised that this testing takes three or four years, with three or four generations being bred. By the way, EFSA and ACRE would both be informed at a very early stage that this wheat was being bred, and they would be involved. Then you have a further two years—and two generations—of statutory testing. Then, hopefully, your new variety gets a recommended listing. You probably have another one or two years of multiplying up the seed for the farmers’ marketplace. That is six or seven years from the original genetic editing before the crop gets into the market on a commercial basis.

In animals, the same multigenerational gap exists between the original edit and the product being produced—except, in this case, each generation of cattle, for instance, will take an absolute minimum of two years, and I believe a single generation of salmon can take up to four years. So it will be a good 12 to 16 years after the actual gene editing before any such beef or salmon product reaches our plates. Breeding improvements in a species is a very long-term process, even with gene editing, so we cannot afford to wait any longer. I believe that we have to get on with it.

There will be some companies that will hold back on certain products when considering the European market, but it is not for us or Parliament to take a decision for them. If those sorts of business decisions were to be taken by parliamentary legislation—which is what we are doing now—our nation’s economic performance would really be in a pickle.

In any case, it seems to me that the EU is amazingly hypocritical about all this. Who is it that bans all GM products and yet is the second largest importer of GM products in the world? The answer is the EU, which imports 30 million tonnes of GM material every year. It is, of course, quite likely, with the snub of Brexit and the ongoing vexation of the Northern Ireland protocol, that the EU will cut up rough about this. But, as I say, I do not think that we as legislators dealing specifically now with the wording of this Bill should get involved in all that. Leave it to businesses to take their own decisions. It is interesting that Argentina, whose overall national wealth depends hugely on its ability to export agricultural products, has proved willing to adopt this technology. I think that sets us a very good example of how to balance reward versus risk.

If we are going to take a decision to proceed with this legislation, which I hope we are, please allow the many small businesses, which are waiting expectantly for this legislation to pass, to get on with their plans as soon as possible. I say small businesses because, at the moment, only really very big companies can breed seeds and breed different animals because of the time it takes. We are shortening it only by a small amount, so it is the small businesses which will benefit from this legislation. I think we ought to get on with it and not have any more delays.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, but I think the contribution that the noble Lord has just made demonstrates a fundamental difference in approach to, understanding of and belief in systems for—to use the phrase—feeding the world between him and several of us on this side of the House. I am going to take a very practical example of this because, last week, we saw reports emerge in the mainstream media of a new wheat variety called Jabal. The noble Lord spoke about our scientists finding solutions for Africa, and he spoke about leaving it to business. He said that only big companies could now develop new varieties of crops such as wheat. Jabal, which means mountain in Arabic, is a new durum wheat which is extremely tolerant to drought and heat. It was developed for climate resilience through the Crop Trust’s Wild Relatives project. It was developed between 2017 and 2021, so over a period of five years, and by working with farmers on the ground in the communities affected. It is looking to be extremely successful. There is no big business. There are some scientists—I have no doubt that there were some British scientists, but scientists from all round the world were involved in this—but it is grounded in the communities that need these crops and has been done without anyone making huge amounts of money out of it. If we are talking about feeding the world, there is a potential alternative model.

However, I am now going to come back to the detail of these amendments, starting with Amendment 16, already very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I do not really think that I need to add much to that, having attached my name to amendment, although I will note that Amendments 76 and 77, both of which appear in my name and which the noble Baroness has also kindly signed, have more or less the same intention of inserting in Clause 43 instead of earlier in the Bill. Amendment 77 looks at impacts on UK exports to the EU, as the earlier amendment did. Amendment 76 is broader and looks at exports around the world and what impacts it might have.

Amendment 78 in my name, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, have kindly signed, addresses some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. It says that regulations under this Act must particularly look at the impact on small and medium enterprises. Here, perhaps we are not thinking so much about enterprises that might be producing those so-called precision-bred organisms, but more the farmers using them and small farmers and the kind of impact we were addressing on the debate about intellectual property and the issues of market dynamics and competition which have been such an area of concern with GMOs.

Finally, I come to Amendment 75 in my name; the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also kindly signed it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, were here, she would probably be giving me lessons in the structure of Bills and exactly how a five-year review should be constructed. In her absence, I have done my best to propose that there should be a five-year review of how the Bill is working.

The debate on animals and plants provided some powerful ammunition for the discussion. The Minister acknowledged that the Bill will evolve and change according to events, but we also need to note that this is a fast-moving area of both technology and scientific understanding.

I will not go into great depth on what has been roughly described as the new biology but huge, fundamental debates within the science of biology are going on at the moment about the structure of organisms, of life and of ecosystems. In five years, the scientific framework behind this—not just the technology but scientific understanding—may well have moved on significantly. Surely a Bill this controversial, complex, difficult and technical should have a five-year review built in.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I do not suppose anyone in this House will be surprised to know that I support the Bill and everything it is trying to achieve. Some of your Lordships will remember that I moved the amendment to the Agriculture Bill that resulted in the consultation that has brought us to this point.

I declare my relevant interests. I am still loosely involved in a family farming enterprise growing crops and rearing livestock. I am also chairman of the trustees of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, where our mantra is helping people and nature thrive together. Furthermore, I co-chair the All-Party Group on Agriculture and Food for Development, whose primary purpose is to bring improved agriculture to the smallholders of the developing world, notably in sub-Saharan Africa.

It is with that latter interest in mind that I stress how crucial it is that we bring urgent help to the African lady farmers to enable them to plant improved seeds across a wide range of different crops. There is such a lot of work to be done. In Africa, we do not have time for the 20 to 25 harvests needed for the random chance mutations that traditional breeding provides. We urgently and desperately need to make multifaceted improvements to a whole of range of crops to avoid the devastating effects of climate change. Bear in mind that Africa has the world’s fastest-growing human population. Therefore, unless we act quickly, we will undoubtedly be responsible for human tragedy on a very large scale.

We have to ask ourselves: how do we breed plants that can resist the many different diseases and pests present in every country without having to put more chemicals into the environment? One of the problems in the developing world is that many farmers are only semi-literate and semi-numerate, so chemicals are often used far too liberally, sometimes to the detriment of the farmer’s health herself.

How do we breed plants for hot countries which can resist the droughts brought about by our climate change? Irrigation schemes are expensive and use valuable water. Seeds are much cheaper, so you can breed either a plant that requires less water or, more often, one that comes to harvest two or three weeks earlier, during which time its older counterpart might have shrivelled and died.

How do we breed a rice that resists the flooding of Pakistan or Bangladesh? Plants can be bred to stay alive underwater for several days or, when threatened by water, to spurt upwards to keep their heads above the flood waters. Both are being developed. How do we breed a maize that is salt-tolerant, or a cassava plant that does not have to be dried and processed within 24 hours, or a cocoa plant resistant to mildew or phytophthora? How do we produce crops less susceptible to the dreadful post-harvest losses you get in Africa? Perhaps more importantly, how do we breed crops that give children access to vital vitamins and minerals, such as zinc and iron, deficits of which can cause blindness, stunting and cognitive degeneration? We need precision breeding, without the dangers of too many off-target characteristics that are inherent in the random mutations of traditional breeding processes. We need it in both crops and animals.

Coming back to the UK, we also need our own new varieties of crops to combat our own climate change. We need new varieties that can hopefully be produced with greatly reduced, or even a total absence of, chemical applications, and which therefore can be grown in harmony with the biodiversity that we so desperately need. One of the major plusses about inserting gene resistance to pests is that it is better for biodiversity. Why is that so? It is because, unlike with chemical sprays, it does not kill the pest; it just protects the crop from the pest, which can go on thriving in conservation headlands or neighbouring habitats.

We can also, hopefully, breed new varieties which can give us the improved nutrition that so many of our population aspire to—perhaps a wheat with minimal gluten content to help coeliacs, for instance, or varieties that have a longer shelf life in our supermarkets and thus reduce the need for plastic. The advantages of such precision breeding are huge, and the disadvantages seem so much more remote than traditional breeding practices. All the projects I have mentioned are at various stages of development across the world, and in my view, are safer than the random mutations used in traditional breeding, and other forms of breeding, as other noble Lords have mentioned, such as using gamma rays and so on. For those, it can often be necessary to remove hundreds of plants with undesirable, off-target characteristics. The backcrossing in genetic breeding is quite limited, compared to normal breeding.

I turn for a moment to the gene editing of animals, because there is currently a slight weakness in the Bill in that area. First, I stress that, for the avoidance of suffering of animals, precision breeding is vital—not the cruelty that some people might think or imply. It reduces the off-target characteristics that other forms of breeding are more likely to produce, some of which might be harmful to the animal, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned. Genetically editing a salmon egg, for instance, is not cruel. Rather, if, for example, you can increase the mature salmon’s resilience to sea lice, as they are striving to do at Roslin, you will be doing both the salmon and its surrounding environment a heap of good as there will be no need for environmentally damaging treatments to remove the lice.

With mammals, you also take the egg, treat it, and then reinsert it into the mother— a process no crueller than IVF in humans. If, for instance, you thus increase resistance to PRRS in pigs, as again they are striving to do at Roslin, then you are actually reducing the enormous suffering and deaths from this appalling respiratory disease. Moreover, if you alter the genes of one animal, you should—and I agree that there is doubt about this, but the tests are going on—get hundreds or even thousands of their progeny with the same characteristics without touching them in any way. Breeding resistance to disease into future generations is much more sensible than the ongoing use of antibiotics, medicines or even vaccines as the best way to help animals live pain-free and disease-free lives.

Nevertheless, there is one point that I noted was raised in the other place, and was not, in my view, satisfactorily resolved there. The process for authorisation and licensing of new breeds of animals is, as yet, not very clear and probably not wide enough in its remit. Who or what is the animal welfare advisory body? Who is on it and how independent is it? What is its full remit?

I realise that, even before this Bill, the existing law insists that every single step of the process of holding and breeding an animal has already to be licensed, checked and inspected many, many times for even the mildest form of suffering on the part of the animal. That is all good and as it should be. As I said, that already happens and there is little need for us to reinvent the wheel. To my mind, however, there is too much responsibility, certainly in the latter stages of the proposed development process, for the notifiers themselves to keep the welfare advisory body informed. It appears that the notifiers are in the driving seat.

Clause 14 states only that regulations “may”—and, as the Minister knows, we tend not to like that word in Bills before this House—

“make provision for requiring the notifier”

to provide the Secretary of State with information about an animal’s progeny during periods prescribed by the regulations. I for one would like more clarity on those processes in the Bill.

What worries me more is who will determine whether the newly bred characteristic enhances the quality of life of the animal and its descendants on the farm. In other words, how far down the line does the welfare body’s remit extend? We do not want animals being bred, for instance, so that they can be ever more densely packed in inhumane conditions. Of course, there is nothing about precision breeding that makes this more or less likely than the traditional random breeding practices already in existence, but if we are going to make new trait developments easier, then we want to make sure that we get the right trait developments. So there is a small bit of tightening up to be done on the Bill at this point.

However, I end by repeating that I cannot endorse more strongly everything this Bill is trying to achieve. It has never been more important, as our UKCEH mantra says, for people and nature to thrive and prosper in harmony. If that is to happen, we must allow science and precision breeding to help us make it possible.

Farmers

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The Government want more trees planted, but we want the right trees planted in the right way. Many of these plantings are under the headline of environmental social governance. To me and the Government, the “S” matters as well as the “E”. If an airline—the noble Baroness used this as an example—is buying land and kicking off the farmers, that may be quite “E” in terms of what they are planting, but it is not very “S”. That is why we are taking action to make sure that private sector investment in our natural environment is done properly, with the proper social underpinning.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, given the current reluctance of farmers to alter their normal cropping to pick up on ELMS, would it not be a good idea for the Government to find a way to sponsor additional FWAG officers, and particularly to train those FWAG officers in the field? Those last three words are the important ones because it is all very well learning in a classroom, but FWAG officers are enormously trusted by farmers so the new trainees have to learn how to talk to farmers. If they could do this, it would be an excellent way of allowing farmers to see the opportunities for not only increased wildlife in the countryside but improving their bottom line.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Farming and wildlife advisory groups are incredibly valuable because the advisers are trusted interlocutors. The noble Lord is absolutely right that they need to be skilled both technically, which they can learn in the classroom, but also in understanding the practicalities of agriculture. There are a great many courses available; more so now, as we have increased the GCSE programme to accept environmental management. But he is right that there needs to be a practical element to training and I am very happy to have further conversations with him and others about this.