UK Canals and Waterways

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Robert.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing this important debate on the future of Britain’s canals and waterways. He has campaigned tirelessly on this issue over the years, and with good reason. That was evident from his contribution and from the speeches and interventions by many others. It is not often that the Opposition are in full agreement with the hon. Member, but that is the case today. We should all congratulate ourselves on that.

I offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), the shadow Minister, for whom I am subbing today. He is away from the parliamentary estate on shadow ministerial business, so I have been drafted in to guide us through the calm waters of this debate.

This country was the first in the world to develop a nationwide canal network that connected towns and cities, brought people together and developed and stimulated so much of the trade, industry and commerce that modern Britain was built on. I have the great pleasure of serving the people of Newport West, and in our neck of the woods we boast a unique flight of 14 locks, the Cefn flight, which rises 160 feet in just half a mile. That must have been an amazing sight in its heyday. Such locks and canals are a legacy of the engineering wonder of the industrial revolution, and they also make up part of the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal network, which is widely recognised as being one of the most beautifully located set of waterways in Britain. I give a shout out to the Monmouthshire, Brecon and Abergavenny Canals Trust for all the work that it does, and in particular to Councillor Yvonne Forsey and the other volunteers in Newport West.

Our canals are no longer the arteries of trade that they were 200 years ago. The car, bike, van and truck have all come through the middle of them—literally. Today, canals and riverways mainly provide other functions—possibly too many to list in the short time I have to speak, which only shows their importance. We have already heard that they offer free and accessible outdoor space and recreation for millions of people. Indeed, Adam Jogee, who works in my office, and his fiancée Alison Lawther, alongside two of their friends, Mark Streather and Allison Katz, took the chance to stay on a canal boat during a recent recess. It was Adam’s first time on a canal, and he said that although it was a little chilly at night they had a great time on the canals around Bosworth, Stoke Golding and Nuneaton. I hope the hon. Member for Lichfield is pleased to know that on this side of the House we do not just praise our canals but use and cherish them, too.

Our canals provide homes for boaters; importantly, they help to prevent floods; and they have given us a network of green corridors steeped in rich industrial history that is unlike anywhere else in the world. Our waterways are also home to tens of thousands of different species, including some of our most precious creatures, such as bats, water voles and dormice, all of which are at risk of extinction. This debate gives us an opportunity to air our concerns and bring attention to the fact that we all need to do more and go further. Given that the United Kingdom sits in the bottom 10% of countries globally when it comes to biodiversity, it seems obvious that we should do everything in our power to protect the unique habitats we have and the plants and wildlife that call them home. That is what His Majesty’s Opposition will do when we win the next election.

We are broadly at one on the issue, but I cannot let the Minister leave before I have raised a number of specific issues. I know she would expect nothing less. She knows that the job of protecting and developing our phenomenal canal and waterway network falls largely to the Canal & River Trust, so why have Ministers postponed the announcement of the trust’s grant, which provides around a quarter of its funding? It was due to be announced on 1 July. The fact that the Government—well, two Prime Ministers ago—were collapsing is no excuse not to ensure a sustainable and long-term programme of support for the trust, so why, as the final leaves fall from the trees, have we still not heard from the Government, despite their assurances that the overdue funding would be allocated in autumn? The delay is threatening the future of our canals and of all those who rely on them. Furthermore, it makes it more difficult for the trust to plan for the future and hampers the progress of a number of large projects that are designed to help to build and shape much-needed resilience to the harsh and increasingly frequent effects of climate change.

Indeed, the Office for Environmental Protection—a body set up by the Government only last year—has received a complaint describing the constant delays as being

“at risk of becoming the default culture within Defra”,

and just weeks ago the Government failed to meet their own legal deadline to introduce targets on clean air, land and water. There have been many more missed deadlines, quietly scrapped funds and delays to important legislation—I am thinking in particular of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.

As we discuss the future of Britain’s canals and waterways, I am conscious of the fact that, behind the grand environmental claims, Ministers constantly make the wrong choices. The Opposition believe that is unacceptable, and we want Ministers to be active and to speak out much more quickly. It is not hard to wonder whether the delay in the announcement of the grant for the Canal & River Trust is about whether to slash it or scrap it. If that happens, the trust has been clear that it will not be able to maintain its work of protecting our precious waterways.

At a time of ecological and economic crisis, Britain’s canals and waterways are a haven for wildlife and people alike. I ask the Minister to heed our calls, and the calls made by Government Members, and commit herself to protecting our heritage, saving our wildlife and preserving much-needed opportunities for future generations by properly funding Britain’s canals and waterways, and to do that today.

[Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, let me remind the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who introduced the debate, that he might get a minute or two to make a winding-up speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that pertinent point. I will refer to it a bit later in my speech, but it is a really serious point. Of course, infrastructure is affected by climate change and extremes of weather, which are putting more pressure on some assets. As well as the opportunities around electrification, there are similar opportunities with active travel and the cycle networks along our canals, which allow people to get away from roadsides and travel in a much fresher and cleaner environment. If we can get more people to take to their bikes, it will help us reduce carbon emissions and tackle the net zero targets.

Let me go back to water security, which is really important. Our navigation authorities have an important role to play in this endeavour in times of both flooding and drought. They can help by managing water levels, and the long dry spells this summer have highlighted how the canal network could increasingly play a role in water transfer, particularly from west to east. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned taking water from the wet west to the east. All these things obviously have to be carefully worked out, and I have spoken to the Canal & River Trust about how such opportunities would work. I particularly welcome Affinity Water’s plan to work with the Canal & River Trust to transfer water through the Grand Union canal, and I know others are looking at other such opportunities.

As has been touched on, the network has a really important historic value, with much of it being more than 200 years old. It matters a great deal to people and a lot of restoration work is under way. We have heard so much about volunteers and I, too, thank them. So many volunteers have played a key role in restoring sections of our canals, and I particularly want to mention that I had a wonderful trip to the Monty canal in Montgomeryshire, where I met lots of volunteers and saw the work they were doing. They have benefited from a £16 million levelling-up fund grant. Members have mentioned the levelling-up benefits of canals, and that money is being spent well in the community to restore the fantastic canal in the centre of town.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister is talking about funding; when can we expect the funding announcement for the Canal & River Trust that was supposed to be made back in July? Rather than the parliamentary “shortly”, can we have an actual date?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady mentioned that in her speech, as did others, so I will come to it now. Many Members mentioned the annual grant to the Canal & River Trust, so I want to explain a bit about the grant, how it happened and the history around it. The grant stands at £52.6 million until 2027 and currently represents about one quarter of the trust’s annual income, which means that the trust derives three quarters of its annual income from other sources. That distinction is very important, because one of the trust’s objectives when it was created in 2012 with charitable status was that it would be free of the public sector constraints that its predecessor, British Waterways, was subject to. Freedom from public sector constraints meant that the trust would be free to develop other income generation strategies, including by benefiting from charitable donations and legacies, charity tax reliefs, third-party project funding and borrowing on the financial markets.

It is also worth mentioning that in 2012 the trust was endowed by the Government with a significant property and investment portfolio, which is currently valued at around £1.1 billion, and the returns were to be used as income. The clear intent was that the trust would reduce its dependence on the Government grant and foster increasing self-sufficiency by providing access to income streams not available to public corporations and by stimulating new efficiencies.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield that British Waterways received more funding than the Canal & River Trust: indeed, that was the intent behind establishing an independent charity to undertake that function. However, it is important that we compare like with like when looking at the evolution of Government funding. British Waterways, a public corporation, was responsible for the waterways in England, Wales and Scotland, whereas the Canal & River Trust—which is a charity, with access to charitable benefits and tax breaks—is responsible for England and Wales only. Scottish Canals funding represented £10.5 million in 2011-12, and the existing grant increased by £10 million in 2015-16 and has been inflation-adjusted until April 2022. It is then required by the grant agreement to be flat for the final five years of the grant period.

Draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. It is very good to see the Minister back in her proper place and to join colleagues in debating the draft regulations. The Minister and other hon. Members will be pleased that I can confirm that we will not oppose the regulations, but before we pack up and leave the room, I want to say a few things that it is important to keep in mind.

As the Minister said, the draft regulations correct the errors left by the retained 2019 POP regulation, including deficiencies in relation to the perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances PFOS and PFOA. Moves to ensure that the levels of harmful chemicals entering our environment and natural world are taken seriously and, importantly, reduced were a key feature of His Majesty’s Government’s first 25-year environment plan.

That plan was published back in 2018, before I was elected to this House by the good people of Newport West, but I made a point of reading it in considerable detail upon my appointment to the shadow ministry. It committed to a new chemicals strategy to achieve the goal of reducing the level of said chemicals entering our environment. That is a good and noble aim, and it has my support. However, as the Minister knows, the strategy still has no fixed publication date, despite workshops on it being held in the first half of this year. I would be grateful if she could set out when we will have more information and finally understand the steps that she and her Department will take in the weeks and months ahead.

I note that the regulations come into force on the day after they are made, and I welcome the fact that they extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am a proud supporter of devolution and give thanks for the Welsh Labour Government every day, but it is nice to see something being discussed that applies to one and all, right across the United Kingdom.

The Labour party will not push the regulations to a vote—they are a formal and relatively benign set of measures—but we urge the Government, and particularly the Minister, to keep in mind the need to really deliver on the promises made. The future of our planet and our environment depends on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

First, I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for her kind wishes. I must say that it is great to be back and to find her still here so that we can have our debates. I am delighted that the Opposition will not oppose the instrument. These are just technical amendments.

Let me touch on the chemicals strategy, which the hon. Lady rightly referred to. Interestingly, I had a meeting about it just today. It is absolutely correct that we will produce a chemicals strategy. We have committed to doing that and there will be more details about it in due course, to use parliamentary language. Of course, it is complicated, and it is very important to get it right, particularly given that we have left the EU and its registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, or REACH, system and rolled over those regulations to UK REACH. We are now working on our bespoke system for UK chemicals, and we are working very closely with the industry.

[Ruth Jones]

I understand parliamentary terminology, but the chemicals strategy has no fixed publication date, despite the workshops being held earlier this year. Can I press the Minister on when it will be published? We desperately need it.

Nature and Climate Declaration

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gray. I am sure that those in the know will be listening to the debate, and that your elevation to the peerage will happen very soon.

I am delighted to be here in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who is attending the COP27 conference in Egypt at this moment, and to be able to respond to this timely debate secured by the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas)—who, I have to confess, is a friend of mine, even though we sit on opposite sides of the House. I am also pleased to welcome the Minister to her place; I think this debate is the first time that we have sat opposite each other in this Chamber, and I look forward to working with her in future in a friendly, debating way.

It will come as no surprise to anybody present, or indeed to anybody watching our proceedings, that our United Kingdom is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. That is why the case for tackling biodiversity loss, climate change, and the environmental risks to the health of the public is the challenge of our time—indeed, that is why the Climate and Ecology Bill is so important. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West is very proud to have been one of the original co-sponsors of that Bill when he was on the Back Benches, and I pay tribute to him for his work and commitment to these issues.

Halting and reversing biodiversity loss in the United Kingdom by 2030 is essential. We parliamentarians, particularly Ministers in His Majesty’s Government, must do everything possible to make sure that that promise is realised. There can be no more dithering, no more delays and no more missed deadlines: this is an emergency, and it needs to be treated as such. I am afraid that the Government are setting their baseline too low. The 30 by 30 agenda ignores the other 70% of our land. Our national parks are in a poor state of health after 12 years of Conservative Government, and our protected natural areas need far more focus and support. The fact that this Tory Government failed to meet their own deadlines under the Environment Act 2021 does not inspire much confidence that they will ever get around to meeting the 30 by 30 deadline.

The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) mentioned the Office for Environmental Protection’s location. I respectfully suggest that the shadow DEFRA team did not decry Worcester as its final resting place; rather, we were surprised. We were originally told that it was going to be Bristol, but that was a U-turn by the Government—we were not surprised by that.

Nature fundamentally underpins human health, our wellbeing and our collective prosperity. By protecting our planet and preserving our environment, we deliver for all our people in Newport West, in St Ives, and across the United Kingdom. Opposition Members, particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), have always understood the importance of that challenge. We view the environment through a twin lens—human health and environmental health—and we see the impact of inaction all around us, such as last weekend’s heavy rainfall and the subsequent flooding in places such as Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Hornsey and Wood Green, Chichester, Canterbury and Lewes. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) have been out there speaking to businesses, engaging with local councils and supporting local people, and I thank them for that.

We have seen wildfires in Australia, Africa and the United States, and—as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said—we have seen drought in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other parts of southern Africa. This issue is as global as it is local, which is why we need to consider people living in increasingly expensive housing without proper insulation who are now increasingly dependent on prohibitively expensive fossil fuel energy. That is why a Labour Government will cut energy bills and fight climate change by insulating millions of homes and making the UK the first major economy to have a zero-emission power system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) outlined. Moreover, when we form the next Government, we will introduce a proper windfall tax on the obscene profits of the oil and gas companies to protect both vulnerable people and our vulnerable planet.

I want to say a word about those living in communities plagued by toxic air and dirty water. Restoring nature will never happen successfully without us acknowledging that these issues disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities and the health of our natural environment. Our poorest communities are also twice as likely to live in a neighbourhood without nature-rich spaces, which is outrageous. I want our country to be a place where everyone has proper access to wild places and wildlife. In other words, delivering for the natural world requires both social and economic justice. A healthy natural world and more equitable access to nature are key priorities for us—but not just for Labour Members. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) outlined, there is growing cross-party consensus on the need to move now and to move fast, because we understand the importance of the UK doing its fair share to cut emissions in order to stay below 1.5°C of global warming.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has been clear on this and, as a party, we have pledged not just words but a promised investment of £28 billion every year until 2030 to tackle the climate crisis and create clean, green, secure jobs for people in all parts of our United Kingdom. A Labour Government will deliver a science-led, joined-up plan to tackle the climate and ecological emergency. We have committed to a robust net zero and nature test for every policy, as well as our £28 billion a year investment pledge. We want to create certainty for business and provide leadership on the world stage. That is how we seize the opportunities for the United Kingdom, while protecting nature here and abroad.

We know that climate action must be nature-positive action and that we must halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2030 for the benefit of all people and the planet. This important declaration and the Climate and Ecology Bill alongside it will be a huge step towards achieving those aims. I am delighted to have been able to participate in this important debate today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but she should be reassured when I say that there must be no regression, and there will be no regression. I have been to speak with my counterparts in BEIS recently, and we are working with DLUHC as well, to ensure that the protections for our environment focus not on the EU as a whole but on the UK.

It might be helpful to set out our record. Although we recognise that there is much more to do, since 2010 we have supported the creation or management of 175,000 hectares of priority habitat. In 2021 alone, we created over 2,700 km of new hedgerows through the countryside stewardship scheme. That is over 3,870 different agreements. There were 9,000 countryside stewardship agreements with the management of hedgerows option, leading to over 46,000 km of hedgerows. Our farming and protected landscapes programme also planted 88 km of hedgerows and delivered around 45,000 hectares of habitat improvement for biodiversity.

We have established over 100 marine protected areas, and we are now putting in place byelaws to reinforce their protection, alongside our work to launch highly protected marine areas. We have brought over 5,800 hectares of peatland in England under restoration, predominantly through the £750 million nature for climate fund. We have also announced 22 ambitious projects receiving funding through the landscape recovery scheme, allowing land managers—in particular, farmers—to take a more long-term and large-scale approach to producing environmental and climate outcomes on their land.

Between 2010 and 2021, 123 hectares of new woodland have been planted across the UK. That is an area equivalent to Bedfordshire. Tree planting is so important for biodiversity, and it is at the heart of our environmental plans for the future. We increased tree planting and woodland creation by approximately 10% to 2,700 hectares of trees planted in England in 2021-22. Is it enough? Absolutely not, but we are improving every year. As part of flood and coastal capital programmes, 25 schemes that include natural flood management measures have secured approval.

We are seeing that improvement in habitat also play out in the improvement in species such as the cirl bunting, which demonstrates how agri-environment schemes have supported species recovery. In 2016, the population exceeded 1,000 pairs, representing a nine-fold increase since conservation action commenced in the early 1990s. The marsh fritillary butterfly increased in abundance by 700% between 2005 and 2016, following years of decline, through action under the two moors threatened butterfly project. Our bat species increased by 47% between 1999 and 2019. Those are just some examples of the progress that is being made. It is important to have hope and to take personal responsibility for the way that we can all improve nature and biodiversity in our back gardens, our farms and right across this country.

Reaching net zero remains a top Government priority. We are really proud to lead the world in ending our own contribution to climate change, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because we are determined to seize the unprecedented economic opportunity it brings for jobs, innovation and exports. That is why our British energy security strategy and net zero strategy build on our 10-point plan and our blueprint for a green industrial revolution. Those commitments will unlock £100 billion of private investment and support 480,000 well-paid jobs in green industries by 2030. I know that many of those jobs will be in Cornwall, which I look forward to visiting. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives set out exactly what is needed right across the country and the need for society to play its part.

As part of our plans for decarbonisation—this is personal to me, because I was the Minister in the Department for Transport who led on it—we have published our ambitious transport decarbonisation plan. There has been much talk of COP27, but I was proud to stand on the world stage during transport day on 10 November last year at COP26—[Interruption.] Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) was there as well—where I set out what we were doing across the modes of transport to set our pathway to net zero by 2050. We will require all new builds from 2025 to be future-proofed with low carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency.

DEFRA has a vital role to play in delivering the Government’s net zero strategy. During the debate, there have been many calls for us to work across Departments. That is absolutely what we do and I will give a few examples. The joint air quality unit works across DEFRA and DFT to improve air quality and reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. The Office for Zero Emission Vehicles works across DFT and BEIS to ensure that we roll out the electric vehicle programme. It is not true to say that the amount of money being spent on electric vehicles has been reduced; the focus has changed to ensure support for taxis and trucks, because we needed to diversify and ensure that our funding has the greatest impact.

We have boosted the nature for climate fund to total spend of more than £750 million by 2025 to protect, restore and expand the support and resilience of habitats such as peat bogs—both upland and lowland peat bogs are essential for nature. This will help us to achieve our ambitious targets to restore 35,000 hectares of peatlands by 2025 and treble woodland creation in England by the end of this Parliament. Yesterday I had the privilege of joining the Northumberland National Park Authority, and the day before I was in woodlands in Cumbria with the Forestry Commission, to understand how we can bust the barriers and increase planting of trees, both coniferous and deciduous, because we recognise the vital role that trees play as well as the value of supporting the UK timber industry. It was also a pleasure to visit A.W. Jenkinson to learn how it takes the waste from woodlands to create peat-free compost. There are fantastic opportunities like this one for our economy as we decarbonise and support biodiversity.

At COP26 last year, we brought nature into the centre of the climate COP for the first time. Today, at COP27 in Egypt, we will maintain our global leadership by demonstrating progress and integrated action on climate and nature since the UK’s presidency, focusing on protecting forests, the ocean and nature. We will build political momentum to secure ambitious outcomes at the convention on biological diversity COP15 in Montreal next month. We are working to ensure that nature is resilient and adaptable to climate change. We recognise that the interlinked threats of climate change, pollution, and habitat and biodiversity loss threaten the security of global health, the food supply and the economy. In 2019, the value of natural capital in the UK was estimated to be £1.2 trillion. The biodiversity net gain measure created by the Environment Act 2021 to aid nature recovery will drive green growth by creating and supporting a private market estimated to be worth £135 million per year. We are committed to halting and reversing the decline of biodiversity, as I have set out. We will continue to implement our world-leading Environment Act, including by building on the 2030 species target by setting other long-term targets to improve our biodiversity, resource efficiency and air and water quality, and to reduce waste.

To set out what we are doing to create habitats and protect species, we have requirements on new developments to build habitats as well as legally binding targets to halt species decline by 2030. We are reducing plastic waste through bans on a number of single-use plastic items, as well as powers to introduce charges for single-use items of any material. We are recycling more plastic through the introduction of a deposit return scheme for single-use drink containers, and extended producer responsibility which makes producers responsible for the cost of the disposal of packaging waste.

[Ruth Jones]

I note that Minister said that the Government are introducing the deposit return scheme. I am pleased to hear that, but there have been four consultations and we have had no action yet. When will it happen?

[Trudy Harrison]

I am unable to provide the hon. Member with a confirmation of actual dates, but she should be assured that we are working across Government to ensure that we involve manufacturers and get this right.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State back to her Department, as well as her team, some of whom are new, and some of whom are recycled; obviously, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that is a good thing. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words as this important Bill completes its passage through this House.

We are pleased that the Bill is finally before us. The continual leadership crisis in the Tory party has meant that environmental and animal welfare legislation has been pulled, delayed and ignored, and we learned on Friday that the Government have missed today’s legal deadline to set clean air targets. The lawbreaking just goes on. This Bill was an opportunity to tackle one of the great issues of our time, but instead of rising to that challenge, I am afraid that the Government have flunked it. We may have got a new Prime Minister last week, but it is the same old Tories.

Labour Members are pro-science and pro-innovation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) stated. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system, and address the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused. Our United Kingdom has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others will follow. That is what we would do in government. The public need assurance that new technologies are being used for the public good, not narrow commercial advantage.

Labour is the party of food safety; we established the Food Standards Agency. Different approaches to food production must be respected, and there must be proper safeguards for organic production. The issues covered by the Bill require us to take a long-term view, and to have an understanding and appreciation of the wider public good, but this Government stagger on from day to day, focused only on how they can get to the end of next week without yet another change at the top.

Labour Members have no doubt about the possible benefits of gene editing. We understand the pressure that it puts on farmers when we rightly say that they cannot use neonicotinoids because of the harm they cause to pollinators, but there are so many questions still unanswered as the Bill travels on its journey. Do we want to use gene editing to modify an animal to allow it to tolerate more cramped conditions? No. We want a regulatory system that ensures that technologies are used for the right purposes. We fully understand that the laws designed 30 years ago for genetically modified products do not reflect advances in understanding and technology, and many countries recognise that gene editing needs to be treated differently. Labour Members want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK. Over the years, traditional crop development and innovation has brought us all significant gains.

But as we enter new territory, we need a strong regulatory framework to get it right, and this Bill badly needs strengthening. Far too much is being left to secondary legislation. Although we understand that this is attractive to Ministers, it largely means “trust us”. That is increasingly difficult to do, because we all know that it means a blank cheque on an issue that requires trust and public acceptance, and that is not a good starting point. We needed much more detail on the face of the Bill.

That detail is necessary because the Bill covers both plants and animals. That makes the legislation much more complicated and difficult, and important too. The Government originally said that they would introduce new measures for animals only after looking at plants and after extensive consultation on the right regulatory frameworks for animals had been established. So far as we can see, there is nothing in the Bill to make that happen. Frankly, it is the wrong way round. We need to sort out the preferred regulatory framework first and then put it into law, not the other way round.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I wrong in thinking that Third Reading is about what is actually in the Bill, rather than what is not? The shadow Minister seems to be referring to what is not in the Bill. My understanding was that on Third Reading we are supposed to talk about what is actually in the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I must say that the hon. Lady does seem to be making rather an extensive speech, but I am sure she will be coming to her point shortly.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; yes, of course.

I want to acknowledge all the animal welfare organisations that have expressed their concern—indeed, the RSPCA says in its brief that it is “incredibly concerned”. I say to them and all those following the passage of the Bill, now that it is out of Committee, that we require stronger animal safeguards.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for leading on the Bill and to the folks in his team—Milly, George and Jenna—who have worked on it. I thank Rob Wakely and Adam Jogee, who have worked to support me too. I also thank the officials in this House and in the Department for their work on this important Bill. As it now moves on, we on the Labour Benches wish it well and hope that it will be strengthened and given the detail that it so desperately needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the new Secretary of State to his place. I pay tribute to the previous DEFRA team and look forward to continuing a robust relationship with the new team.

On a recent visit to Battersea here in London and to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Newport, I saw the consequences of the Tory cost of living crisis. I heard about Frasier, a four-year-old domestic short-hair cat who was taken to Battersea in June by his heartbroken owner who was facing financial hardship and could no longer afford to keep his beloved pet. That is happening across our country because people cannot afford to keep their family pets, so we need a plan. Will the Secretary of State tell us what it is?

[Mr Jayawardena]

First, the Government will cut people’s taxes. We are going to let people keep more of their own money. We are going to ensure that people continue to have great jobs in the economy by incentivising investment in our businesses. If the hon. Lady and Opposition Members are willing to stay in the House a bit longer, they will hear from the Prime Minister herself.

Shark Fins Bill

Ruth Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend—my very good friend—the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), for bringing this Bill to the House and for its reaching Second Reading. This is an important issue and I congratulate her on her speech and all the work she is doing on this issue. I know that our hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) wishes he was able to be here to stand in my place and contribute to the debate today.

I also welcome the new Minister to his place, although I must admit that after three days of sitting opposite him, he does not feel that new any more; in fact, he is a seasoned member of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, but I welcome him. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today, even the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), with his terrible dad jokes. Sadly, he is no longer in his place. The tales of shark encounters have been particularly fascinating, and I thank everyone for recounting them.

I should say at the outset that the Bill has our full support, so I will not detain the House any longer than necessary. I want the Bill to become law as soon as possible. In many ways, we should not be here today. A ban was announced by Ministers almost a year ago; we are relying on a private Member’s Bill to deliver a policy set out in the Conservative party manifesto. It appears that the caretaker Government have adopted a policy of government by private Member’s Bill.

Putting that aside, let us take a moment to reflect on why we need to end our part in this barbaric practice and to remind ourselves of its impact, not only on sharks but on our planet and increasingly fragile ecosystems. I accept that human beings have an uneasy relationship with sharks. These magnificent creatures are often reduced to the much maligned mythical monsters of “Jaws”, “Deep Blue Sea” and “Sharknado”. On a lighter note, I am sure that every Member can perform the “Baby Shark” dance. I will be checking later that they know how to do it.

However, sharks are apex predators. They are ancient creatures who play a vital role in our oceans, where they balance and maintain fragile marine ecosystems. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) highlighted that clearly. Sharks have low reproductive rates, and overfishing has seen the number found in the open oceans plunge by 71% in half a century. Shamefully, 60% of shark species are now threatened with extinction.

We have heard that the practice of shark finning is the epitome of cruelty. Many Members have highlighted that it entails cutting off the fin while the shark is still alive and then just tossing the shark back into the sea, leaving it to die a slow and painful death from suffocation and blood loss.

Fins are used worldwide for shark fin soup, a dish often associated with wealth and celebration. The fins are used not for taste—I am reliably informed that they have no taste—but for their texture. Of the 100 million sharks killed annually at the hands of humans, 72 million are killed through finning for shark fin soup. The practice, just like rhino dehorning, is one of the most shameful and wasteful acts of animal cruelty in the name of trade still in existence in the 21st century.

The UK’s involvement in the practice goes beyond the clandestine sale of shark fins in restaurants. According to the 2019 HMRC and Traffic report, the UK imported 300 tonnes of shark fins between 2013 and 2017. According to a report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, between 2015 and 2018 the United Kingdom reported between 2,000 and 3,000 tonnes of “marketable fin” shark species landings per year. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted that we are ranked fourth among EU coastal states for shark landings, behind Spain, Portugal and France.

Those import figures do not take into account the personal allowance, which allows anyone to import up to 20 kg of dried shark fins for personal consumption, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who has temporarily left her place, highlighted. That can equate to 500 individual fins from up to 60 individual sharks, which can make in excess of 700 bowls of shark fin soup. Under current legislation, all that is exempt from any border control declaration, so I ask the Minister to tighten that loophole as part of the Bill.

Just under a year ago, the outgoing Prime Minister announced a “world-leading” ban on what he correctly described as a “barbaric practice”. That was in line with the 2019 Conservative manifesto and the Government response to a 2020 petition to Parliament, in which they said:

“Following the end of the Transition period we will explore options consistent with World Trade Organisation rules to address the importation of shark fins from other areas, to support efforts to end illegal shark finning practices globally.”

Yet that commitment by the Prime Minister, which was widely welcomed by conservationists, campaigners, activists and people across the country, was quietly ditched, reportedly after backlash from senior Ministers worried that, as the legislation was tied up with foie gras and fur coats, the ban would be un-Conservative. I hope that the Minister will be stamping his authority on his new role and ensuring swift action in all those areas.

Today, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath, we have the opportunity to be leaders once again. We have now left the European Union. That limits our ability directly to influence a continent-wide ban, but a UK ban on the import and export of shark fins would set an example for our European partners to follow.

My hon. Friend’s Bill follows Canada’s lead. Canada introduced a ban on all imports and exports of shark fins not attached to a carcase, meaning both a reduction in finning overall and the easier identification of the shark species being traded. Canada is a global leader on this issue, but it is not the only one legislating and making a difference. Hawaii banned finning in 2013. Its example caused 13 other US states to follow, culminating in Florida banning the import and export of fins in September 2020. Countries such as Ecuador, Egypt and Honduras have adopted fins naturally attached policies, and Thailand has had great success with its Fin Free Thailand programme, where an extensive list of companies have banned shark fin soup, including 111 hotels, four supermarket chains and nine restaurants. India has established a ban on imports and exports, and the United Arab Emirates has become the first nation to ban all shark products. International companies such as Amazon, Fairmont Hotels and Carrefour are banning the sale of shark fin soup, and the transport of shark fins has been banned by airlines such as Virgin Atlantic, Emirates, BA and Qatar Airways, and shipping companies such as Maersk, MSC and Evergreen.

It is now time to put an end to this unsustainable, unnecessary and barbaric practice. There is little economic cost associated with it, but the Bill allows us to lead the world on this issue—after all, we are global Britain now, aren’t we? The time for the Bill is now and the time for action is now. I am delighted to be here to support the Bill and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Neath.

Draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-use Plastics) Regulations 2022

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray—I think for the first time—and it is good to see you in the Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I say to the Minister that I am very glad to see that someone turned up today. When we were notified last week that legislation was being considered by the House, we were concerned that we would be Minister-less, but our fears have thankfully been abated, because the people’s business must go on despite the caretaker Government and outgoing Prime Minister.

I welcome the Minister to his new caretaker position in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I gently say that, with the clock ticking, his time in the post may be more about quality than quantity, but that is okay. I want to be helpful—that is how I approach every day—so I urge the Minister to use the days and weeks that he has in his role to be bold, to be strong and to work with Opposition Members to protect our environment and preserve our planet, because we stand ready to serve.

Before I go into the body of the SI, I place on record my genuine thanks to the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) after their resignations from the Government last week. We did not always agree, but we developed a respectful working relationship, and we more than once joked that we saw more of each other than we did of our spouses, children and loved ones due to the constant flow of DEFRA-related business before the House. However, I am sure that the next Prime Minister will speedily return them both to Government positions between now and the imminent general election.

Today, we consider the draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-use Plastics) Regulations 2022. I have spoken to a range of stakeholders in advance of this sitting, and I particularly thank Sarah Williams and the indefatigable Ruth Chambers of the Green Alliance for their continuing campaign work. As we consider the SI, it is important to understand the background. In our exchange, Sarah noted that a major concern of the 2020 Act was that individual Governments would be disincentivised from improving standards. The mutual recognition principle in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act means that goods that have been produced in, or imported into, one part of the UK must be able to be sold to any other part of the UK, regardless of any restrictions that apply in that part. That risks rendering any new environmental requirements for goods ineffective, and creating a chilling effect on their creation in the first place.

In another case of being late to the party, the Government did agree that a specific divergence from the operation of the market access principles could be agreed through the common frameworks process where all parties are in agreement, and so we find ourselves here today for the first time. Labour will not oppose the legislation today, but we will continue to be a critical friend and look at how we can make sure Ministers are as bold and effective as possible. That is the only way we will make progress in the battle to protect our environment and clean up our planet.

As the explanatory note published with the legislation helpfully highlighted, the regulations before us

“amend Schedule 1 to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020…to insert a further exclusion from the market access principles in Part 1 of the 2020 Act, in respect of certain specified single-use plastic items.”

As the Minister said, these items are

“straws, plastic stemmed cotton buds, drink stirrers, plates, cutlery and chopsticks, balloon sticks, and expanded or extruded polystyrene food and drink containers and cups. In consequence of the amendment, the market access principles will not apply to, or affect the operation of, any legislation so far as it prohibits the sale of the specified items in any part of the United Kingdom.”

I acknowledge the work that the Welsh Labour Government have done on tackling plastic waste. Under Welsh Labour, Wales introduced a fully comprehensive charge on single-use bags back in 2010, and it took another five years before the UK Government introduced a half-measure ban applying only to larger retailers. The Welsh Labour Government are also committed to introducing legislation to ban the supply of said articles, and I note the UK Government have consulted on proposals to ban the supply of single-use plastic plates, balloon sticks and expanded or extruded polystyrene food and drink containers, including cups, in England in 2023. Will the Minister update hon. Members on that consultation and say how many people have responded to it?

The Northern Ireland protocol requires the supply of single-use plastic plates, cutlery, balloon sticks, drink stirrers, cotton bud sticks and expanded polystyrene food and drink containers, including cups, to be banned. Will that be affected by the promises made by many candidates for the Tory party leadership? Will it be on the table when they seek to renegotiate the protocol, as could happen? I would hope not, but I have come to realise that anything is possible at the moment, which is why I ask that question today.

Yesterday, Greenpeace launched its report “The Big Plastic Count Results”. Can the Minister confirm that he has read that report? Will he be meeting Greenpeace to discuss it? The need to act on plastics is obvious to us all; we will support Ministers when they act and hold them to account when they fail to get themselves into gear.

I note that the resources and waste common framework is still referred to as “provisional”. Will the Minister give us a progress check on when it will be permanent? Will he outline what engagement he has had with small and medium-sized businesses across the UK to ensure that they have the support they need to implement the changes? What discussions has he had with colleagues across Government to make sure the funding and support for providing reusable items is there and accessible to businesses and customers?

The resources and waste strategy set out a plan for resource sufficiency and a circular economy, which included an ambition for all plastics to be biodegradable. What steps does the Minister plan to take to remove from circulation plastics that are not biodegradable?

As the Member for Newport West, I am naturally very interested in and totally committed to ensuring that the voices of all the nations of our United Kingdom are part of what we do here and how we do it.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really good speech. I have been impressed by the enthusiasm of schoolchildren in my constituency of Wirral West, where they are learning about plastic pollution and the importance of looking after the environment. I pay tribute to all their teachers for giving them such inspirational education. The children are going home and educating their parents, which is absolutely what needs to happen because it is the children’s future more than any of ours. Does my hon. Friend agree that education on plastics pollution is incredibly important for the future of our planet?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is all about the children educating the parents. Pester-power is so important. Although my own children are older, they definitely pester and ask the question, “What are you doing to save the planet, Mum?”, which is why I ask the Minister the same question.

The Minister stated that consent was sought from Scotland and Wales. Will he give us an idea of what those discussions touched on? Did they extend to the wider fight against plastics? I was concerned that consent from the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland was not provided in the timeline set out. That highlights the impact of the lack of any functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland. We need an Executive in Stormont, and we need one now. I urge Ministers to redouble their efforts to get all the parties around the table, because the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have their views, thoughts and needs factored into what happens on plastics, waste and recycling.

I note that no full impact assessment has been produced for this instrument because, as the Minister said, in his view no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen. However, we cannot take the view that there is no impact without making an assessment. It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation: how can we know the impact if an assessment has not been done first?

In many ways, this legislation is a formality and brings things in order, so we will not be pressing for a vote today. That said, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise several issues and to pose questions to the new Minister on the impact of the tidying up, this Government’s approach to plastics and plastic usage, and the need to do all we can to protect and preserve our planet.

Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I rise today in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who is on an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Kosovo and hence is not able to be in the Chamber today. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), the shadow Secretary of State, is visiting Yorkshire, so I am afraid the House is stuck with me. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate and for her speech. I have enjoyed listening to all the powerful, interesting, educational and unifying calls for action among the speeches we have heard here.

When we were notified last week that this motion would be considered by the House, many of us were concerned that we would be Minister-less, but our fears have thankfully been calmed, because the people’s business must go on despite a caretaker Government and its outgoing Prime Minister. We are also relieved to find the Secretary of State safe in his caretaker position at DEFRA. I welcome the Minister formally to his place; I look forward to his completing his eight-week job interview, and I hope he will be able to stay on.

I place on record my genuine thanks to the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) following their resignations from the Front Bench last week. We did not always agree, but we developed a respectful working relationship, and more than once we joked that we saw more of each other than we did of our spouses, children and loved ones, due to the constant flow of DEFRA-related business in the House.

It has been a very quiet week here in Westminster, with not a lot going on at all. As such, I was grateful to be able to use this time to reflect on the critical work required to preserve our planet and protect our environment. I am very clear that we need the upcoming COP15 summit to do more than just contribute to global warming through lots of hot air; we need it to deliver for the planet’s wildlife and for its people. It will be no surprise to the House that I am here to reiterate Labour’s approach to the environment, which has always been driven by those twin priorities. We on the Labour Benches believe that those priorities are even more important now, because in a time of such cost of living desperation, both internationally and here at home, we cannot deliver for one without the other. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for his stark example of GDP versus biodiversity with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

Delivering for the natural world requires social and economic justice. That is something that the Leader of Opposition recognises, and I hope the Minister will recognise it too. The approach of protecting a few isolated green spaces and relying on markets is failing and gets us nowhere near far enough, and certainly not fast enough, as the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) highlighted earlier.

In any case, we are seeing protections eroded because commercial demands for land are insatiable and some in this House have the wrong spending priorities. Time and again, across the world and at home, we see the most disadvantaged communities suffering the worst impacts of environmental degradation: their homes flooded and swept away in deadly landslides, their fields and livestock left parched by drought, their homes left draughty, cold and damp through lack of insulation while fossil fuel-dependent energy bills soar, their children’s health blighted by fossil fuel-generated air pollution, sewage pumped into their local rivers and over playing fields, and their neighbourhoods devoid of the green space and nature that lockdown surely taught us are so essential for human mental and physical wellbeing.

The United Kingdom has been among the most nature-depleted countries for decades. The Natural History Museum’s biodiversity intactness index revealed that the world has crashed through the “safe limit for humanity” level of for biodiversity loss, and saw the UK’s 53% score place it in the bottom 10% of countries.

That is well below China, and humiliatingly we are last in the G7—so much for global Britain. In practice it means that even some of our most iconic and much loved animals are being added to the growing list of endangered species. Eleven of the 47 mammals native to Great Britain are at imminent risk of extinction, including the red squirrel, wildcat, water vole, dormouse and hedgehog. I pay tribute to the Members who have declared their animal championing pedigrees, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). A further five native mammals have a realistic possibility of becoming threatened with extension in the near future, including the mountain hare.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was under instruction, had I been able to make a speech, to mention that I am parliamentary species champion for the swift and to make a plea for us to protect and to increase their habitats by ensuring that there are swift bricks in every new building. I have got that on the record.

[Ruth Jones]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the great work she does on biodiversity and as a swift champion. I will add that to my list of champions in the House. We know that puffins are projected to decline across Britain and Ireland by up to 90% within 30 years, and they are among 14 seabird species regarded as being at risk of negative climate change impacts. The shadow Minister for the natural environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West recently visited RSPB Bempton Cliffs, renowned for its puffins, but was not able to find a single one.

Ministers, notably Lord Goldsmith, often pat themselves on the back claiming they are doing all they can to advance the environmental agenda, but the fact of the matter is that our nature teeters on a cliff edge. I hope when the new Prime Minister takes office on 6 September that she or he will set out clearly how they will pull nature back from the brink. Under this caretaker Prime Minister, we all see a Tory Government consistently making the wrong choices, failing to engage with stake- holders properly, delaying action and ducking the urgent challenges facing us all.

Rather than setting the international agenda on biodiversity and leading the debate, the Budget last year—delivered as world leaders began to arrive for COP26—did not even mention climate change. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) found time to give a tax break for domestic flights and fell woefully short on the investment needed to deliver green jobs and a fair transition. It does not bode well for how he would approach the top job.

The Conservatives’ Environment Act 2021, which was well known as the “missing in action” Bill as it worked its way through the House, set a target on species abundance, and the Minister will recall that DEFRA Ministers were forced to concede that action was needed. Sadly, they only went as far as promising to halt the decline in species by 2030. Just halting the decline is not good enough—our ambition should be nature-positive here at home and in our work with colleagues on the world stage through COP15.

In 2020, the Government managed to deliver less than half their target of 5,000 hectares of new trees in England, and we had empty words from Lord Goldsmith that they would do better. The planned spending on tree planting is dwarfed by subsidies to Drax to ship and burn wood pellets from around the world, particularly from the US, with a lack of due diligence to make sure it is not from virgin forest. Meanwhile, the Government are doing far too little to protect the trees we do have. Deforestation is increasing across the planet and our consumption in Britain is driving deforestation abroad, which impacts here and across the world. Here, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central for his dogged tree-planting over the past 30 years.

In the Environment Act 2021, the Government’s due diligence measures cover only illegal deforestation. Why are we agreeing trade deals with countries such as Brazil, Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia while they continue to destroy rainforests? Just yesterday, we saw reports that deforestation of the Amazon is at its highest level for six years. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell highlighted that in his speech earlier. We must remember that human rights are always threatened when rainforest deforestation happens, and the best stewards of those rainforests are the indigenous people who have cared for them for thousands of years and for whom they are home. Funding men with guns to guard empty rainforest is not a sustainable or ethical policy, but sadly it appears to be one that this Prime Minister and DEFRA have pursued up until now.

Action has been inadequate across DEFRA policy for far too long. Water companies have continued to be allowed to pump sewage into rivers, and that has only hastened the decline of endangered species. After the Government finally got an ivory ban on the statute book in 2018, their dither and delay meant that it did not actually come into force until years after many other countries had acted. They have failed to deliver promised wildlife protection legislation to ban trophy hunting and fur imports. Last week I had a very good meeting with former President of Botswana Ian Khama, who, although out of office, is a really doughty and dogged campaigner for the rights of animals. Obviously he backs a global ban on trophy hunting.

Meanwhile at home, thousands and thousands of badgers continue to be killed. The Government have also authorised bee-killing neonic pesticides and have failed to act to stop illegal hunting or effectively limit peat extraction and moorland burning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) outlined in her speech. Of course, I cannot forget foxhunting. The killing of any animal will have an impact on our natural world and biodiversity, and hunting is no different. We have so many more priorities; I urge the Government to clean our waters, clean our air and protect our green spaces as a starter for 10.

Labour will deliver the change that we all want to see. Action at home must showcase for the world how a positive nature policy can practically be delivered across Government. The shadow Chancellor has committed a Labour Government to a robust net zero and nature-positive test for every policy. That will be backed with a £28 billion a year investment to meet the challenge of the climate and nature emergency, create certainty for business, and provide leadership as we seize all the opportunities before our United Kingdom.

Earlier this week I attended the online meeting with Patrick Vallance. Nobody who was there could have failed to leave fired up and ready to do whatever is necessary to protect our planet and preserve our environment. We can address both the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis. I say to the Government: if they cannot do both, they should get out of the way because we will. The truth is that, when we want them to, Government can and do make real change to the lives of people and our environment, too. The clock is ticking on the Prime Minister’s time in office, and it is ticking on our mission to save our planet, too. Now is the time for transformational change for our people and our planet. I wish COP15 well and hope that all those round the table will heed the warnings, wake up and smell the coffee, and get back to work.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I welcome the new Minister to his position.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Q Earlier, you were asked about our relationship with the EU on this matter, and you mentioned progress in precision breeding across the world. How does that fit together, where is most of the research taking place, and which countries should we look at to make comparisons with the UK?

Dr Ferrier: Certainly, the most recent development in countries reviewing their legislation, and one that I think would be really useful for you to look at, is what Health Canada, the Canadian authority, has done. It has recently reviewed its legislation and put out some technical guidance. The key thing is that it confirms that precision bred organisms do not pose any additional safety risks compared with conventionally bred plant varieties. That is driving Canada’s regulatory process. It is not proposing different authorisation and risk-assessment processes. It does not believe that that would add any significant benefit for consumers or the environment, because the science does not show any additional risks—that is very similar to the European Food Safety Authority opinion from the end of November 2020.

Argentina is certainly a very interesting case. Since it has put in place proportionate and enabling regulations—such as those that the Government propose in this Bill—it has seen a real increase in the number of small and medium-sized enterprises and public-good breeding R&D activities taking products through that regulatory process, so that it is not just the preserve of the largest companies that are able to pay for and absorb any uncertainty in a less ideal or dysfunctional regulatory process.

Japan is another example of where a product—a tomato—has been through that process. In countries that put in place proper regulation, the actual process is functional and works well for the companies. Those countries then see investment in R&D and into commercial companies. That is bringing through the products. South America, North America and Japan are investing in this. It is interesting to see how quickly the science develops into commercial opportunities once the regulations are right.

David Exwood: The challenges that we face as farmers in the UK—sustainability, climate change and so on—are the challenges faced by farmers across the world, and we are all looking for solutions to those problems. It is interesting that across the world, there is a move on this technology, which we are seeing quite widely. That is because everybody is looking for answers and solutions to the challenges that we all face.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Q I thank the witnesses for their time. I want to turn to animals specifically, which some people are surprised to see included in the Bill so early on. Animal welfare charities are anxious that using gene editing to improve productivity and disease resistance could lead to more intensive farming. What would you say to that?

Dr Ferrier: There is no evidence that that would be the case, but we understand that people have concerns about existing farming systems. We see that expressed, and we work hard to address it. To me, that is a separate issue from the Bill. We can have discussions about how to improve animal welfare, but I really do not think that it would be sensible, I guess, to design special elements of this particular Bill to address general concerns about farming systems.

The other important thing to be aware of is all the existing animal welfare rules and activities within Government and industry. Obviously the Animal Welfare Act 2006 applies, so we need not duplicate elements of that in the Bill, and there are codes of practice for each sector that are being reviewed all the time. Also, the action plan for animal welfare is in place, and the animal welfare pathway is being developed. We therefore think that concerns in the area, which are freely expressed, are being, and can be, dealt with through appropriate parts of legislation and industry action.

The Bill, which relates to just one particular technology, is not the place to address those areas. We have talked about the challenges. It is not just a challenge for growers of crops; there are a lot of difficulties that are climate change-related, and disease, health and welfare-related production challenges for farmers. There are genetic solutions to some of those challenges that we would like to see explored. We would like farmers to have the benefit of them, but we will only be able to explore them if the legislation enables companies to invest in the technologies to work out whether some of them could help. We can only see benefit from using this technology to address some of those problems.

[Ruth Jones]

Mr Exwood, do you want to add anything specifically on gene editing and animal welfare?

David Exwood: I understand the concerns about animal welfare, but it is really important to say that with animals the ability to produce sustainability with less impact applies just the same as with crops. I have dehorned thousands of cattle in my farming career, and the ability to breed out horns in cattle is a clear gain for people and livestock. It would be good for everybody. I would be very happy if I never had to dehorn another calf again. I understand the nervousness, but there are things that this Bill will offer that are clearly a gain. It is wrong to assume that it will just lead to an intensification of production.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Q We have already spoken this morning and asked a question about regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU. Your response was that you were not concerned about that so much as you were about the UK being left behind. Some of us are quite concerned about areas of the United Kingdom being left behind, given the Scottish Government’s reluctance thus far to look at doing the same sort of thing that we are doing, so I want to ask our two guests: do you have any concerns about regulatory divergence within the United Kingdom?

David Exwood: Yes, we do have concerns. The main concern is that farmers across the UK should have access to this technology. I would urge that the gains we see are available to all. I understand the politics of the situation, but again I think that the fact that the EU is moving on this and has made clear signals about the direction of travel gives us some reassurance that across the whole continent we are moving to a different position on this technology. Therefore, the other countries of the UK should be looking to where everybody is moving and our market is moving, and think about how they might want to be in line, alongside what we could do in England.

Dr Ferrier: To be honest, I think it is a real shame, because clearly some of the best scientists and geneticists are operating in Wales and Scotland. There is a real strength. A lot of investment goes on under our devolved Administrations to invest in the science, but in order for there to be a return on that investment, it needs to lead to some kind of commercial adoption. It is a real shame for those scientists to consider that their work will not go beyond the lab if those Administrations’ positions remain the same. I do not think this should be a political issue, because it is about recognising a technology that has a lot of potential to do good things for the environment, society, animals, and farmers and growers; it would be a shame if it were a political issue. We will see. Time will tell whether movement within the EU—which certainly for the Scottish Government, as you know, is a key place where they are looking to see what approach they should take—will change the position. It would be a shame if this were derailed for political reasons when the issues are not political.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We are. We missed a little towards the end there, Professor.

Professor Henderson: I am sorry; if it happens again, I will switch wi-fi on to my phone. I do apologise.

I was saying that, from an EU perspective, the final thing to say is that the EU itself is of course consulting on changing the law in a way similar to the way that we are considering, and it is quite likely to change on the same timescale that we will be producing marketable crops.

[Ruth Jones]

Q Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Professor Henderson, for your time this morning.

I note in the Bill that the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals; therefore, it follows that it is obviously not just farm animals that we are talking about here. I just wondered what you see the Bill actually covering in terms of applications beyond farm animals—what sort of areas do you see the Bill taking us in?

Professor Henderson: I am sorry; could you repeat the question, please?

[Ruth Jones]

Yes, okay. In the Bill, the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals. Therefore, it follows that if we are not just talking about farm animals, we are talking about animals outside farms. What sort of applications you were thinking of? As you said, you have been involved in the development of this Bill. What sort of areas are we looking at in terms of the application of gene editing here?

[The Chair]

Did you hear that question, Professor Henderson?

Professor Henderson: I heard something about—[Interruption.] The application for animals outside the farm is something that will need to be addressed before secondary legislation can be enacted. It is not something that I am willing to discuss now, because I—[Interruption.]

[Ruth Jones]

I am sorry, Chair; I cannot understand the answer.

[Jo Churchill]

I understand, Gideon, that you are on a visit. May I suggest, with the Committee’s indulgence, that we slot you in on Thursday, if people are agreeable and you have the time? Your evidence is both welcome and vital, and we would like to hear from you.

Professor Henderson: Again, I can only apologise for the bad wi-fi I have here. I would be happy to come back to you at any time that suits the Committee.

[The Chair]

We have 10 minutes left in this session, so let us have one more try. If that is unsuccessful, then, with my co-Chair, we can consider changing the programme motion. We have agreed a programme motion so it would have to be formally changed. Will you ask the question again, Ruth?

[Ruth Jones]

Did you hear the question, Professor Henderson?

Professor Henderson: I think your question was to do with animals that are not on farms—non-livestock animals—which I take to mean things like pets. In that area, there is a piece of work still to do to ensure that animal welfare is looked after and continues to be well looked after following the passage of any Bill on precision breeding. That is a piece of work that scientific information will need to feed into.

There is a body of evidence on animal welfare, including on-farm and off-farm welfare. That is a process that I believe will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.

[Ruth Jones]

Q Just to be clear, did you say this piece of work will take two to three years to take place?

Professor Henderson: That is our expectation.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Continuing on the animal front, we know that some animals, such as pets, including some of the brachycephalic dogs, are bred to have traits that are not desirable from a health point of view. There is increasing concern about the popularity of pugs, French bulldogs and creatures like that. On the farm animal side, you have poultry that is bred to an immense size and cows where the milk yields are going up year on year—they are bred to produce more than they would naturally.

What do you see as the parameters of that? How will the Bill protect animal welfare? Because of the popularity of those dogs, breeders may make use of the new technology to breed even more extreme examples. Would that be desirable? How can we prevent that from happening? You may have answered that in response to my colleague and said that it needs more time, but how do you see that in terms of the desire for increased yields and increased production on farms? Is there not an argument for not including animals in the Bill while this further research takes place?

Professor Henderson: Scientifically, the application of these technologies to cross to livestock or other animals is identical in terms of the changes it can cause. It can mimic the impact of breeding more efficiently, effectively and rapidly. In the livestock and animal area, this has identified more clearly a problem that was already there and the fact that we know, with respect to animal welfare, there are some negative outcomes that come from traditional breeding processes. If we are able to speed that process up through precision breeding, those negative outcomes may occur more quickly.

The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals. That is not because the science is different but because the existing regulation around animals differs from that needed around crops. That is why the instrument is set up as a secondary instrument, so that there is time to fully consider and deal with the animal welfare processes before that is changed in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

That is helpful. Thank you.

[Ruth Jones]

Q Thank you for your time this morning, Professor May. We heard from a previous witness that the EU is likely to develop its work on gene editing along similar timescales. Given the need to share information, how will the FSA and the European Food Safety Authority share information as we go down this path?

Professor May: Previously, prior to Brexit, everything was handled at the European level. As I just mentioned, we share informally the scientific advice, which is very international. Often the people who are providing evidence for a risk assessment are the same people—they may not even be within the EU, but wherever that expertise is available in the world—so there is quite a lot of sharing at that level. Currently, our only formal arrangement with the EU on food safety is around alerts. An alert for a food safety issue that may have an impact on the UK is passed to us, but something that affects countries outside and has no impact on the UK would not necessarily be shared.

I think all of us hope that there will be a reciprocal arrangement for sharing information in future. It is in everyone’s interest to share as much evidence and data as possible, but that is obviously not in my gift to control. There is recognition in the EU that the current GM framework is not fit for purpose for these kinds of products, so the process is already rolling in the EU to look at how it might be changed. How long that will take, and what the outcome might be, will obviously be very different. I would anticipate that it is going to take longer than it will in the UK to get resolution on that.

[Ruth Jones]

Q You mentioned alerts. Obviously, nobody wants to leave it until there is an alert situation, but what about developing more formal mechanisms as we go forward, rather than relying on the good will of scientists?

Professor May: Sitting here as a scientist, obviously I hope very much that there will be good sharing. As I said before, it is in everyone’s interest to share the best science and the best evidence around this. Happily, building those relationships is not in my purview to organise, but I hope that there will be sharing, particularly around the horizon-scanning function. For us as a regulator, it is really critical to think about not just what is on our desks now, but what will be there in two, three or five years’ time. What is the science that we will need to assess the potential risks of products that I have not even thought of yet? Collaborative agreement around what might be coming down the road is really critical for all of us.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Something occurred to me when I was looking at the Bill again last night. Do you feel that you have sufficient capacity to be able to cope with the extra responsibilities that you are taking on? Have the Ministers given you further guarantees that you will be supported in that?

Professor May: That is a very good question. It is hard to predict based on the estimation of what might be coming to our desks. On the one hand, the Bill will remove a tranche of products that would otherwise have been assessed as GM products. We already regulate GM products, and there is the capacity. On the other hand, the purpose of the Bill is to stimulate development in this area, so we may end up with a lot more applications, in which case we are going to need additional resource. We have taken steps in that direction, including recruiting independent experts in this area to provide scientific expertise, but if there were a large volume of applications needing consideration, we would need additional support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher]

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

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

[Ruth Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you very much; that is very helpful.

[The Chair]

That brings to a conclusion this morning’s session. Professor Dunwell, thank you for your time and evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Second sitting)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock]

But the impact here, in the UK, on trade? Obviously, it is the UK’s largest trading partner, so if it continues to be—

Professor Lovell-Badge: I can imagine there could be an impact. It is hard for me to tell what that might be. It is not my area of expertise at all.

Alessandro Coatti: Yes, I would not be able to discuss in detail how that might be. You probably need to have experts on it. But I am aware that the Food Standards Agency has produced a report on these changes in regulations and this evolution across the globe, and there is definitely a case for the UK to try—we say we would like the UK to lead the way, as it has done with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The UK could still lead the way by making legislation—regulation—that other countries would copy, but there is already a lot out there, so it has to harmonise with the regulations in other countries, such as Japan and Canada. It seems like the Bill is going one step in that direction. In terms of the relationship with the EU, as the closest economic partner and one of the biggest markets that the UK trades with, it is important for the UK, not necessarily to slow down excessively, but to maintain dialogue with the EU Commission while it reviews. The UK in the past has created legislation that the EU has then taken on. For example, when it comes to animals and research, the UK has led the way on the protections—eventually the EU adopted some of those elements. Even though the EU is not politically obliged to anymore, it could still value that.

Professor Lovell-Badge: You may be about to get to labelling. I think the registry is a good idea, because if someone wants to import something from the UK, at least it is then obvious that it could have been genome edited—otherwise they might not know.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Q We have already established that the Bill covers plants and animals, but not micro-organisms. Given that there were suggestions from DEFRA that animals would be considered later down the line, I wondered if you had any thoughts on the fact that they are now included in this Bill.

Alessandro Coatti: In our response we commented mainly on plants and animals, while making some reference to other uses. There are already leading labs in the UK looking at genome-edited livestock species, for example, and how doing genome editing in those species could be beneficial on many levels. I am quite sympathetic to the fact that animals are included in the Bill, even though there is less of a history of genome editing, and genetic modification, in animals than there is in plants.

It seems to me that more safeguards are added here for animals than for plants. There is animal health and welfare assessment as part of the Bill. With animals, it seems clear to me—but Robin can correct me—that genome editing can be used quite safely. We are talking about the techniques and the process, not the outcomes and the traits. If you look at the techniques with the animals, with a number of species you can be pretty sure that you are making the right change in the genome that you wanted and that you are not adding unwanted changes anywhere else. We can say that there are not many additional risks when it comes to technique, relative to traditional breeding. However, that still has to be caveated a bit.

Professor Lovell-Badge: Some of the methods of genome editing are now so efficient and precise that I do not think it is a great concern, but you always have to check. There are good ways of checking what you have done and what you have got. I would not be that concerned. You would have to check the original animal that has been modified, but once you get to subsequent generations, you will be pretty certain of exactly what you have, and of anything wrong. The methods are being used in humans for somatic genome editing. We know a lot about them and how accurate and safe they can be.

Alessandro Coatti: We pointed out two things in relation to the methodological aspects. Robin mentioned one aspect before: how the gene relates to the phenotype. You change something and then you have a trait change in the animal. Some genes have functions in different organs and tissues, so you want to ensure that by doing something you are not messing up something else. That can be done and has to be done as part of the Bill—you should make sure that it will be done.

The other question is about the reproductive techniques you sometimes use to work on the embryos. Those can also have health and welfare implications for the animals, but it should all come down to an expert committee reviewing the application for the genome edited animals, which could say, “Okay, it looks like they checked everything they should have on the technique.”

[The Chair]

Order. Sorry to interrupt, but that is the end of the time allocated for this panel. I want to thank the panel very much for coming today to give evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

William Angus, Professor Johnathan Napier and Professor Nigel Halford gave evidence.