Natural England: Gamebird Release Licensing

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the technicalities of this Question—I congratulate my noble friend on doing three out of four—why do I get the impression from the past couple of years that Natural England seems to be opposed to any rural activity and any aspect of the rural way of life?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I disagree with my noble friend. Natural England gets a lot of attention in certain areas, but it also does a lot of work that is not properly recognised.

British Farming: Competitiveness

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the latter part of the noble Earl’s question, Great South West does tremendous work in this area. I went to the launch of its review, which is a blueprint for how the Government believe we should be delivering and supporting farming in our country. I commend the noble Earl for his work with and support for that group.

There are a large number of recommendations—57—in the Farming Profitability Review from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. We are looking at those carefully but taking some actions on a number of them already so that we can deliver practical support and certainty for farmers where we can before we publish our full response. Part of that is the new farming and food partnership board, which we have announced, that will bring together farmers, processors, retailers and the wider supply chain to drive collaboration and increase the kind of fairness that the noble Earl talked about.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My noble friend referred to the Government’s procurement plans. In my experience, I never found any government procurement plans; there were departmental procurement plans. It was impossible in particular regions to get the prisons, the schools and the hospitals to work together, because they had their own budgets and decision-making. That is still the case today, and it goes against co-ordinated effort to help British farmers.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the important things that we are doing in Defra and other departments is trying to have a better collaborative relationship with local authorities. Much of what we want to do as a Government will be delivered by local authorities so, unless we support them better, we will not be able to deliver much of what we need on the ground. Procurement is an exact example of that.

Food Allergens

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The critical thing is the last thing that the noble Lord said: safe food. It is important that we work with industry, across government and with the different campaign groups. Natasha’s law was a very important piece of legislation. We know that Owen’s law is proposed as well. We have heard about the health tsar. We know that there are other incidents, such as the recent one in Stoke-on-Trent. It is important that we move forward together to ensure that any legislation or guidance that comes forward improves things and makes people feel safe when they go out to eat.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Is it not the case that retailers, particularly the smaller ones, would be more likely to take guidance seriously if there was a mandatory requirement to list the food hygiene scores on the premises? Why is England the only one of the four countries where this is not mandatory? It does not cost a penny in public funds. They already have the labels; they ought to be required to promote them. Those who are not doing so now would then take other guidance more seriously.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a serious question. We need to ensure that the information is readily available and clear. We spent some time pulling the guidance together to address a lot of the issues that he raised while ensuring that it was accessible and flexible to businesses to ensure that they had the facilities to implement it in a way that was effective for their business. I hear the points that he made and will take them back to the department when we review the efficacy of the guidance that we have produced.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

I completely understand the desire for transparency, and that is what the register is for, but I do not think the sort of specific labelling inherent in the noble Baroness’s amendment would be valid or achievable with any degree of accuracy or certainty. Even with modern scientific techniques, it is almost impossible to distinguish between a gene-edited variety and a traditionally bred variety. Therefore, I do not believe it is necessary. I support the view taken by other countries. For example, Canada, the US and Japan do not require labelling for precision-bred products. Having said all that, I strongly support the statutory instrument.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, just said. I do not intend to repeat the technical aspects of it, but I hope I can deliver the lay man’s common-sense view of it—backed by the science, because that is what we are about.

Precision breeding is not genetic modification, whatever anyone might say. In 1998, I was the Food Safety Minister before the FSA existed, when the campaign was laid against GM foods. In fact, this technique was not available then; if it had been, we would probably not even have tried to go down the road of GM. The American population has been the sitting duck sample of GM food technology for 30 years and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever died from any of the food.

I am also quite critical of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I feel really sad about this, because its report is biased and does not take a full range of evidence. I am not going into further criticism, but I think this report deserves criticism. It is a shame, because they are normally incredibly good.

It is just as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. It has been a long time since I went to Norwich to the John Innes Centre and the other laboratories and saw the amount of time spent on traditional breeding. If you look at it fully, traditional breeding is gene editing, but they did not know that they were doing it. That is the problem: it is randomised, so they are not certain about it. But the products that come out are safe; the science says they are safe and the FSA says they are safe, and that should be good enough for most of us.

I do not hide behind organics. Anyone would think that organic farmers do not use antibiotics or medicines for their animals. They do. The idea that they are completely natural, with no scientific input at all, is absolutely preposterous.

We basically had this debate when we put the legislation through in 2023. The other place probably has not spend as long on it as this House, from the experience I have in both Houses. Most people—including me, before I went into MAFF—are completely ignorant about the breeding of plants: the technology, the randomised nature of it and the hit-and-miss view of it. The time spent on it is enormous, and is happening all the while. The fact is that breeding is taking place on a regular basis, and we do not worry about it. The products are safe. They are not labelled. That is my criticism of the report: if you cannot check that it is different, how can you label it? I would be much keener on having the methods of slaughter of animals labelled, but everybody is against that. That is more practical. In this case, if you cannot tell the difference, how can you possibly label it? It is scientifically preposterous.

I do not deny that there are scientists who take an opposite view. We had this happen 20-odd years ago, when a scientist told us that something was wrong with potatoes and GM technology. He was checking raw potatoes. I think the advice is, basically, do not eat raw potatoes because the chances are they will kill you. There is a real problem here with some odd scientists. The general scientific community—I hope I am not going to be contradicted in a moment—is generally in favour of this system. It is safe, it is an advance on the science, it helps consumers and it helps the environment. I cannot see what the problem is or the need to slow it down.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the published register. I am torn on this matter. I am a scientist by background and, as such, I have welcomed progress that has been made by science, but I believe that, with the immense impact of that progress, we have a responsibility to be extremely careful and to take steps forward only when we are absolutely certain we are doing the right thing.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took me back to the early days of devolution in 1999, when the question of GM products was very controversial and caused immense difficulty—not least across the England-Wales border, in north-east Wales and in Cheshire. These are matters that need to be thought through in advance, otherwise we could once again get ourselves in the same sort of mess as we did around that time.

In responding to this debate, can the Minister clarify where exactly the discussions with the devolved Governments have gone? The responsibility for these matters lies with them, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Minister indicated that discussions were taking place, but by putting it in those terms the implication is that they have not reached a conclusion. Should we in this House be steamrollering an order like this through when that conclusion has not been reached, and many aspects of it may not have even been discussed at all? Why are the Government bringing this before the House before concluding the procedures to which they themselves have signed up—in the context of Wales—with their own Labour Government in Cardiff, who want to have the time to discuss this and come to a conclusion?

Therefore, I welcome the fact that there is a regret amendment, because I believe that we should move down this road if that is the consensus and it is agreed that it is safe, but only when we have gone through the proper procedures. If we are not going through the proper procedures with regard to the constitutional realities in these islands, how can we be sure that we are also going through the other procedures that are vital to the consideration of the substance of these regulations? Therefore, I ask Minister to think again, at least about the timescale, until further thought has been given to this matter.

Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, suggested that there was broad support for his Motion, and I rise to broaden that support and offer the Green Party’s support for both these Motions. I have no personal interest to declare, but the Green Party declares its great concern about food security in the UK and the state of the countryside in what is one of the most nature- depleted corners of this battered planet.

The background to this issue is the CAP scheme area payments. The Green Party has always argued against them, saying that they were deeply flawed and that those with the broadest shoulders got the biggest shovels of cash, while smaller farmers and growers got little or, in too many cases, failed to qualify at all. Our countryside was trapped in a world in which the message delivered by a series of Governments was, “Get big or get out of farming and growing”. We had the Agriculture Bill, your Lordships’ debate on which I took a substantial part in. It aimed to focus on environmental improvements and, indeed, after the intervention of your Lordships’ House, acknowledged the importance of food production. The SFI was supposed to be the scheme delivering on the environmental side of that. As we have already heard at length—I shall not track back over that ground—it was literally slammed shut. Many different metaphors could apply, but that seems a good one to me.

Many farmers are now clearly in a profoundly unsustainable position financially. They are being pounded continually by the dominance of the supermarkets and multinational food companies and are being forced to produce commodities rather than getting a fair price for their products. My particular area of concern is horticulture, vegetables and fruit, which is crucial for food security and public health.

I am not sure whether anyone has referred to the National Audit Office, which said that delay in the rollout of new schemes had made it difficult for farmers to plan their businesses and created “widespread uncertainty and risk”. That is true of many areas of our society, but particularly our farmers: if there is no possibility of planning for the future, it is essentially impossible to farm.

I have one constructive point to make, and I hope that the Minister will be able to agree with me on this, or at least accept my suggestion. She may know that there is a fast-growing campaign for a basic income for farmers as a way of supporting small farmers and growers in particular to be agricultural producers. This aims to guarantee financial security; boost mental well-being and reduce stress; promote inclusivity, innovation and ecological stewardship of the land; and strengthen local food systems and public procurement. Will the Minister agree to have a look at the basic income for farmers campaign, and perhaps arrange to meet me and the campaigners?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to make a brief intervention. I have absolutely no interests to declare and I have no criticism of my noble friend the Minister or the Minister in the other place, the Member for Cambridge. In fact, in 14 years in opposition, he was the only shadow Minister who ever contacted me to ask me to talk about my experience of Defra and MAFF during the new Labour years of government. He listened, and that was fine—it was good to do, and I have no complaints about that at all.

However, I am reminded of a time when, at that Dispatch Box in about early 2002, when I was on my third ministry and the first in this House, I said that, in my experience to that date, the Treasury had

“wrecked every good idea I have come across”—[Official Report, 16/4/02; col. 837.]

in government. Obviously, the Chancellor was not very happy about that. The fact is that, three ministries later, before I left government, I was thoroughly justified. We have a classic example of this tonight. I am in favour of the CAP going; I have no problem with that—I am a remainer, but that is not the issue. I am in favour of reform of the CAP but, to wreck a good idea, it takes the Treasury. I do not hold Ministers responsible for this at all.

The fact of the matter is that you go back through the memories on this issue. The Minister talked about diversification. I can remember a very senior official saying to me when I was at Defra—I left Defra in 2008, so we are going back a little bit—that they did not really pay much attention to a particular farmer in the Lake District because he was not a full-time farmer, because he diversified into writing. That was what was said to me—it was because he was not a full-time farmer. Noble Lords are obviously aware of who I am referring to.

It is only my respect for this House and our procedures that prevents me walking out, because I have not the slightest intention of voting to support these regulations. I understand the rules about fatal amendments, but the Government would have to pick it up and do it again—that is the reality. We have the power, but we do not use it; as a senior Cross-Bencher said recently, powers you do not use, you lose, so there will come a time when we do not have that. I do not intend to vote to support this, so I will do exactly what my friend from the gym, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said and I will abstain on both amendments. I will not hang around during the votes; I shall go.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I add my name to those regretting these reckless regulations. I am particularly saddened, because they are just one element of a multipronged attack on our farmers, the supply trades and the entire food chain in one of the most important industries and sectors in our economy. I declare my interest in that I am involved in farming, but more particularly in the agricultural supply trade in the fertiliser industry. I therefore know more than most the damage and the harm that the Government are doing to those people who live in the sticks.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; he said that he does not have an interest, but we all have an interest in the food industry. We have to eat every day, and food in your belly is more important than a roof over your head. The truth is that these regulations are harming a sector that needs finance in order to be sustained, to invest to grow. I do not know what rural Britain has done to deserve this metropolitan-based Government, who have turned an understandable and instinctive indifference into outright hostility. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I do not blame the Minister, because the fault lies elsewhere. She has always been most courteous and honourable and she acts with integrity in this House, which we thank her for.

The truth, however, is that this Government must be held to account because their actions are harming today’s farming profitability, which drives tomorrow’s corporation tax revenues. They are damaging the long-term capital underpinning of the industry, which harms investment, innovation and growth. This is collapsing the cash flow, that financial lifeblood that makes it all happen. I will speak to each of those three elements in turn.

On profitability, it is a shame that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, who is meant to be leading a review for the Government, is not in her place. She would have told us, had she been here, that farmers are already under terrible, tremendous financial pressure, caught in that pincer movement between low grain prices and elevated input costs. Tighter margins are pressured by the national insurance rises, and now there are these inexplicable plans to persevere with a fertiliser tax that could add a quarter to the cost of the most expensive input, flipping even breakeven businesses over to loss.

On the balance sheet, the effect of the agricultural property relief element of the inheritance tax has been well ventilated. I will not dwell too much on that now, save to say that it is the effect on the business property relief—slightly different—that particularly harms the self-starting, innovative and entrepreneurial tenant farmers, who live by their wits because they did not have the good fortune to inherit the land, free of charge, upon which they make their living. The effect of all these in combination is to remove the long-term generational incentives to invest in the farm, develop the countryside and the landscape, protect nature and, yes, in so doing sustain wealth in our islands, particularly in the shires, where, let us not forget, 90% of businesses employ 10 people or fewer.

I have heard the argument that the IHT can take 10 years to pay, but those annual instalments over 10 years would be more than would be paid by the rent. It is just cloud-cuckoo-land.

Landed estates, for the most part, have already incorporated, in one form or another, or transferred to trusts, so once again those farmers left behind are the smaller farmers. Totally contrary to what Minister said, with these effects Labour is targeting the little guys, the sole traders, the family partnerships, particularly in the less favoured areas, while allowing those larger, more corporate farmers—the ones she says have the broadest shoulders—off the hook.

It is the summary cancellation of slurry lagoon grants that, more than anything, could help solve the problem of river pollution. It is the cancellation of those twin cabs on pickup vehicles. Let us be clear, these pickups are tools of trades. They are as good as a tractor. They are the sort of thing that a man in a factory would have as a crucial part of the plant and machinery involved in the business. It is really a spiteful misunderstanding of how investment in plant and machinery works.

All of these contribute to this £80,000 a year profit cap on aspiration, which is the number that, through EBITDA, gets you to the million quid, at which APR and BPR kick in. If we stop that aspiration, how are we going to grow an economy? This is what is happening, so, yes, I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said: this is the Treasury holding the economy down and not letting it flourish.

As for cash flow, since we have mentioned these delinked payments, I want to put a number on this; I do not know why the number is what it is, but I have it in front of me. A specimen 680 hectare farm that would have received £160,000 in 2020 will receive just £7,200 this year, over and above all those other financial headwinds that I have mentioned. A black zero is the best that many farmers can now expect. How does that help everyone? It is particularly important because, although I do not want to dwell too much and repeat the points my noble friend Lord Roborough made from the Front Bench, there was that interplay between the delinked payments and the SFI, and by taking one away the contract between the Government, Defra, farming and the food industry, as well as the supply trades, has been broken. That has a knock-on for machinery dealers, contractors, auction marts, professionals and those family businesses disproportionately affected in the countryside.

In summary, no wonder people living outside the M25 and the conurbations think they are under attack from the cumulative effects of all these proposals in a concerted war on the countryside. The effect is also, astonishingly, to undermine the Government’s environmental objectives, because the effect of all of this is that if land is put under the plough, it must be pushed as hard as possible to get a return. I suppose that leaves more land not ploughed, for other environmental schemes. In essence, it proves that Labour does not understand the countryside, but I tell you, the countryside now understands Labour. The industry that, more than any other, meets the most basic human need—food in your belly—is being made unviable, and rural communities are paying the price.

Clothing Sales: Sustainability

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are certainly having ongoing engagement with the industry to try to reduce the amount of plastics. Of course, there is sometimes a trade-off with plastics when you are trying to get more durable garments that are not disposed of so quickly, but the UK water industry research project, which was done by the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, reported in April last year that wastewater treatment plants remove 99% of microplastics by number and 99.5% by mass. We are looking at what France is proposing, which is a mandatory filter in washing machines, and that may be a direction down which we will go.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talked of a variety of sources. Could he Minister tell us how much cotton has come to us in the last 18 months in products grown in Xinjiang? This cotton is grown by slave labour and can be checked out by the technical element analysis system pioneered by Oritain, rather than by paper trails. Cotton products can be checked to see where the cotton was grown, and the Government have consistently promised they will check on the sources of cotton. What have the Government actually done about it in the last 18 months?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Our anti-slavery legislation went a long way towards requiring companies to develop robust information on their supply chains. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise answer about the amount of cotton that has come from that area, or how many of the workers involved were or were not—by our standards—properly employed. However, it is a very serious issue. The consumer can create a great demand on retailers and retailers can have a great effect. The Government must play their part, though. Domestically, we have 62% of clothing retailers signed up to our voluntary agreement, which goes precisely to the point the noble Lord makes. That means there are still some that are not, but we will continue to make sure that we have full transparency within the supply chain.

Disposable and Reusable Nappies

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I think we all want a deposit return scheme, which is a very important way of recycling more products, but the coalition between the Greens and the Scottish National Party has created a disaster zone and has actually put the whole thing back. I think we are now on track to have a scheme that will be a UK-wide common standard for similar products, which has long been needed. That will be better for Scotland, the United Kingdom and the environment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us the estimated cotton content of the various nappies? If there is a figure, who has done the checking to make sure that none of that cotton comes from Xinjiang in China?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord will not be surprised that I do not know that figure. I know that the impact of carbon on the environment has dropped considerably since the last life cycle assessment in 2008. That is welcome and we want to see more of it, but we also want to make sure that all our policies on plastics are feeding through to this area of waste management, and that we are tackling the issue of where the products come from, which is entirely right.

Farm Animal Welfare

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend. She is not taking issue with me; she is pushing at an open door. This is a manifesto commitment and in our animal welfare action plan, and we want to do it.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Given that the hundreds of millions of food production animals that we eat have to be slaughtered first, should not the public be entitled to know what the method of slaughter is?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We have a very clear set of guidelines, which we have improved in recent years, such as by putting CCTV cameras in slaughterhouses. As the noble Lord will know, the Food Standards Agency oversees this and requires vets to be present. I think his point relates to pre-stun slaughter, and that is an ongoing discussion. We want to work with those groups that want a particular type of slaughter, while recognising that there is a very strong view out there about our knowledge and understanding of what an animal senses in those final moments of its life. We want to make sure that our WATOK rules, as they are called, are absolutely up to date, and I shall continue to keep him informed of this.

Water Companies: Licences

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend raises a key point. The Government give direction to the regulators of utilities such as water companies, and we have given very clear direction, which has been manifest in the latest Ofwat demand that water companies tackle this. It is not the only regulator. As I said earlier, the Environment Agency has huge powers and will levy fines and make sure that water companies that fail are taken into account. Of course, Ofwat also has to balance the importance of the pressure of bills on households with an increasing level of investment in tackling these issues. It is a constant balancing issue and one that I hope we are getting right.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Can the Minister please explain how competition in the water industry is of direct benefit to the public?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

It allows us to make comparisons between good and bad performers and to ensure that they are able to operate in the open market and borrow on the capital markets in a regulated way. Dividends are really important because they pay for investment, and very often they are paid to pension companies that invest in these companies. The average dividend is around 3.8%, which is not massive, but we want to make sure we get that balance right. Competition is also in the customers’ interest. Evidence shows that if it had not been for the kind of competition that we have created in the water industry, there would be higher bills for households and less money spent on infrastructure.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th December 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

42: Clause 17, page 11, line 35, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure the Secretary of State is required to make regulations in line with similar provision on risk assessments in section 108 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will again use the 19th report of the Delegated Powers Committee. Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 relate to Amendment 42.

Clause 17 concerns the power to

“make provision for requiring a person to carry out an environmental risk assessment before they import or otherwise acquire”

a precision-bred organism. Clause 17(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make a negative procedure regulation that requires those who wish to import or otherwise to carry out an environmental risk assessment of damage to the environment as a result of importing. Paragraph 16 of the committee’s report makes clear that the delegated powers memorandum provided by the Government said that this power

“allows the Secretary of State to make equivalent provision for such environmental risk assessments as is currently provided for under section 108(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in respect of the import or acquisition of genetically modified organisms”.

Paragraph 17 then says:

“However, section 108(1) of the 1990 Act imposes on those who wish to import or acquire genetically modified organisms a requirement to carry out an environmental risk assessment.”


The previous paragraph said that it makes equivalent provision. It does not, because the provision in Section 108 is a requirement to carry out an environmental risk assessment. Clause 17 gives Ministers the discretion on whether to make the regulations that require an assessment to be carried out. There is no explanation in the memorandum for this, so it is not correct, as the memorandum given to the committee said, that it makes equivalent provision—it does no such thing.

The other two amendments in this group, Amendments 65 and 66, relate to Clause 32, on the power to make regulations that provide for enforcement measures in relation to failures to comply with requirements under Parts 2 and 3. Clause 32(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that provide for a “compliance notice”, a “stop notice” or a “monetary penalty notice”. However, as the committee says at paragraph 41:

“We are surprised that clause 32(1) does not require the Secretary of State to make regulations that provide for such enforcement measures but … leaves it to the Secretary of State’s discretion.”


Again, the memorandum supplies no information or explanation for this. It is left to Ministers whether to enforce the provisions. That cannot be right. In a previous paragraph the memorandum said that it is the “equivalent provision”. It is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to speak immediately before the Minister, but I am rather moved by a nostalgic memory of times past when I was sitting on the Bench opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was sitting here as Minister for Agriculture. I wonder whether he is also aware that occasionally we had arguments over “may” or “must”. It is very nostalgic to be talking about “may” or “must” because it occurs in almost every argument about a Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was advised when dealing with a Bill written by the same parliamentary counsel whom he is now chiding about being unsuitably impartial to the needs of Parliament. Of course, all legislation has to start somewhere, and the parliamentary counsel starts where we want to end up. So I listened to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with a great deal of amusement and a certain amount of the nostalgia for the past, but I hope we can get past these things. This is a really good piece of legislation hoping to achieve a really important development in agricultural technology.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

The difference is that, when I came into this House, I went to the Home Office. I had four departments, and two of them specifically said to me when I joined them, “Minister, we generally accept the conclusions and recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee.” I was told that that was the policy of the Government. I know we might have had the odd argument about “may” and “must”, but the policy has completely and utterly changed since 2010.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I think “must” is clearly in line with every other sort of legislation in this respect. Indeed, with regard to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, there have been occasions where people have been inspected on a standard inspection and have had their licence removed in consequence because they have not been providing the basic information that is required in the Bill. It is as simple as that. I do not think there should be an argument about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says and will reflect on it. This comes under a number of issues which I would like to engage noble Lords on before Report to see whether any changes are necessary. I would certainly be happy to have further discussions with him.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 42 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for allowing me to ask a brief question. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked an important question about resources for the Food Standards Agency. The noble Lord and I are both former chairs, so we know a bit about how it operates. I will add a little twist to the question. If the FSA will not be given additional resources to fulfil these duties which we envisage in relation to this Bill, can the Minister tell us which activities the FSA will have to stop to re-divert resources for precision breeding?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I thoroughly endorse that question. This is probably not the night to go into that area, but the fact of the matter is that, to the best of my knowledge, the meat industry remains subsidised by the taxpayer. We have never got full cost recovery. It is a huge industry—£6 billion—so we are not talking about a few little abattoirs. The industry has been subsidised for years, with a free management service provided by the Food Standards Agency. However, that is not my purpose.

Regarding the clause stand part notices in this group, it is always good to be learning new things: I did not know that you could not put an amendment down to take out a part of the Bill—it is not something that I had ever tried to do in the past—but you cannot do it, so you need to list the clauses. The reason for doing so is given in the19th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, paragraph 30 of which suggests that Part 3 of the Bill is quite unusual because it

“provides for the regulation of food and feed produced from PBOs. It consists of skeleton clauses: the provision on the face of the Bill is so insubstantial that the real operation of Part 3 would be entirely by the regulations made under it.”

I will not go through the whole report at this time of night—there is no need—but I will highlight a couple of paragraphs from the committee’s report. The memorandum supplied by the department is referred to, which justified these clauses which are so insubstantial. Paragraph 35 of the committee’s report says:

“We find these justifications far from convincing.”


It points out that the Guidance for Departments on the Role and Requirements of the Committee states:

“Skeleton legislation should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances. Where the government decide that such exceptional circumstances apply, the delegated powers memorandum should make an explicit declaration (‘a skeleton legislation declaration’) that the bill is a skeleton bill or clauses within a bill are skeleton clauses. Such a declaration should be accompanied by a full justification for adopting that approach, including why no other approach was reasonable to adopt and how the scope of the skeleton provision is constrained.”


That is paragraph 9 of the guidance to departments—something that Defra has clearly decided to ignore in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords and I will start by answering some of the points that were raised. First, I make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords—I think we are all interested in this—that the precautionary principle is at the heart of the Environment Act and our desire to reverse the decline in biodiversity and the tragic loss of species, with no net loss by 2030, and our provisions in the 25-year environment plan. I am not sure that the precautionary principle in recent decades has been particularly well used in relation to what it was originally defined as, and we want to get back to making sure that we are committed to a proportionate, science- based regulation that protects people, animals and the environment.

On the question of the Food Standards Agency and its resourcing, I have had regular meetings with the chair of the FSA and other senior officials as we have progressed this Bill through both Houses, and I have been assured that precision breeding will remain an important area of work now and in future and, as such, the need to meet continuing resource requirements to support that work will be taken fully into account in future spending review bids.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised about a skeleton Bill, I fear that I may excite him again, but I shall say what I believe to be the case. The delegated powers are quite specific and technical in how they are intended to be used, so I would say that this is not a skeleton Bill. It has powers to supplement the principal policy measures that are set out in the Bill. I have some experience in the other place, and in my short time here, of legislation and how it can be Christmas-treed by MPs and others. I want to make sure that this is a precise piece of legislation, with as much in the Bill as can be, and that the powers that lie within it are technical and administrative.

I turn, first, to Amendment 57. As it stands, the Bill grants the necessary power to put in place a new regulatory framework for food and feed produced from precision-bred plants and animals. This will allow the FSA to continue to ensure that the food that we eat is food that we can trust. Until this new regulatory framework is in place, food and feed produced from precision-bred plants and animals will continue to be regulated under the regulatory regime for GM food and feed. So I can assure noble Lords there would not be a regulatory gap in relation to these products as a result of this Bill.

The FSA has published key papers over the past few months, giving details of its proposals on how food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms will be regulated. Noble Lords will also be aware of the support from the FSA board for this Bill and the letters we have received from the chair of the FSA board on this matter. The FSA has commissioned independent scientific advice from the Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes, the FSA’s independent scientific advisory committee, to determine the appropriate means of regulating precision-bred food and feed to ensure that measures are in place to safeguard consumers’ safety in relation to food that they eat. The advice will recommend the criteria for determining how food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms will be assessed. In addition, scientific advice will be provided on the technical information that developers will need to provide to enable assessment under the new framework by the FSA. The Bill should not pre-empt this advice or unduly restrict our ability to implement the most suitable regulatory framework for these products.

Regulations setting up the regime developed by the FSA will also be subject to the affirmative procedure and would therefore need to be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. The FSA is committed to food safety and to developing a system that would be put in place by the Secretary of State, using these powers in a proportionate way that both supports innovation and protects consumers. This will deliver a proportionate regulatory framework.

I turn to Amendment 58 and reassure noble Lords that there are already well-established provisions in existing general food law that secure the traceability of all food and feed throughout the supply chain and assist with its recall or withdrawal from the market when it may be proved unsafe. Businesses producing or marketing food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms will need to comply with this existing law. The Bill gives Ministers the option to impose, by regulations, specific requirements to enhance traceability of food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms beyond existing traceability requirements. This provides flexibility to make adjustments to meet any future needs that are not covered by general food law. The FSA will advise Ministers in this regard and ensure that proposals are subject to a public consultation before any such measures are implemented.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for Amendment 59. The primary policy objective of the Bill is to ensure that plants and animals developed using precision breeding, and food and feed produced from them, are regulated proportionately to risk. To do this, the Bill and the regulations to be made under it would remove precision-bred plants and animals, and food and feed produced from them, from the regulatory requirements applicable to genetically modified organisms. However, I take on board the noble Baroness’s concerns around thorough risk assessment and reassure her that any risk-assessment framework will be based on robust scientific advice provided by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

The provisions in Part 3 of the Bill will allow the FSA to design a framework that adequately responds to the risk profile of precision-bred organisms and provide consumers with food they can trust, based on independent scientific advice. Detailed proposals for the future framework will be subject to full public consultation, as is required under food law, and the detailed scrutiny of Parliament through the affirmative process.

I turn now to the additional amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—Amendment 60. Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the FSA has expanded the expertise of its independent scientific advisory committees to assist with considering the range of possible food safety risks posed by new and existing technologies. This is reflected in the composition of the ACNFP and a new subgroup of that committee, which was formed to consider these issues. This committee can bring in wider experience where specific issues arise.

The FSA is committed to food safety. We have two former chairs of it in this Chamber and they can assert this. It has been active in bolstering the resources of its scientific advisory committees and I am satisfied that they have sufficient resources and expertise to fulfil their intended functions in relation to regulating the placing on the market of food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms, including undertaking risk assessments of food and feed produced by precision-breeding technologies.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I am reluctant to intervene, but there is something I want to ask. Would the Minister agree to provide, by Report, an analysis of the unsung heroes of food safety in this country—the environmental protection people in local government? The FSA works through local government. It audits the activities of food safety in local government. That is the Achilles heel, simply because of the cuts in local government. By Report, could the Minister give us details or produce a factsheet of the latest assessment of the performance of local government food and feed inspection—they tend to forget feed—so we can look at it?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I have something to add to that, very briefly. I hear the Minister when he says that there is a scientific committee overseeing this, but we are talking about the scientists who will do the day-to-day work. Every time a request comes in, it is they who will have to do the graft of research and analysis. There might be people to give an overview but are there the people on the ground to do the work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I know that labelling was raised as a concern at Second Reading, and I would like to address those points and discuss our approach to transparency within the Bill.

As I have said before, the Bill is being led by the science. As the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, highlighted, there is currently no method that can categorically determine whether genetic changes to an organism of the kind covered by this Bill have arisen conventionally, or through the application of a precision-breeding method such as genome editing. Precision breeding is another method in our breeding toolbox. To be clear, products from precision-bred plants or animals will contain only genetic changes that could also occur through traditional breeding or naturally. We do not currently label for other breeding methods such as chemical mutagenesis, and we do not label novel foods as novel. If I went out into the street now and asked people whether they would like food that was created by chemical mutagenesis, as noble Lords have said, they would probably say yes—but we have to be absolutely clear what we are talking about here.

The FSA is establishing a separate authorisation process for food and feed derived from precision-bred plants and animals. Through this process the FSA will ensure that all products placed on the market for consumption will be safe. We are not alone in taking this approach on labelling, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, so eloquently said, we are aligning with many of our partners across the world, such as Canada, Japan, Argentina and others, that do not require precision-bred organisms, or food and feed derived from them, to be labelled as such.

For these reasons, we do not think it would be appropriate to require labelling to indicate the use of precision breeding. We understand the importance of transparency and, as I have mentioned, the Bill enables regulations to establish public registers. This will ensure that information about precision-bred plants and animals, and the food and feed produced from them, which can be marketed in England, is in the public domain and can be accessed freely by consumers and food businesses. The intention is that the development of the register of food and feed from precision-bred organisms, and associated information requirements, will be subject to consultation, so there will be further opportunity for stakeholders to feed into this work.

The industry also recognises the importance of transparency. The British Society of Plant Breeders has recently committed to maintaining a public register of all registered plant varieties that have been developed through precision breeding; the society’s registers provide the basis for traceability of agricultural crops.

The issue of allergens was mentioned earlier and was also raised at Second Reading. I understand that consumers will want to know of any compositional changes that may affect them. I want to reassure your Lordships that regulation on the provision of food information to consumers already adequately covers both nutritional and allergen labelling for food products, thus ensuring that consumers have access to the information they need about these matters.

Existing requirements of food law mean that food business operators must have systems and procedures in place to identify businesses they have supplied. This ensures that food can be traced, and any unsafe products recalled. There are also provisions in the Bill that would enable more specific requirements on traceability to be made in relation to food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms through secondary legislation.

Through the Bill we want to create a more proportionate and science-based regulatory regime to encourage greater innovation and industry investment in precision-breeding technologies. I understand the different opinions that may exist on this, but if we are being honest with the public, we have to listen to what the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, said about what we are saying on any label. It would be impossible to differentiate between two food stuffs—one that was produced by traditional means and one that had been produced as a PBO. I hope this has reassured noble Lords on these points.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Contrary to the implication that I made at Second Reading, I am with the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Cameron, here. If you cannot check it, you cannot label it.

There is a fundamental point here—and I quoted the late Professor Burke. I know from experience the very reason the FSA was set up, and the Minister needs to send an edict round his colleagues: we do not want any Minister to ever claim that gene-edited food is safe, because the public will not believe them. That is the reason the FSA is there. It is a pity, because we have some Members of this House who have personal experience of this. They could destroy the food industry. The public will believe the scientists and the officials from the regulatory authorities; there is abundant evidence for that over the last 20 years.

If the Minister wanted to wreck gene editing and the food industry, he would give the nod to Ministers to say, “We’ve got this new policy—it will go down well with the public, and there are a few votes in it. You get down there and tell your local people”. It is fine for Ministers to do what the Minister is doing now—legislating—but they should have no role whatever in promoting and explaining. Legally they have no role, because legally the responsibility is with the Food Standards Agency, but you have to spell that out to Health Ministers—you had to spell it out even to Labour Health Ministers that they had no role. They do not like it, because there are no levers to pull, but it is just one of those things.

However, in terms of confidence for the food industry, which has been restored in the past 20 years after some rocky incidents, it is fundamental that the Minister gets across to his colleagues that Ministers should not pontificate on safety and the other aspects of food. They are going to have to pay for this, by the way, because resources are needed for both the FSA and the other regulators, including the scientific committees, to explain things to the public and defend the situation in a way that the public will believe. They will not believe Ministers; I can tell you that from my own experience. I kept out of it in the horsemeat scandal. I left it to the officials and the scientists. No one was going to believe a hack politician who was previously a Minister. It is true that it was a very difficult situation, but the public will not believe Ministers. It is as simple as that.