Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these regulations. That should be no surprise to your Lordships, given that I was Secretary of State when we took the primary legislation through this House. I would just remind the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this measure has already been through this House, during which time amendments were tabled on marketing, labelling and so on, to which this House did not agree. Therefore, noble Lords have already had a say in the decision on how to take this technology forward.

I am conscious that there will be challenges about things like the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. I remind your Lordships that in the days when we were part of the European Union, the UK Government certainly listened to the responses and views of the devolved Administrations, but ultimately made determinations based on what was determined across the European Union as a whole, as well as relying on its votes. As a consequence, all that regulation was applied without any say from the House of Lords or the House of Commons at that time. We are now in an odd situation where we are trying to redo the arguments from just a couple of years ago. Those debates were intense, and it was right that they be had; nevertheless, they were had in this place. I am grateful to the Government for taking this forward.

I remind the House that 40% of crops are lost globally every year due to floods, pests and other such events. That is why it is important that agriculture and food security make the best use of our science. Today, we had a Question about the report from the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee. To my surprise, when it comes climate-resilient agriculture, the Adaptation Sub-Committee does not refer in any way to devices like this, or to how we could improve food security through this technology; it talks more about the use of land and so on. It is important that we embrace technology. The John Innes Centre in Norwich, which has been referred to already, is a particularly good example, but there are others.

As has been well said, gene editing is the acceleration of natural processes. We will see food productivity increase, which is particularly important given the climate incidents we have witnessed on our own shores in just the last few years. That is why drought-resistant and disease-resistant crops that reduce the use of fertilisers are an important part of what we need to do to help biodiversity improve across this country, instead of it remaining in current regrettable state. But it is also important that we respect the United Kingdom Internal Market Act.

I am very conscious there are 40 pages of this legislation. I appreciate that in my time as Secretary of State, I sometimes got a bit frustrated, once we had completed the primary legislation, with how long it took to get on with some of the detail. I commend the officials in the FSA and Defra for proceeding with this. It matters that we get sensible, science-based decisions right, and do not worry too much about—to be candid—the artificial concerns people have when those decisions are accelerated. We are already experiencing artificial intelligence in so many walks of life. There is a lot of concern about that, I accept that, but this is the scientists and our farmers speaking. That is why, if this is forced to a Division, I will be supporting the Government tonight.

Rural Economy

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for introducing this timely debate and I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and thank him for the leadership he has given in relation to so many agricultural issues.

I have lived for over 60 of the past 75 years in the same village in rural Gwynedd, since 1947, when my parents moved into a half a farmhouse. I had the huge benefit of living my formative years in close proximity to the next-door tenant farmer, who made a very modest living out of a 60-acre holding.

It may be timely to remember that it was the post-war Labour Government who largely rescued agriculture in Wales, which had suffered massively in the 1930s. Indeed, the Labour Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, was tagged “Feather Bed Williams” for giving the farmers too comfortable a time—an accusation which I do not think the present Labour Government are likely to suffer. Agriculture is still the backbone of our rural communities. Its well-being is essential if we believe in producing food from our own resources. I greatly enjoyed a period of 12 years as president of the South Caernarfon Creameries, a good example of agricultural self-help.

The confidence of the industry is vital to maintain the investment needed for our agriculture to work efficiently. The Autumn Budget’s proposed change to inheritance tax rules has undermined that confidence and I urge the Government to reconsider their proposals, so as to exempt modest family farms from a punitive tax regime which will drive small family farms out of business. This will trigger an inevitable outcome: such land will be bought up by rich corporations, pension funds and forestry interests. Ironically, such investment is often driven by tax avoidance strategies, but it inevitably heralds a withering of the food production capacity in rural Wales and elsewhere. Is this seriously what the Government want? There has surely rarely been such a blatant scenario of unintended consequences.

Life is rural Wales is immensely challenging at this time, without being further undermined by government action. Ordinary working families are being driven from rural Wales by a combination of factors. The most fundamental has been the failure of economic policy to deliver a reasonable range of well-paid jobs, leading to a situation where the average income per head in parts of rural Gwynedd is 40% below that of south-east England. This leads to the best of our young people moving away to seek better-paid work, and of those who wish to remain, living in their own communities where they have their roots, they find that they cannot compete in the housing market against those from distant cities with fat chequebooks, buying up local housing stock as second homes.

This is not just a problem for rural Wales; it is equally felt in rural counties such as Cornwall. The effect is to further erode rural life, often leaving villages as ghost communities through the winter. This is exacerbated by the run-down of local services, such as bus services, which makes it increasingly difficult for those on low incomes to travel from rural villages to nearby towns to seek work. Young families are forced out by such factors, leading to declining school numbers and accelerating school closures. We also see rural communities being hit by the loss of facilities, such as banks and post offices, which hits local businesses and older people who are more reluctant to turn to internet banking.

The availability of fast broadband connectivity is very patchy in many rural areas. Surely the UK Government should make it a high priority to ensure that rural areas are not deprived of such an essential part of any modern commercial and social infrastructure.

Some people still believe that tourism offers the solution to the economic problems of rural areas. Of course it can make a contribution, but it is highly seasonal in rural Wales, and any economy which operates at 200% capacity for a few weeks in summer and at 20% capacity for most of the year is, by definition, economically inefficient.

Rural Wales desperately needs capital investment projects, such as the hydroelectric schemes and pump storage facilities which are being considered. The SMR projects at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd should be driven forward without delay, the latter linked to the medical radioisotope manufacturing unit proposed by the Welsh Government.

The loss of young people from rural areas, such as rural Gwynedd, and their replacement by people who move in after retiring has led to a disturbing report this week from Gwynedd council. It projects that, over the next 20 years, there will be an increase of 56% in demand for home help services from the Gwynedd social care department. This emanates from an absence of family living locally to help care for their elderly relatives, and because of an inward migration of retired people who do not have roots in the community into which they move, and in which they have to face the challenges that come with old age.

Unless there is an awakening to the crisis currently hitting rural communities, we shall find the fabric of rural life eroded beyond recovery. I urge the Government to address this issue without delay.

Fly-tipping

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The Government have put in a series of plans recently to assist councils with preparing the evidence to assist with prosecutions. Fly-tipping and illegal dumping is a serious crime and offenders can face a significant fine or a prison sentence. While sentencing is a matter for the independent courts, we have worked with the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group to produce a guide on how councils and others can build a robust case for prosecutions.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the important factors that influences the degree of fly-tipping is the availability of regular, transparent and dependable systems for the collection of waste? Will he have a look at the high figures in Wales for recycling and see whether some lessons can be learnt for elsewhere?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I would be delighted to do that and undertake to do it.

Water Companies: Licence Conditions

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I entirely agree with my noble friend on that issue. Ofwat will also take forward a consultation to consider a ban on water bosses receiving bonuses when their company has committed a serious criminal breach. As part of that consultation, Ofwat will consider the criteria for a ban on bonuses. This would likely include successful prosecution for a category 1 or 2 pollution incident, such as causing significant pollution at a bathing site or conservation area.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, given the uncertainty of Thames Water’s finances, what are the prospects of it being able to go ahead with its scheme for water transfer from the Severn to the Thames to meet the needs of south-east England? Does that not put the capital requirement for that scheme very much in doubt?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The capital requirement will be considered at the next spending review, which is due this year, so we will hear more about that in due course.

Sewage Pollution: Lakes and Rivers

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to a system of independent economic regulation and have no plans to bring the water companies into public ownership. Since privatisation, the private water sector model has unlocked around £215 billion of investment and delivered a wide range of benefits, including a fivefold decrease in supply interruptions to customers and a reduction in leakages by one third.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that much of the pollution of many rivers emanates from the effluent from chicken farms? What specific targets do the Government have in mind to reduce this, and will they take legislative action to ensure that they are binding and produce the results necessary?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The noble Lord is quite right: there is a significant issue with chicken manure in the Wye valley. There has recently been a proposal to put together a Wye river plan, and I will ensure that this goes ahead.

European Union: Trade Barriers

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Our SPS arrangements with the EU are vital. When we were in the European Union, we had a system of trading at home and abroad which was controlled; now, we can have a bespoke system that suits our circumstances. To those who sometimes criticise the Government for doing this, the cost of getting it wrong is really quite horrific. If we had African swine fever, currently rampant in parts of Europe, or Xylella, which affects trees, the cost would be in the multimillions or even billions of pounds. I want to have Ministers facilitating trade, not sitting in COBRA trying to deal with a disaster.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the devastating effect of the Brexit changes on the Welsh mussel industry? Those products need to go from north-west Wales to the restaurants in Paris, for example, within 14 hours. Is he optimistic that the changes he is hoping to work for will relieve the problem and re-establish that industry?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

For trades like that to be successful, it takes two to tango and we want to make sure that our continuing conversations with our partners in Europe are facilitating precisely that sort of trade. There will not be a delay from this side of the border.

Water: Wales and England

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wigley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions, if any, they have had with Welsh Government Ministers concerning proposals to secure greater quantities of water for use in south-east England from sources in Wales and from rivers running from Wales to England.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

Under the intergovernmental protocol, Defra and the Welsh Government collaborate on water resources management. Water companies have a statutory duty to provide clean and reliable water to customers. They have been consulting on their new water resources management plans, including the water infrastructure needed to meet their water-supply duties. The plans will be referred to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers for decisions on whether the plans can be finalised later this year.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, as this is the first Wales-specific opportunity in the House since the sad death of Lord Morris of Aberavon, I pay tribute on behalf of Plaid Cymru to his lifelong work for Wales. We extend our sympathy to his family.

We in Wales fully recognise the needs of south-east England for adequate supplies of drinking water, and that it may need additional capacity from Welsh reservoirs and agreed flows of waters down rivers emanating from Wales. However, will the Minister accept that it is not unreasonable for Wales to receive fair financial benefit for such water supplies and that development control over any such projects in Wales should be in the hands of Senedd Cymru and the relevant local authority?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I think that we all concur with the noble Lord on his condolences for Lord Morris.

There is a long-established protocol for transferring water from water-rich parts of the United Kingdom to areas where it is needed. Wales has been providing water to Liverpool and other cities in the north-west, and there are plans that water can now reach the Thames through a new arrangement. On charging, there are a number of existing transfers where water companies receive money from water companies in England for water that they have received from Wales, and that will continue. Additionally, there are investments in the Welsh catchments which protect water quality, support biodiversity and sequester carbon, and that finance does flow into those schemes.

Environment Act 2021: Targets

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The Environment Act places several duties on government and water companies to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows. The Government have now launched the most ambitious plan to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows in water company history. Our new, strict targets will see the toughest crackdown ever on sewage spills and will require water companies to secure the largest infrastructure programme in their history.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, may I press the Minister further on the quality of our rivers? Does he accept that, in order to get action taken effectively, targets have to be not only set but monitored; that those targets must then trigger action to ensure that there is improvement; and that this must be done by not only the UK Government in England but the other Governments in these islands, because many rivers cross borders? Will he give priority to this issue?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Absolutely. We had the water framework directive when we were part of the European Union. We have transposed it into UK law. We want to make sure that it is right for the United Kingdom’s environment. However, that directive had very clear markers, which, to be honest, we failed to hit over many decades. Now, with this investment and the huge drive towards different farming techniques, we should see much clearer evidence about how we will hit those targets to get our water courses flowing and functioning properly; that will be available to everyone.

Veterinary Personnel

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wigley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with representatives of the veterinary profession about the availability of qualified veterinary personnel following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I draw attention to my relevant registered interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, my officials are in regular contact with the veterinary profession, including the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association, concerning veterinary capacity across the UK. We have been made aware that there has been a long shortage of UK-trained veterinary graduates, which began before the UK voted to leave the European Union. Defra has been working with stakeholders to understand the reasons for this shortage and develop potential solutions.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that since the ending of the free movement of people following Brexit, the number of EU-registered vets coming to work in the UK has fallen by 68%, down from over 1,100 in 2019 to just 364 last year? Is this not yet another example of the total disaster that Brexit has been for the UK? So, what additional funding will the Government make available next year to expand the number of UK university places for veterinary students, and how many years will it take to train adequate numbers?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We already have new vets coming into the profession from the University of Surrey scheme, which was brought in a few years ago. Since then, we have new schools appearing at Harper Adams and Keele, the University of Central Lancashire and the Scottish royal colleges, and a collaboration between Aberystwyth University and the Royal Veterinary College. This will bring on stream new vets, trained in this country, to work here, alongside other measures we are bringing in to resolve the shorter-term problems that the noble Lord identified.

Water Industry Reform

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am sorry to hear about the noble Lord’s problems. The overflows into the Thames are activated by relatively small amounts of rainfall. That is why £1.4 billion is being spent on a new super-sewer, which will deal with those sewage overflows and, I hope, limit the problems to Thames Water bill payers.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, has indicated his wish to speak virtually, and I think this might be a convenient time.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I believe the noble Lord will find that, if these water companies think that the provisions of the Environment Act and in the statutory policy statement by Ofwat mean that they will be able to carry on releasing sewage at the current level, they have a very serious other think coming.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Question relates to the United Kingdom dimension. He will also be aware that water is largely devolved as far as Wales is concerned. In fact, the main provider in Wales is a not-for-profit company. In these circumstances, will he ensure that any new policy initiatives he might be contemplating will be undertaken only after full discussion with the Welsh Government to ensure that there is co-ordination, particularly along an open border, where there is responsibility on both sides by both authorities?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. Many water issues cross the border, not least the polluting of rivers on either side of the border. They require a very joined-up approach, not just between Governments but between water companies and farming interests.