Pollution: Rivers and Beaches

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to raise this issue. We are seeing more extremes of climate, and that is resulting in a lot of runoff into our rivers at particular times. That is why, for example, we are introducing in our environmental land management schemes a determination to use soil more effectively by binding it together with green cover crops, thus preventing it going into the rivers. I am keen to have a conversation with the Church Commissioners, one of the biggest landowners in the country, about how they are interacting with their farmers and supporting them in taking up these schemes, and about how we can work together with large and small landowners and farmers to ensure that we are improving the quality of our environment, particularly our rivers.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, on Thursday the Leader of the House of Commons said that in 2010, only 6% of storm overflows were monitored but the figure is now 100%. However, it is not true that all overflows are monitored, so can the Minister confirm the actual figure today? Can he also confirm whether the department or the regulator collects data on the number of monitors that are offline and the reasons for them being unavailable? My noble friend Lord Watson mentioned Thames Water. According to its map, some two dozen of its monitors were out of action this morning.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The statistic is absolutely right—I can remember seeing it and being stunned that the Government prior to the coalition Government had no idea about this. They knew about only 5% of the storm overflows, so we set about getting that data. If the person quoted in the other place said 100%, it is not quite that but it is nearly there: we are in the 90s, and by the end of this year the figure will be 100%. If the telemetry we require to measure the quality is not working, I am happy to take any cases up with the Environment Agency and make sure that we are applying this.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

HL Mencken said something along the lines of, “Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, plausible and wrong”. We really have to stop reaching for the wrong solutions, which is what this Bill does. My Amendments 1 and 2 at least slow down that outreach. I beg to move Amendment 1.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall introduce my amendments in this group, Amendments 11, 27, 29 and 30. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lord Winston for their support. I declare my interest as laid out in the register as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust.

During our Committee debate, the Minister stated that the Government’s intention was to take a step-by-step approach, particularly around the introduction of animals, and that the Bill had the ability to do so. Our concern is that we have heard no clarification as to how this will actually work. By what means do the Government intend to introduce provisions related to distinct species, rather than the “relevant animals” as a class, under the Bill as currently drafted? Despite the Minister’s assurances, we still have no guarantee that this step-by-step approach will actually happen.

My Amendment 11 would set this expectation on the face of the Bill. Combined with my Amendments 27, 29 and 30, the effect would be to prevent a precision-bred animal being released until it had met the date condition provided by my new clause, which would follow Clause 47. This proposes that, for farm animals, the date is no earlier than 1 January 2026, and for other animals, no earlier than 1 January 2028. Also scientific evidence must support this extension: if it does not, the date could be put back further. I just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is not an automatic introduction at that date; it is just putting the step-by-step approach on the face of the Bill.

The reason I have tabled these amendments is that, whether we agree that animals should be included or not, clear concerns were expressed during our Committee debates as to when they should be included, how quickly they should be included, and whether all animals should be included at the same time. We believe there is insufficient detail in the Bill regarding concrete provisions around timeframes: many of them are vague and noncommittal. Much of the preparation that we believe is necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been properly carried out.

When this issue was debated in Committee, the noble Lord the Minister said:

“All I can do is assure noble Lords that nothing will happen before we are in the right position to do it … The priority will be to try to do this for farmed animals first, and we want to make sure that we are operating a step-by-step approach. If we put it in the Bill, it may be too prescriptive, because we are in a fast-moving area of science, and it may constrain the ability of the scientific community to progress this if we do it in the wrong way.”—[Official Report, 12/12/22; col.503.]


We listened to the Minister’s words and, in order not to tie the Government’s hands or constrain the scientific community if there is clear evidence, for example, of a scientific breakthrough in tackling bird flu, the amendment allows for flexibility. An accelerated timetable should come in only if scientific opinion supported this. So we have not set these dates in stone in either direction.

I hope the Minister can see that we are taking a constructive approach to trying to put step-by-step on the face of the Bill. However, if he is not prepared to accept our amendments, I intend to seek the opinion of the House.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her courtesy in giving way. I will make only two brief comments. The first addresses the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised, particularly the reference to the workshop that I helped to organise last Friday, where we had a number of experts giving us their take on the science. It is very often—in fact, usually—the case that scientists do not absolutely agree on everything; that is just the way that science is. When you go as a scientist to a conference, you do not expect everybody to say, “Fantastic, your research is absolutely superb”. People criticise it and challenge you and say, “Why are you doing that in this way and not some other way?” But there is sometimes a centre of gravity of opinion. Science goes through different phases. There may be no agreed position and gradually over time it is possible that a position consolidates in a particular way.

I think it is fair to say that Dr Michael Antoniou, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred, is probably not in the centre of gravity of current opinion on the safety issues and other technical aspects of gene editing. So while I absolutely applaud the noble Baroness’s point which raised the diversity of opinions in the scientific community, I do not think your Lordships should be too swayed by a particular individual’s point of view, because I do not think it is the centre of gravity of scientific opinion.

My second, very brief point concerns timescales and is related to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. One can see this in two ways, as her introduction to her amendments implied. You could see it as putting the brakes on—do not rush too quickly before you are sure—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would wish us to do. On the other hand, towards the end of her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, “We don’t want to hold things back”. On the one hand we do not want to rush, and on the other hand we do not want to have the brakes applied too sharply.

I am trying to anchor that in a bit of reality. As far as I am aware—I was told this at the meeting last Friday by Professor Bruce Whitelaw, director of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, which is the UK’s leading centre for this sort of technology in animals—in the US, the Food and Drug Administration is already reviewing a licence application for gene-edited pigs. The animal genetics company, Genus, in collaboration with the University of Missouri, has developed a pig that is totally resistant to the virus that causes porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome—PRRS for short. So the question in assessing the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is, would that amendment hold up the commercialisation of this pig, if the FDA and the relevant bodies in the UK approved it?

Given that it would improve pig welfare, because PRRS is not a pleasant disease, and save the pig industry a very large amount of money—an estimated $2.5 billion a year in Europe and the US alone—do we want accidentally to place a barrier on that kind of development through timescale limits? I do not land on one side or the other; I just think it is useful to have a real-life example of what is going on. My question to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is this: if this PRRS-resistant pig came to market before 2026, would that count as an example of where the 2026 hurdle should be removed, because it is ready to go, or would she want to keep it in place? The question on the other side is whether it will realistically go from FDA approval to commercialisation in about three years. I am not trying to land on one side or the other, just to anchor this in a specific example which may help us think through our response to the proposed amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Just to come back on that, proposed new subsection (4) in my amendment says:

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend the dates listed in subsection (2)”—


the dates I read out—

“if the requirement under subsection (3)”,

which is the evidence condition the noble Lord is talking about,

“is met before the dates”.

There is flexibility in the amendment to bring those dates forward if that scientific evidence is there.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly on a point of information. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has helped his cause, although he is very knowledgeable in this area and I pay tribute to him in that regard, in mentioning that a particular academic is not deemed to be at the centre of gravity on these issues. Who are we to judge? This is a fast-moving and complicated field. We are leaving what has been a highly regulated area, where our farm products have moved very freely between here and the European Union; if we go down this path of very light regulation in the Bill, how do we know that the EU will accept our food products? I shall listen very carefully to my noble friend’s response, in particular to the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench.

I feel that there is an uneasiness and lack of understanding among the public about this, which I share. I am in awe of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh; it is my alma mater, although I studied law rather than science or veterinary science. I realise that cloning is different, but the very fact that we do not seem to be going down that path, which was first brought up with Dolly the sheep, raises issues. I am very uneasy about moving to light-touch regulation when the science is not at one on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

11: Clause 3, page 3, line 24, after “unless” insert “, in relation to a precision bred animal, the date condition in section (Entry into force of provisions relating to animals) has been met, and unless”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent a precision bred animal from being released unless the date condition in a later Clause in the name of Baroness Hayman of Ullock has been met. Taken collectively, these amendments would ensure a phasing in of the animal provisions in the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment and I am pleased that he reaffirmed the Government’s ambition to phase in different species. The problem is that it is not actually in the Bill, so there is no guarantee that it will happen. I would also like to come back to him on this: the amendment is not designed to restrict. If scientific evidence supports this application, it will not restrict it. I thought I had made that clear. Also, if the Minister believes that the introduction of animals is likely to be later than the date in my amendment, I really do not understand the reluctance to accept this and have it in the Bill. On that note, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with technical scientific issues and moving whole or parts of clauses from the negative procedure to the affirmative. Your Lordships will know that I am not a scientist so I shall, I hope, avoid digging a hole for myself or getting caught in the crossfire.

Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would require the details of genome sequencing to be recorded in a publicly available register. If the processes outlined in this Bill are to be carried forward successfully, it will be necessary for farmers, producers and the public especially to have confidence in the process. Ensuring that there is transparency and visibility through a publicly available register can only help this process. The DPRRC was strongly in favour of such a register in its report of 2 December.

Amendment 13, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to make the whole regulation in Clause 3 affirmative. Currently, the Bill is silent on whether Clause 3 is affirmative or negative. I suspect that, as it currently stands, Clause 4(6) applies to the whole of the section headed “Release”.

I am grateful to the Minister for his amendments in this group. At Second Reading and in Committee, concerns were raised at the number of negative procedures in the Bill. The Minister has tabled government Amendments 14 and 15 to Clause 4, which would qualify the section on marketing and keep subsection (1)(b) as negative while the rest of this clause will be moved to the affirmative procedure. This is welcome and gives the opportunity for debate on the notification requirements if necessary. Perhaps the Minister can clarify in his response whether Clauses 3 and 4 are covered by his Amendments 14 and 15. If not, can he say what process is applied for Clause 3? I am sorry; I may have misunderstood what this is all about.

Amendment 16, to Clause 6(4), moves regulations on the precision bred confirmation from negative to affirmative. We welcome the Minister’s movement on this point. This is a sensible way forward and, again, gives the opportunity for further debate.

Government Amendments 24 and 25 are somewhat confusing. Amendment 24 indicates that the regulations under Clause 18(1) are to be affirmative, and Amendment 25 deletes “this section” and inserts “subsection (6)”. I think this means that Clause 18(1) is affirmative while the rest of the clause is negative, as Clause 18(7) has not been amended. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. It is important for when we come to debate these things later to know whether it is affirmative or negative. Although these are technical amendments, they are very important and provide transparency in the Bill, which is to be welcomed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has tabled two amendments. Amendment 12 concerns the publicly available register. Clearly, transparency and information for the public will be important if we are to carry people with us, so we need to look at how we develop registers and information to reassure people and to give them the information that they need to have confidence in the legislation.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, drew attention to the parallel piece of legislation, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, in which there is a requirement for the surrender of ongoing records containing the information about the impacts, both the positive and the adverse outcomes, on individuals used under the terms of that Act. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, read out an opinion which emphasised the importance of an audit trail, so there is a general feeling in this House that information and a public register are important.

Amendment 13 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report on the Bill, which was very helpful. I reassure the Minister, who knows that we support the Bill, that what concerns us is that so much is left to an unknown number of SIs over an unspecified timescale. If the regulations in Clause 3 are under the affirmative procedure, Parliament will rightly have a formal role in improving the finer details of the release and marketing notices, crucially ensuring that we have proper political consensus on this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, the Government have moved a number of clauses from the negative to the affirmative procedure. I will not go into all the detail, as she covered everything that I was going to ask about on this, since some of it is not crystal clear. We know that the Government can see that there is merit in moving from the negative to affirmative. Can the Minister clarify why not this clause as well if that is not the case, as this is important?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 12, which would require details of the specific gene editing event and the whole-genome sequence of a qualifying precision-bred organism to be made publicly available for its release into the environment. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 13 to Clause 3 would require that regulations made under this clause to establish a public register containing this information are subject to the affirmative procedure.

It is not our intention to require breeders to include sequence data as part of their release or marketing notices. I have discussed this previously following an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, in Committee. We have since had a very useful meeting with the noble Lord and our scientific advisors, ACRE, to explore why whole- genome sequencing information has limited value in most cases, and the noble Lord has not retabled his amendment on Report.

This type of information has limited value because there is a significant degree of genetic variation between individual plants and animals within a species, which is more or less the point that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was making. This amount of background noise means that the value in requiring whole-genome sequences is limited in terms of addressing regulatory questions; for example, questions about the precision-bred status of a plant or animal. Additionally, the release notice that researchers are required to submit to Defra will be in line with the requirements of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022, which were agreed by the affirmative procedure.

Our intention is that information provided in release notices will be published on the precision breeding register and will include the relevant and necessary information about the precision-bred organism in it. We also intend to require developers to confirm that the organisms that they intend to release in research trials meet the criteria in the Bill. The technical details of this notice will be prescribed by regulations, prepared with input from the advisory committee appointed to advise the Secretary of State on the regulatory status of these organisms and, in accordance with the amendments to Clause 4 that I have tabled, our intention is that such regulations will be scrutinised using the affirmative procedure before they are made.

I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is persuaded to withdraw this amendment and not move her additional amendment to Clause 3, which would specify the parliamentary procedure for the delegated power that her substantive amendment would insert.

I always pay particular attention to points raised on secondary legislation by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. As a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, she is very good at holding me to account on these. I did not quite understand her point about Clause 3 because there are no regulations in Clause 3 and therefore no requirement for it to be affirmative or negative.

We remain of the belief that the matters to be set out in the regulations under the powers in Clauses 4(3) and 6(2) are administrative in nature. However, the Government acknowledge that these provisions are of significant public interest. We have heard this previously in the House and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has raised this as well. We have considered these matters closely and have decided to change the procedure from negative to affirmative for both powers. These changes will increase the scrutiny when these powers are used to prescribe the information which must be provided to the Secretary of State by a person who wishes to release or market a precision-bred organism. I hope that noble Lords feel that I was serious in Committee when I said that I had listened to them. I hope that they feel that this improves the Bill. Regulations under Clause 4(1)(b) would be administrative in nature, not of significant public interest, and will remain subject to the negative procedure. I hope that this reassures noble Lords.

Amendments 24 and 25 will increase the level of scrutiny when powers are used to prescribe information that must be included in the precision breeding register. The Government acknowledge that these provisions are of significant public interest. We accept noble Lords’ concerns about the level of scrutiny for such provisions. Therefore, we will change the parliamentary procedure from negative to affirmative for the power in Clause 18(1). Regulations under Clause 18(6) regarding the keeping of the register, which is an administrative matter and, again, not of significant public interest, will remain under the negative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a tenant farmer and as chairman of the Rock review into England’s agricultural tenancies.

The Government’s procedural amendments will increase parliamentary oversight of the design and future development of the animal welfare provisions. The Government recognise that there is a need to safeguard animal welfare, and that is why we need a step-by-step approach by bringing legislation into effect for precision-bred plants first and then for animals. Research in farmed animals is already leading to the development of animals that have increased resistance to some devastating diseases that, as farmers, we all see, and it thereby enhances the health and welfare of animals.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments that move the regulations to the affirmative procedure; they are extremely welcome.

I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for her thorough introduction to her Amendments 19 to 21. I am sure noble Lords will remember that in Committee I tabled a number of amendments relating to the welfare advisory body, so we are very pleased to see my noble friend Lady Jones tabling similar amendments today. I spoke at length on this issue in Committee, my noble friend has introduced her concerns and we have heard from across the House, so I shall be brief.

Amendment 19 makes it clear that, in addition to considering information submitted by the notifier, the welfare advisory body should satisfy itself that the notifier has a record of acting in a manner that is consistent with research and animal welfare requirements across other Acts of Parliament. That really should be part of the body’s role. We do not want any confusion or different decision-making across different bodies.

I may have this recollection wrong, but I thought that in an earlier meeting a flow chart was mentioned showing how different animal welfare bodies, in Defra and the Home Office, would interact. I had been hoping to receive a copy of that to get some clarification about precedence and how this was all going to work together. It may have gone into my spam folder and I may have missed it, but if the Minister could check on that, that would be very helpful.

Currently, the Bill states that the welfare advisory body has to determine whether in the animal welfare declaration the notifier has paid regard to the risks to an animal. One of my concerns has always been that it is the notifier who is driving the process and is in the driving seat, rather than the welfare advisory body, which is why we were all very concerned about more checks and balances. We know the Bill says that the notifier has to take reasonable steps to assess those risks, but we do not believe that is a strong enough protection for animals in the Bill.

My noble friend’s amendment would mean that the welfare advisory body had to assess the impact on animals where a precision-bred trait was developed, with the aim, as she said, of achieving fast growth, high yields or other increases in productivity. As we have heard, we have seen that too often in traditional breeding methods, so we need to bring in these protections. We have heard many examples of traditional selective breeding producing animals that were highly efficient but this was often at the expense of animal welfare, and we need to ensure that that is not an unfortunate consequence of the Bill. The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have raised serious concerns about the lack of safeguards in the Bill to prevent that happening. In addition, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has drawn our attention to the fact that many of the effects of selective breeding have been unintended.

We agree with our noble friend that it is reasonable that welfare impacts should be assessed here. Without the amendment, it is not clear exactly how that would be part of that process with the advisory body, particularly in relation to other bodies that already exist. So we strongly support my noble friend and believe that her amendments should be in the Bill.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for another useful debate. I assure the noble Baroness that we sent her a copy of my flow chart, so it must have ended up in her spam folder. I hope none of my other correspondence to her will be rejected into the ether. It sets out in five clear steps the process of taking something through to authorisation.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that I am not one of those people who repel all boarders when it comes to amendments; we have actually moved considerably on the scrutiny of the Bill, and we want to ensure that there is as much agreement as possible. I concede that we might have a problem on Amendment 19, but I will come on to that.

I repeat that the welfare declaration and the welfare advisory body’s assessment will be based on the principle that precision-bred relevant animals will need to be kept in conditions that satisfy existing requirements in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and, where relevant, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. So existing animal welfare legislation is in place, and the Bill is intended to work alongside it to enable responsible innovation.

An accusation was made, although I cannot remember who by, that this was an enabling Bill and was somehow a forest of Henry VIII clauses. I reject that. It is not a skeleton Bill. We have set out our substantive policy proposals in the Bill and have included appropriate delegated powers to supplement those provisions. Delegated powers serve a valuable purpose and it is always important to assess them in context. Simply counting up the number of powers in a given Bill is not necessarily always meaningful, but I hope we have shifted the balance in terms of those that are affirmative and those that are negative.

There has been talk of belt and braces. I think you can overdo caution in these circumstances, and you can clog up the system. I really feel it would be difficult to accept Amendment 19 as it would pre-empt the Scottish royal college research project. The Bill already outlines a regulatory framework to safeguard animal welfare that goes beyond existing requirements in traditional breeding.

I hope that my words, and the government amendments to increase the degree of parliamentary scrutiny on the animal welfare provisions in the Bill, provide noble Lords with sufficient reassurance not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trees (CB)]

I am grateful for the excellent introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which carries my name and those of two other noble Baronesses. I am also very grateful to the Minister for our meetings. As he and others in the House will be aware, I strongly support the Bill, and I commend the Government on including animals in it. Alongside existing animal welfare legislation, the new breeding technologies promise great benefits to animal health and welfare by reducing the burden of disease, thereby maintaining food production with potentially fewer animals, and reducing land use, the use of drugs and chemicals, the carbon dioxide footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.

I will expand on the productivity issue. Productivity goes both ways: you improve productivity by producing the same amount from fewer animals. Reducing the disease burden will enable us to produce the same amount with fewer animals, with concomitant advantages.

I thank the Minister for the amendments he introduced earlier. Although I have great enthusiasm for the modern technologies and for this Bill, which will facilitate the uptake of those technologies, this enthusiasm—and I note that in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to mine as “gung-ho”, which I take as a compliment—is not shared by everyone. If we want these technologies to be applied and the benefits to be realised, it is going to be essential to take the public with us and ensure public confidence so that they take them up and accept them. This amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has elegantly said, basically makes it mandatory in the Bill that there shall be a reporting process for potential adverse effects post marketing. So it differs in that respect from Clause 14, but much of the rest of our amendment is copied from Clause 14.

What we are suggesting is also a two-tier reporting system. The first tier is a voluntary system, proposed for individuals such as farmers, keepers of animals, veterinary surgeons and animal health professionals. But for the commercial bodies that hold a marketing authorisation, there should be a mandatory requirement to collect data about the possible adverse effects on PB animals’ health and welfare and to submit that data at periodic intervals.

I will make a number of key points on the amendments. First, they mirror precisely current regulations with regard to possible adverse effects of drugs marketed for veterinary use, and indeed for human use, both of which have voluntary as well as mandatory reporting systems in place.

Secondly, we submit—and I reinforce the points the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made—that we do not feel that what we are asking is disproportionate, in that only the commercial sellers of these animals, the people making money, have the legal obligation to collect adverse effects reports and notify of them. But there is a provision for others to do so voluntarily, which could be a sort of check that the notifiers are not ignoring potential problems.

Thirdly, surely it is in the interests of the developers of a new product to safeguard the reputation of that product by seeking and surveying and monitoring the possible outcomes of the development when used in the real world.

Fourthly, the definition of an adverse effect can be made in regulations, and indeed that is already provided for in Clause 25. But I suggest it should refer to issues over and above the expected health issues that might affect any conventionally bred animals but might reasonably be associated with a particular breeding technology. But this requirement can be time-limited under regulation for any given precision-breeding method.

Fifthly, this can be quite a light-touch system. For example, the reporting of adverse effects of veterinary medicines requires an online pro forma which can be sent in digitally to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which assesses it. That directorate, of course, already exists. The marketing authorisation holders could also submit their reports in the first place to something like the VMD, which could triage them and then pass them to the Secretary of State for consideration by the animal welfare advisory body, which is already set up —we are not asking for new bodies to be set up.

Sixthly, and perhaps most importantly, the public acceptance of precision-bred animals is hugely important if the Bill is ultimately to be of value, and I submit that it will be a considerable reassurance for the public to know that the sale and commercial breeding of precision-bred animals will be monitored for unforeseen negative effects post-marketing to complement the pre-marketing reporting requirements under Clause 12.

Seventhly, such post-marketing monitoring will also provide both the animal welfare advisory body and the marketeers with essential feedback on the robustness, validity and safety of their pre-marketing assessments. That would be important to inform them and help them develop, if necessary, better systems.

Eighthly and finally, the Minister has assured us that the use in animals will be phased in. Surely, if one is phasing in, one would want to monitor what was happening to the first group in the real world when it is being sold and used by farmers. Only then, by collecting that information, could you be assured, at the end of whatever length of time that phase is, that it is safe and appropriate to proceed to subsequent phases. I would argue that phasing in automatically suggests that one needs to be monitoring what is happening in that first phase, which will involve thousands of animals but will be a real-world experiment to prove or disprove the safety of the system. I do not expect there to be major problems, but it will give assurance to the public. On these collective grounds, I support Amendments 22 and 23.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who has spoken at length on why she feels it is necessary to delay the implementation of the Bill. The Bill sets in train a considerable step towards precision engineering and a move away from traditional practices. Great care is needed to ensure that all unintended consequences are avoided. The extra protections that the noble Baroness proposes are therefore necessary and I look forward to the Minister’s response and reassurance on this matter.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her thorough introduction to her amendment. I completely understand why she is bringing it forward. There are areas of the Bill around implementation, oversight and the step-by-step process that we have discussed time and time again that people are still concerned about. The requirement of the amendment for a report to be published that identifies any gaps in scientific evidence is an interesting one. It will be good to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for this amendment. I am keen to have a much wider conversation with people. My learning curve has been incredibly steep as I have gone through this—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is nodding as well. It is an area of science which is not understood by an awful lot of people. While I have sought to bring in as many safeguards as possible, there is a continuing job to do for all sorts of parties, not just the Government, to explain the benefits of this technology and the safeguards that the Government are introducing. However, I do not think that a priority setting partnership should be established in or under this Bill.

The Bill places science at its core. ACRE advised that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk than traditionally-bred counterparts. As I said earlier, its advice is supported by the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Biology, the Roslin Institute and a wealth of peer-reviewed literature. The Royal Society stated that

“these are no more likely to pose a risk to human health or the environment than non-editing derived mutations, which occur spontaneously in each new generation”.

In earlier debates, I have sought to make it clear that if we inserted regulatory measures or language into the Bill that somehow elevated this technology beyond where it is, we risk misleading the public and we have to be really careful about that.

ACRE’s expertise in precision-breeding technologies is considerable, having first advised on them in 2013. We used this as a basis for our intervention in a pivotal European Court of Justice case in 2018 and for our consultation on genetic technologies in 2021.

The Secretary of State will be required to make decisions based on the advice of expert committees. As part of its current role as adviser on genetically modified organisms, ACRE will also advise the Secretary of State on whether an organism is precision bred. A comprehensive understanding of the underlying science is essential for this process and ACRE members have a wealth of experience in the regulation of genetic technologies. Moreover, this Bill will sit alongside existing legislation that deals with human, animal, and environmental health.

I understand the noble Baroness’s reservations. However, where we have identified evidence is incomplete, we have taken steps to address this. The regulations under the Bill will not come forward until the relevant measures are in place, and Parliament will have the opportunity to further scrutinise them.

Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

At the end insert “but that this House regrets the lack of ambition and urgency contained in the Regulations; notes that in relation to the department’s consultation, an overwhelming majority of respondents supported more stringent targets than those in these Regulations; further notes that these targets must be considered in the context of the Environment Agency’s decision to postpone the deadline for improving the quality of England’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters to 2063; therefore calls on His Majesty’s Government to bring forward revised targets by the end of 2023”.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, along with many others, we have for some time expressed our concerns about the Government’s lack of ambition in tackling the huge challenges facing our environment. We argued strongly during the passage of the Environment Act for the need to set targets to bring about transformative change, and were told that ambitious targets would be announced by 31 October of last year. That is a full year after the Act came into law—so hardly urgent. It was only after interventions from the Office for Environmental Protection, fellow parliamentarians and environmental groups that eventually they were laid—late—on 19 December.

One reason for the delay is that Defra did not begin the consultation on the proposed targets until March 2022 and the publication of evidence documents to support responses was also delayed. Over 180,000 consultation responses were received, with most people asking for higher levels of ambition. We know this carries a high level of public interest and support. Instead, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says in its highly critical report, most of the targets have not been strengthened, none has been strengthened significantly, and some have been weakened, with key gaps remaining in some areas where there was strong public and expert support for additional targets.

In addition, the Government are further undermining nature recovery by threatening hundreds, if not thousands, of environmental laws under the retained EU law Bill. Can the Minister tell me what is the point in the Government having a 25-year environment plan if it ends up being nothing but rhetoric?

I turn to the SI in front of us today on the water targets. The date of 2063 was mentioned by the Minister. Until Brexit, the UK Government were signed up to the water framework directive, requiring countries to make sure that all their waters achieved good chemical and ecological status by 2027 at the latest. The UK Government later reduced this to 75% of waterways reaching a single test of good ecological status by 2027 at the latest. The target for the majority of waterways to achieve good status in both chemical and ecological tests has now been pushed back to 2063 according to an analysis by the Wildlife Trusts of the new river basin management plans.

It is not amusing. The latest state of rivers and lakes report released by the Environment Agency shows that only 16% meet the criteria for good ecological status and that no water bodies are deemed to meet the criteria for achieving good chemical status. This is appalling. The Government have set targets to reduce pollution from agriculture, abandoned metal mines and wastewater, and to reduce water demand. That is commendable—of course we support pollution reduction. Nitrogen and phosphorus run-off from agriculture lead to freshwater ecosystems being starved of oxygen, causing harm to wildlife. In fact, agriculture and wastewater nutrient pollution carry most responsibility for the failure of our lakes and waterways to meet good ecological standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate.

The water targets put forward in this statutory instrument meet the requirements under the Environment Act to set at least one target in the area of water. As the Act requires, the Secretary of State has sought appropriate advice from independent experts and is satisfied that these targets can be met. The targets set out in this instrument will complement our existing water regulatory framework and the actions that the Government are taking on multiple fronts to address specific pollutions in the water environment.

For example, and to clarify my previous statement, we are driving Ofwat to challenge water companies to achieve zero serious pollution incidents by 2030. This includes the amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to reduce phosphorus discharges from treated wastewater and reducing nutrient pollution from agriculture by doubling funding for advice and support to farmers through the catchment-sensitive farming scheme and our new slurry infrastructure grant. That grant addresses precisely the point that the noble Baroness made in relation to slurry lagoons. We are putting money into this area, where there is a specific point-source pollution problem, because we want to solve these problems.

I have not mentioned environment land management schemes—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I talked about that part of the levelling-up Bill because I am slightly confused. Departments usually are not brilliant at talking to each other. How will this work and who takes precedence on this? Does DLUHC take that bit? I do not understand the set-up.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness. I spend a lot of time talking to other departments on this. Part of the problem on the River Wye is a planning issue. The customer said they wanted free-range eggs, the market responded, but the planning system was not in place. I know this from a previous role that I had. Perhaps I should declare an interest: I was a campaigner on trying to clean up the River Wye. That is the angle that I come from in this debate. The problem over decades has been the mismatch between the demand of the customer and the planning, which has not addressed it. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that these matters need to be controlled. Not only do we deal with DLUHC every day but they are in the same building. We spend our time, at an official and a ministerial level, working very closely with colleagues.

Without these actions, we will see shortfalls in water supply across England and significant strain on the water environment from nutrient and metal pollution. This target, alongside the suite of Environmental Act targets, will ensure that we meet our commitments to leave the environment in a better place than we found it.

I hope that this will clarify the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. There is a mistake in the amendment to the Motion, which the noble Baroness did not touch on. It notes that

“these targets must be considered in the context of the Environment Agency’s decision to postpone the deadline for improving the quality of England’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters to 2063”.

No, we are not. That simply refers—and it also addresses the point made by the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—to existing measures that are within the water framework directive. If we were still in the EU, these would apply. These are persistent toxic metals and chemicals that cannot be removed by any action that the Government can take now.

These matters will have to be dealt with over the coming months, years and decades to be resolved. They cannot be within the targets we want, because our ambitions are very high. These waste metals are in the environment, and you cannot remove them. That is why they are in the water framework directive. If we were still in the European Union, we would be abiding by this. I absolutely reject the line that we have somehow reduced our ambition since leaving the European Union. That is not true. The 75% figure that was quoted was decided before we left the EU and is an EU target. We are compliant with the water framework directive and, in other ways, we are more ambitious.

Through the way we support farmers in environmental land management, we are trying to give them incentives to change the way they treat soil. In preventing run-off of chemicals, pollutants and soil into our rivers, soil can be our friend. You only have to look at photographs from space, or with your own eyes when standing beside a river: when you see a river in a time of flood, it is very often brown because of the water that is flowing into it.

On the question of environmental laws and the rule Bill, there is no way we will get rid of regulations and measures that will help us hit our targets to reverse the decline in biodiversity by 2030. Many of those species exist in and around our waterways and rivers. There is no way we are going to get rid of regulations that help us to achieve our 25-year environment plan; and there is no way we are going to get rid of regulations that help us fulfil our international obligations, achieved with great effort at the CBD COP 15 in Montreal, with the United Kingdom Government at the heart of that process. There is no way we can do what we want to achieve while getting rid of regulations. So I hope that noble Lords will be reassured on that.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh made a good point about the impact of housing on rivers. A large part of the pollution problems we face comes from individual households that may have poor connections, or from the sheer number of houses that have been built in communities without the infrastructure to support them. That is why, with these targets, we will see hundreds of improvements to sewage treatment plants up and down rivers in this country.

My noble friend will be pleased that we are taking forward the, I grant her, long-delayed SUDS provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act. I am very happy to give her more details on that. She is also right to point out that sewage, if handled in the right way, is a resource. I refer her to emerging technologies around sustainable fertilisers, which can use waste products such as treated sewage to create prilled fertiliser that farmers can put on their land in the certain knowledge of its quality. It stands up against the inorganic, synthetically produced fertilisers that have been part of the problem with pollution, run-off, damage to the environment and the farming sector’s inability to hit its target of achieving net zero by 2040. So, technology is our friend in this field.

I was very interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talk about the River Colne, which I was beside this weekend. It is beautiful. If amounts of sewage are being released into it and it is illegal, some of the environmental enforcement agencies, including the new ones we have created with the extra investment we have put into the Environment Agency, will be able to take that water company to court and issue fines, as we have on many occasions, some of which were very large fines indeed.

One of the reasons that £1.3 billion is being spent on a new sewer a few feet from where we are standing is the failure of a previous Government to hit the urban wastewater treatment directive targets. Those targets still exist, and we are cleaning up rivers such as the Thames not only in order to comply but because we want to achieve that.

I turn to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on COP 15. Water and biodiversity targets go hand in hand. Our new legally binding targets to halt the decline in species abundance is a good proxy for the health of wider ecosystems. These targets will drive domestic action. She asked about weakening the water framework target. I hope that I have covered that. It is categorically untrue that the Government have reduced in any way the water framework directive regulations since Brexit. All EU nations have exempted some water bodies from the target where it is neither practically nor technically feasible to meet it, and I have covered that. The 75% target was set before we left the EU, and we remain committed to it.

Turning to the baseline issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the water targets do have different baseline years. This simply represents the latest years for which we have robust data. It reflects the different reporting cycles for these targets and it is important to use the most recent data. That is why, on occasions, there are different baselines. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, also raised issues regarding the OEP. The OEP commended several of the targets, including on waste reduction, agricultural water pollution and particulate matter pollution.

We all want to do things as quickly as possible. If I was on any side of the House, but not on the Front Bench, I too would be pushing the Minister of the day. I do not resile from, or have any less respect for, any Member of this House who pushes the Government on this. I want things to be done as quickly as possible, but let us do it on the right basis. The way this 2063 target has been used in this regret Motion is totally inaccurate, and I hope that noble Lords understand that.

We have been consistently clear with water companies that they must act rapidly to prioritise action on sewage-overflow pollution. Water companies are investing £3.1 billion to improve storm overflows between 2020 and 2025. Our storm overflows plan balances ambition and pace with the impact on consumer bills. Our plan will see £56 billion of capital investment and an estimated £12 average increase in customer water bills between 2025 and 2030. To promote sustainable solutions, green infrastructure projects, started before 2027 and delivered as quickly as possible, will count towards the completion of targets. This is a huge opportunity for the natural environment to see large amounts of private sector money being put into the environment. I will add, on enforcement, that, since 2015, the Environment Agency has concluded 59 prosecutions against water and sewerage companies, securing fines of more than £144 million.

I will now address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on our targets and ambitions on water use. We want to be serious about this and we want to be effective in reducing it. A cultural change needs to take place. We use potable drinking water to water our plants and wash our cars, as well as for household needs. I am not suggesting that there is an easy cure for this, but, in a changing climate, where there are real pressures, we want to make sure that we are driving down water use, helping those on low incomes to understand that this is a way they can save money—not in a preachy, patronising way but with real assistance. I have seen this at first hand, where a water company shows people how, through small additions to their households, sometimes provided free, they are able to achieve this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I would like to thank the Minister before he sits down—although he has completed that act—for his very clear exposition over my concern about the postponement date of 2063. I offer my gratitude to the Minister.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short debate. Regarding the date of 2063, which the Minister has got so exercised about, I reiterate that this came from the Wildlife Trusts, an organisation that I greatly respect. I also greatly respect the Minister. I thank him for his time in going through the different parts of the regulations that we have been discussing today.

My amendment says that I regret the lack of ambition and urgency contained in the regulations. I am afraid the Minister has not reassured me on that—I am sure that he is not surprised to hear it—but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

National Parks

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I might have to write to the right reverend Prelate on that. As we look as implementing the recommendations of the Landscapes Review, and through the biodiversity duty that we are imposing on public bodies through the Environment Act, I think we will address that. I hope we are seeing the determination of this Government to tackle issues which simply did not exist when national parks were created 70 years ago. Climate change was not talked about then and biodiversity was stable or rising; those emergencies need to be reflected in the policies they take forward.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, national parks across the country are losing thousands of trees because of disease. In the Lake District, Forestry England is cutting down large trees in the Ennerdale valley and Whinlatter, across many hectares of land. What assessment has been made as to the impact on wildlife from this loss of trees, including red squirrel populations, and what plans are in place, including the timescales for replanting with native species?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness an accurate assessment of what impact tree disease has had, or indeed Storm Arwen in Northumberland, which saw probably millions of trees blown down. Undoubtedly, that has an effect on wildlife, but wildlife can benefit from different ages of woodland being in a landscape. I hope the replanting schemes that are happening, whether because of disease such as ash die- back or events such as Storm Arwen, will see those areas planted as quickly as possible. It is not the national park doing that; it is the landowners and land managers within those areas, and Forestry England will be assisting them and giving grants for that to happen.

Avian Influenza: Game Birds

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

What is happening to shore birds is a tragedy. There is a slightly different strain affecting shore birds and poultry—and pheasants I class with the latter. It is a tragedy that is apparent when you look at Bass Rock, which for centuries has been white and is now black, because there are not the sea-birds on it. We are working across government to make sure that we address the disease in wild as well as domestic birds.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the question about vaccination, we know that researchers are confident that they will make progress down this route—potentially through gene-editing techniques. Obviously, that is going to take some time, so in the interim the disease is going to continue to mutate, with all the risks that that brings for animals and, potentially, even humans. Given the cross-border nature of the problem, what steps are the Government taking to ensure an international research effort similar to that which we saw during the Covid pandemic?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I can absolutely assure the noble Baroness that this is happening. As she says, this is a global issue, and there are many forums in which we deal with it. The World Organisation for Animal Health is one of them, and our chief vet and her team are completely embedded in this. If we can find a vaccination solution that is both effective and practical, I assure her that we will take every measure to see it implemented here, and we are working hard to achieve that.

Environmental Principles Policy Statement

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to lay their final environmental principles policy statement before Parliament; and why this process has been subject to delay.

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

My Lords, we hope to agree the final policy statement across government in the coming weeks and publish it early this year. This has taken longer than initially expected but it is important to get it right. Once the final policy statement is published, there will be an implementation period before the duty comes into force. We remain committed to embedding environmental considerations into cross-government policy-making.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but the fact remains that Defra keeps missing important deadlines. Long-term targets under the Environment Act came well after the statutory deadline and were pretty underwhelming. The deposit return scheme for plastics was supposed to be operational next year, but Defra has not even responded to the March 2021 consultation. We still lack crucial detail on new agricultural and biodiversity schemes. In wishing the Minister a very happy new year, can I ask that he make a new year’s resolution to deliver on these supposed priorities?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I wish the noble Baroness a very happy new year and a continued position on the Benches opposite in future. We recognise the urgency of the challenges that we face, from the threats posed by climate change to the pressures on nature both at home and abroad. Defra is working at pace to deliver on this across a wide range of areas where we are trying to implement the most progressive environmental policy that this country has ever seen. Progress is being made in the area of this policy statement. We have now started the final stage of consultation with colleagues across government to ensure that all departments play their part in these policies, which will be presented to Parliament in the next few weeks.

Traffic-related Air Pollution

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I do not have a figure with which to answer my noble friend, but she is absolutely right to point out the value of trees. We have stretching targets for new woodland planting, which not only will help to reverse the declines in biodiversity and to lock up more carbon but will improve people’s health through both the air they breathe and the quality of their lives. We want to ensure that this is understood, not just by land managers but by local authorities and government departments which own a large amount of land. We want to ensure that everybody is part of the great national effort to improve our biodiversity and quality of life.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, in June the National Audit Office released a report on tackling local breaches of air quality. One of its conclusions was that the Government publish a lot of air quality data, but not in a way that gives the public accessible information about air quality problems and action in their area. It said:

“There has been little public engagement … and … a lack of transparency”.


What progress have the Government made to address those issues?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are driving down emissions across all sectors in the economy, including through the nitrogen dioxide plan, which has seen emissions from road transport decrease over 52% in the last decade, and the environmental permitting of agriculture and industry, which has seen sulphur dioxide emissions from energy production decrease 87% over the last decade, and by regulating the most harmful fuels in domestic burning to reduce emissions by 2030. That is what we are achieving. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we need to help people to make decisions about their lives, so part of our support for local authorities is to help the whole health disparity problem by making sure that people have more information about how they can minimise the impact of poor air quality in their lives. Some people cannot do that—for example, you cannot expect people to move away from traffic hotspots—so the driver is to try to reduce poor air quality and to improve the lives of those people. Trying to ensure that we are limiting those issues is an absolutely core part of the national policy.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being present at Second Reading. I had a hospital appointment and, having waited some time for it, did not want to postpone it for what could have been another three months. I did, however, watch the debate on Parliament TV and will make a short contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made a very valuable and knowledgeable contribution in seeking clarification on the definitions within the Bill. It is important that we all understand completely what the Government mean by the various terms and what the outcomes will be, especially if there are likely to be unintended consequences. It is the role of this Chamber to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or mutations in the future, and that the quality of life for any animal so produced needs to be good. That was not the case with Dolly the sheep. It is important that the phrases used in the Bill are easily understood by those who will affected by its implementation. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, the results of previous debates on GMOs received a bad press, which did the science no favours at all.

In Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also seeks clarification. She wishes the Title of the Bill to be changed so that the somewhat anodyne phrase “Precision Breeding” would be replaced by “Genome Editing”. I have sympathy with this proposed alteration, as I believe that phrase is more accurate and more likely to be easily understood by the public than “Precision Breeding”. The Bill is, after all, intended to modify and edit the genome of plants in a shorter timeframe than would normally happen. Being married to an aeronautical engineer, for me, and possibly others, a phrase such as “precision engineering” conjures up an entirely different picture than the thrust and purpose that the Bill has. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this short group of amendments, which sets the tone for the rest of our debate today.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for introducing these amendments. This group explores why “genome editing” has been changed to “Precision Breeding” in the Title of the Bill and throughout it, when, as my noble friend pointed out, it has no scientific meaning. As he said, there is no such thing as precision in biology. He clearly, and in some detail, expressed his concerns about the implications of the Bill. As he also said, as yet there has been no detailed debate during the Bill’s passage around the science. I am sure that we will have that debate in your Lordships’ House, as there are some very eminent people here who know far more about the science than I could ever hope to learn.

My noble friend’s amendments quite rightly probe the Government’s thinking around the terminology. Importantly, he raised the fact that what we need as an outcome of the Bill is the breeding of plants and animals that are free of risk. Again, he talked about the implications of hereditary traits and the fact that the Bill’s focus is on releasing organisms. We need to think much more about how that is happening, and what the implications are as we put the Bill through into becoming an Act.

We know that in the Bill and during the debates—

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I want to make the point that when we talk about “free of risk”, we have to get things in perspective. In so-called conventional breeding, the parent seeds or germline are often irradiated to create a large number of random mutations and then a new cross-bred strain is produced. That often involves shuffling maybe 20% or 30% of the genome and is not regulated at all. When we say “risk free”, we know that conventional breeding is not risk free. The Braeburn apple was introduced 30 or 40 years ago as a new variety—a hybrid of two earlier varieties—without any testing, and that could have had detrimental consequences for human health or the environment. Nothing is risk free, so let us get risk in proportion.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his very important point. We need to think about where we want to go with this and how we want those regulations to come in as we go through the Bill. I am sure that we will be having some very interesting debates on that as we move forward. Clearly, the whole purpose of the Bill is about deregulating the law on gene editing so that we can actually move forward beyond the traditional breeding processes.

The purpose of this group is to look at the definitions as to how we move forward; what we mean by that; and whether the Bill has the right definitions in it. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about unintended outcomes, for example. The interesting thing for me is whether “precision breeding” is the right terminology. Why have the Government picked that terminology? That is something that a lot of noble Lords raised on Second Reading, and again now.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also talked about the EU. One of the things that I have noted is that the EU has quite a different term. I am not aware that the European Union is using the term “precision breeding”, but it is looking at “new genetic techniques”. How does what we are doing in this regulation fit in with what the European Union is doing? We will be talking about trade later on but, clearly, it is going to be very important that it all fits together and works together in the long term. It is going to be very interesting to look at how we develop as we go on.

A lot of the definitions are quite vague as well. It would be helpful if the Minister could, perhaps, explain some of the definitions in Clause 1. For example, in Clause 1(1), the actual definition of “precision bred organism” is very, very broad. Is it deliberately broad? Is it trying to capture something in particular? My noble friend Lord Winston talked about traditional processes and natural transformation, as well as referring to “stable”. Understanding what these actually mean and their implications for the Bill going forward are important.

Amendment 86, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, again refers to the title, coming back to what we have just been talking about. She also has Amendment 11 on exogenous genetic materials. There has been some work done by Defra to shed some light on this. The consultation, for example, that was carried out last year, states that

“this proposal does not apply to organisms which introduce genetic material from other species.”

However, that distinction, as we have heard, is not in the Bill. Does it need to be in the Bill?

It is not stated anywhere that precision breeding technologies are technologies that edit a single organism. I refer to Clause 1(7), which refers to

“somatic hybridisation or cell fusion of plant cells of organisms which are capable of exchanging genetic material”.

What does that mean? Does that open the door to transgenic exchange, for example? Some of it is quite weak on definitions, and some of the definitions could be stretched to include pretty much anything—so I do think that some kind of clarification would be very helpful.

The chief scientific adviser to Defra, Professor Henderson, giving evidence to the Commons Select Committee, said that the Bill was designed not to allow exogenous material. He also said, however, that this was something of a grey area. Particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—and he has a far greater understanding of this than I do—it is very important to get clarification on this area before we move further on into the detail of the debate.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful for this interesting debate on this first section. I will start with, I hope, a note of humility: I understand that I am in the presence of people who have proved, in the introductions by the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, and others, that I sit at the foothills of knowledge compared with them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quoted Descartes—I think he said, “All I know is that I know nothing”. I hope I know a bit more than that, although my learning curve has been very steep. I am grateful to officials at Defra and others who have helped me through this process.

I am aware that the term “precision breeding” has been controversial in some quarters, although well received in others. I thank noble Lords for this opportunity to explain why we have adopted it. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested “directed bred” as an alternative term to “precision bred”, whereas, on this point, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested “genome editing” to replace “precision breeding”. Concerns have been raised about using the term “precision bred” to describe these organisms, because they can result in off-target changes to the organism’s DNA. Although off-target changes can occur using precision breeding technologies, the advice we have received from our Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—in relation to precision-bred plants is that off-target changes are significantly rarer than those produced during the course of conventional methods of plant breeding. This is also the view of the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU Commission.

On animals, ACRE concluded in its advice published in September last year that there is good evidence to suggest that the use of techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 in animals does not result in a greater number of off-target changes than the background rate for natural mutations—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to this. Indeed, many recent gene-editing studies on animals have reported no incidences of off-target changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. Therefore, although off-target changes may occur using these technologies, the scientific advice is that they are more precise than traditional breeding, both in terms of making targeted changes to the DNA of a plant or animal and in terms of the number of off-target changes they cause.

In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, used the term “genome editing” instead of “precision breeding”. The class of plants and animals we intend the term to cover will include some gene-edited organisms. However, it will not cover all gene-edited organisms; it will not include plants and animals that contain genetic features produced by modern biotechnology that could not have occurred naturally or by traditional processes. For example, plants or animals developed using gene-editing techniques to contain engineered gene drives would not be included in this new class of organism; they will still be regulated as GMOs. In addition, there are techniques of modern biotechnology other than gene editing that could produce plants and animals in this new class—for example, cisgenesis. It is important to note that the EU is also considering cisgenic, as well as gene-edited, plants in its plans for regulatory reform.

We considered using the term “gene edited” in the Bill but, for the reasons I have explained, we concluded that this would be more misleading and confusing. The purpose of the Bill is to more closely align the regulation of this class of animals and plants with those produced by traditional breeding, recognising that the genetic changes they contain will have arisen in a more targeted and precise manner.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, makes a very good point about the very important need to engage the public more on this case. The Government have tried very hard to do this, and the Food Standards Agency and wider organisations are doing some very good work. There is a big social science job to do to get the message out about what we are talking about—and, perhaps as importantly, what we are not—and the wider benefits, which we will come to in this and other clauses, about how we can improve the life of us here on this planet, protect animal health and make us more resistant to such factors as climate change. These are factors that we need to hold in our minds as we rightly debate this important Bill, line by line.

Amendment 10 would, in effect, remove the requirement that every feature of an organism’s genome must have been capable of resulting from traditional processes or natural transformation in order for the organism to qualify as precision bred. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention in tabling this amendment was to explore the meanings of the concepts of “traditional processes” and “natural transformation” that are used in this Bill. I hope to address his concerns around the terminology that we have used in this Bill and why it is appropriate. I will begin by defining what we mean by “traditional processes” and “natural transformation”.

For the purposes of this Bill, traditional processes refer to a number of methods listed in Clause 1(7). The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also referred to these. They are well known conventional breeding methods, some of which have been utilised for over 10,000 years, and therefore have a long history of safe use. The methods outlined in Clause 1(7) were not chosen to represent an exhaustive list of traditional breeding processes. Instead, they were chosen because they represent the full range of genetic changes known to occur naturally between sexually compatible plants and animals.

Scientific advice is that genetic changes that could have been achieved through traditional processes, as outlined, do not pose a greater risk as a result of being introduced by modern biotechnology. This is why we have included

“could have resulted from traditional processes”

as a criterion for obtaining “precision bred” status.

“Natural transformation” refers to the process by which DNA from a sexually incompatible organism may be inserted into an organism. In plants and animals, this is almost always the result of infection with a bacterium or virus. Often, the fragments of genetic material left behind after infection no longer serve a purpose or function. The material is non-functional and does not affect the physical characteristics, also referred to as the phenotype, of the plant or animal.

The effect of Clause 1(2)(c)(ii) and Clause 1(6) taken together is to ensure that, for the purposes of this Bill, DNA from a sexually incompatible species which is similar to that which occurs through natural transformation is allowed in a precision-bred organism. This is so long as it does not affect the physical characteristics of the precision-bred organism. This is supported by scientific advice that genetic features produced through modern biotechnology but which could have arisen in nature do not pose a risk as a result of the method of production.

DNA from a sexually incompatible species is critical in the intermediate stages of development of many precision-bred plants and animals. They enable the subsequent precise genetic changes to be made to these organisms. For example, CRISPR-Cas9 often involves insertion of the Cas9 editing machinery to enable the intended precise genetic edits. The Cas9 gene would need to be removed for the resulting plant or animal to be classed as precision bred. Clause 1(6) comes into play where, in some cases, small non-functional fragments of DNA from the Cas9 gene may be left behind. This would be allowed, provided the genetic changes created could have been introduced through natural transformation.

Taken together, the terms “traditional processes” and “natural transformation” ensure that precision-bred organisms are able to contain, in principle, changes that could develop in nature. It is this characteristic that makes precision-bred organisms and GMOs fundamentally different, and we believe that regulating them as such is a proportionate response to the growing body of scientific evidence supporting the safe use of precision-bred organisms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we have heard the arguments made by those who argue for the exclusion of all animals with great sympathy. We think that both noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made good points. Their arguments around the concerns that the public have are extremely well made. I merely add one other reason why their case is strong, which has not been referred to, which is the evidence that was produced from ACRE, which the Minister referred to. What he did not make clear in his remarks was that ACRE said that in terms of unintended consequences, and DNA being retained in organisms used through this process, the likelihood of that happening is far higher with animals than it is with plants. That is another strong argument for a slower approach to proceeding with gene editing. I do not think anybody is saying that gene editing does not have any benefits, but we should be taking that slower approach, both because of how the public have shown their concern over animals and because of the advice from ACRE that that argument has merit.

I understand where the Government are coming from and therefore I have proposed four amendments in this group that would limit gene editing to just farmed animals. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, may have concerns over the wording I chose. My wording was chosen merely because that was the defined use in a previous piece of legislation, so we would not have to argue about what the term meant. I think it is useful in Committee to be probing the Government on excluding farmed animals for a number of reasons. First, as a number of colleagues have said, when we look at other particular areas, such as companion animals, it is not just the welfare treatment of companion animals, it is the actual characteristics that are being bred. Let us think about cropped ears or short muzzles for dogs. Those are not the sorts of things the public would like to see this legislation being used to introduce.

Equally, in the area that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, there is the potential for an enormous number of unintended consequences if this technique is used for wild animals, not only for the animals themselves but for the biodiversity and ecosystems around them. There is a real worry at this stage, which causes me to feel that, if animals are to be included, it would be sensible to restrict editing to farmed animals. There are two other reasons why I think it is important. The first is that it is all the public have been asked about. The Minister talked about how the FSA and the department have been consulting the public; they have consulted with the public only on farm animals, not on the use of animals more broadly. The public have had no say in that at all, so I do not think it is right or proper that we should proceed with a piece of legislation with such huge implications for animals, given public concern that could threaten the capacity of this technology, which does have benefits, to be accepted by the public. They have had no say on companion animals or wild animals. Yes, they have had some say on farmed animals, but not more broadly. That is one concern I have.

My second concern is one that I raised at Second Reading, when I asked the Minister who else in the industry, in the scientific community, in the academic community and in the veterinary community had asked for anything other than farmed animals. The response was, no one. This is about the Government, in their terms, future proofing the legislation, but I do not believe it is appropriate to go beyond what people have been asked about, be it the public, the academics, the veterinarians, the scientists, business organisations, Rothamsted or anyone. No one has been making a case for anything beyond farmed animals, so I ask the Minister to address that in his summing up. On these Benches, we would prefer animals to be excluded in their entirety and to proceed more slowly. But, if that is not the case, we think there is an extremely strong case at the moment to limit it to farm animals. We are looking for a rather better response from the Minister than he gave at Second Reading as to why he thinks it is appropriate that anything beyond farmed animals should be included in this legislation.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, but many of them are consequential, so I will not go through them one by one. I have also added my name to Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I have supported other amendments in this group, such as the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The reason for this is that, whether we agree that animals should be included or not, there is a wider debate as to when they should be included, how quickly they should be included, and whether all animals should be included or just some. That is why I put down a lot of amendments in this group. It is an area on which we really need to have proper debate and consideration, because it fundamentally changes much of what the Bill is trying to achieve if you have not just animals but all animals within the Bill, and without any timescales as to when these are going to be included.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Winston, because this is slightly different from any other discussion that we have had. It states that the legislation should not apply to equines or rhesus monkeys, for example. He also stressed that he was very cautious about including animals right at the start of the Bill. We will be very interested in the Minister’s response to my noble friend, because it is a different area that he has raised.

I mentioned at Second Reading that I was concerned about the introduction of animals and how they have been included in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised an important point as to what was discussed with the public in the earlier stages that led up to the legislation in front of us. All the secondary legislation that preceded the Bill was really about plants, not animals; likewise, much of the Government’s language and discussion focused on plants, not animals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the consultation that was held by Defra referenced animals, but they did not seem to be the main focus of attention. Moreover, references to animals focused completely on farm animals. Many stakeholder groups were not expecting the Government to include animals in the Bill, which is partly why many are quite taken aback and have raised concerns.

If you look at the Bill, you will also see evidence of the lack of concrete provisions around timeframes: many of them are vague and noncommittal. Much of the preparation that we believe is necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been properly carried out. In many aspects, the Bill is a framework Bill, with little detail on actual intentions or provisions on its face. It also delegates a broad set of sweeping powers to Ministers, not only to bring in an awful lot of secondary legislation but to amend primary legislation with a Henry VIII clause, which I am sure that, at some point, we will get on to debate.

No one disputes that it would be a wonderful thing to be able to tackle avian flu or PRRS. Of course, if we can find a solution to these kinds of diseases, it would be hugely beneficial—not just in a financial sense, with much of the Bill focused on marketing, but also in terms of welfare.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about the fact that he strongly supports animals in the Bill. I believe that that is because he is looking at the welfare aspects of this. However, I am concerned that he may be a little gung-ho about how quickly we need to move forward on this. I agree with him that we need to strengthen animal welfare laws. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, talked about the importance of breeding to remove disease and produce resistance to disease. I completely understand those arguments, but I am concerned that we may be moving too quickly without the regulatory framework that needs to be in place and without the considerations that we need to have around the inclusion of animals.

The other thing I want to draw the Committee’s attention to is the fact that the European Union timetable also indicates plants, not animals. Have the Government considered the implications of the EU moving ahead just with plants at this stage if we have animals as well? A large number of animal welfare organisations have expressed concerns; I ought to declare my interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which is one of the groups that has said it is concerned about this Bill.

The RSPCA, which has already been mentioned, produced a particularly good briefing as to what these concerns are. Its thoughts are that, ideally, the Bill should not cover any animals but, if it does, it should be limited to farm animals only. We have heard a lot of arguments today as to why that should be. It also mentions, as one would expect the RSPCA to do, the impact of conventional breeding, particularly on dogs; a number of noble Lords have talked about that. It also says that gene editing in wild animals is done with the express purpose of altering ecosystems, with potentially unpredictable impacts, and that this should always be controlled by the GMO regulations; I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that particular comment by the RSPCA. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also expressed concerns about wild animals.

As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, the other issue is that we need to take the public with us. If we are not careful about how we legislate around the animal aspect, we will lose them. It is terribly important that we are very careful about how we bring in and implement any animal aspects of this Bill, if at all. The Nuffield Council also raised concerns about bringing animal welfare in, stating:

“The welfare of animals is not a characteristic, like growth rate or milk yield, but a consequence of the interaction of biological and environmental factors.”


That is a really important thing to take home with us as we look at how we can move the Bill forward. It also said:

“There is a risk that the focus placed on individual traits in the Bill could distract from this broader consideration of welfare.”


It is terribly important that that concern is built into the Bill.

In our debate on a later group, we will debate the welfare advisory body in the Bill; now is not the time to do so but the question of whether that group is adequate will be a really important part of the Bill, particularly in terms of whether we should amend it to support that concern. Compassion in World Farming also raised concerns about this issue; I will not go into the detail as we discussed this at Second Reading.

I am slightly concerned that it has been suggested that ethical concerns should not be part of the broader debate. I would say that, where animal welfare is concerned, they should be. We must not forget those ethical concerns either.

I mentioned Professor Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at Defra, earlier. I am going to mention him again, because I thought his evidence was particularly interesting in the Commons Committee debate. He said:

“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.”


He also said that the process of considering the evidence on animal welfare

“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”—

as referenced by my noble friend Lady Jones—

“something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.”—[Official Report, Commons, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee, 28/6/22; col. 18.]

Where in the Bill is that set out, so that we have that guarantee of two to three years? Neither the process nor the timescales are laid out in the Bill. If we need more time to get the provisions right, why are we not focusing on doing that rather than asking noble Lords, essentially, to allow them to pass and then ask all these questions and put in this detail afterwards? That, to me, is not good legislation. These are big decisions we are making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister. He has talked about a step-by-step approach a few times. Why can that not be put in the Bill, so that we are secure that things will not be able to happen until we are ready for them?

--- Later in debate ---

I support Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman. It echoes some of the arguments that I supported in the previous debate, and postpones the implementation of the animal clauses until a full set of proposals with proper scrutiny can take place. I hope that the Minister can respond positively.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for introducing her Amendment 16. As we have heard, there are a few amendments in this group around trade, particularly in relation to the EU and individual member states. Amendment 16 specifically refers to this. It is an important consideration for the Bill and its implications

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has tabled a number of amendments in this group. I also thank her for her introduction. I have added my name to her Amendments 75 and 78. As Amendment 75 says, it is really important to review the effectiveness and implementation of the Act once it is passed. The Minister has talked about a step-by-step process. I shall come to that as well in my amendment. As I mentioned on the previous group, there are still a lot of unknowns and a lot of SIs to come into play before we know exactly what the legislation will look like. A commitment to a review is pretty important to make sure that everything is happening as the Government intend and to see whether anything needs to be picked up that is perhaps not moving as they would wish. My noble friend Lord Winston made the important point that we need more data on animals. A review would help to look at where we were.

Amendment 78, to which I have also added my name, requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the impact on SMEs, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned the importance of supporting small businesses. From reading the Committee evidence in the Commons, I recall that there was quite a lot of debate around the importance of small businesses also being able to benefit from this legislation and not being pushed out by the larger companies. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that small businesses are allowed to play a full part in any legislation that comes from the Bill when it is enacted.

On a different topic, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch probed concerning Section 41 in the Environmental Protection Act. Again, this is a really important point. There are different pieces of legislation covering very similar areas. How do they interact? She asked an important question about when the review on wider GMO rules would take place. Once this review has reported, how will the outcomes be managed in relation to the new legislation that is coming forward? Not all legislation sits in its own little place. Lots of legislation interacts, at the Minister well knows. It would be good to know that the Government are looking at this, thinking about it and to know when they were likely to do a review.

I will come on to my Amendment 89 in a minute, as it is a little different. But briefly, on the trade implications which we touched on previously, the Food and Drink Federation has said, for example, that there could be barriers to exporting English farmed food from gene-edited crops. Again, it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this. We also talked earlier about what the impact of a difference in definition would be, and that comes into play here as well. At the end of the day, any commercial cultivation of plants or food products that are derived from gene-edited crops will still fall within existing rules. We know that the EU is reviewing where it is, but it is important that we do not end up with negative impacts on our farmers and exporters in food products because we have not thought this through properly.

Perhaps the Government could reassure us that that they are looking at the trade implications and whether they are considering any mitigating factors to ensure that there are no problems. The impact assessment says that it could

“have a relatively significant impact on UK producers”

if there are problems with exporting to the EU, because

“UK crop-related food exporters are heavily dependent on EU consumers’ demand”.

Again, it is important that we have those assurances. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is concerned about the word “risk”, but there are risks to exports which the Government need to recognise.

In looking at whether products are going to be accepted, I want to ask about Scotland. I am concerned that the Minister in Scotland said that they would not have any food products forced on them because of easing regulations around gene editing. That concerns me because, if we are not careful, we will have a constitutional flashpoint. Our single market rules say that any produce approved in England is automatically then allowed into Scotland, so what ongoing discussions are the Government having with Scotland on this and what mitigating circumstances can be brought in? That is a worry.

Finally, my Amendment 89, which I have left to the end because it is different from the others, brings me back to where I was on the step-by-step approach. I asked the Minister whether he would consider that; I know he has reassured us, over and again, that precision-breeding technologies will be used first in relation to plants, followed by animals later. But not to put too fine a point on it, we have only his word for that—and while I trust his word, we do not know who the future Ministers or Secretaries of State will be. My amendment makes a suggestion that he could pick up, so that we genuinely would have a step-by-step approach in the Bill. It would be plants first, then farm animals, and then other animals could be looked at. Again, I am only trying to be helpful to the Minister in supporting his step-by-step approach.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I appreciate that, as keen as I am to get this right and get something sensible on the statute book. I have a throwaway line before I get into the meat of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about this being controversial legislation. Actually, in some of the surveys I have seen, a very small number of people are either very opposed or very in favour, and a large number do not know what this is all about. They want to know more, and we have to tell them more. We have to explain it in an unbiased, unpolitical, factual way, and that is what we are seeking to do. In the other place, the Bill passed by a majority way in excess of the Government’s majority, and I want to reassure many noble Lords here, so that we can pass it with equal fervour.

Smarting from the earlier comment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

19: Clause 3, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) the organism has been developed for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes—(i) producing food in a way that protects or enhances a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;(ii) growing and managing plants or animals in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;(iii) producing food in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;(iv) protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals;(v) conserving native animals or genetic resources relating to any such animal;(vi) protecting or improving the health of plants;(vii) reducing the use of pesticides and artificial fertiliser;(viii) conserving plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives, or genetic resources relating to any such plant;(ix) protecting or improving the quality of soil;(x) supporting or improving human health and well-being;(xi) supporting or improving the sustainable use of resources.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that a precision bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit, if it is to be released into the environment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 19 would require that a precision-bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit if it is to be released into the environment. The benefits that are listed in my amendment include, but are not limited to, producing food in a way that protects the natural environment and managing crops or livestock in a manner that mitigates or adapts to climate change. Amendment 21 in this group prevents the release of a precision-bred organism unless its genome has been sequenced and the features that have resulted from the use of modern biotechnology have been recorded. I am looking forward to hearing more about that as well.

Earlier, we talked briefly about climate change and how plants in particular can be adapted to support the future needs that we will have in producing sufficient food. It is important that we find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system while we are developing new legislation and that at the same time we address the environmental and health damage that our modern food system has sometimes created. This Bill gives us an opportunity to look at that and see what we can do to improve those areas alongside the other benefits that people have talked about and to mitigate any adverse impacts that could counteract that.

This Bill presents us the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that other countries could follow as they develop these kinds of technologies that would provide a clear public good. We recognise that our laws need to be updated to match current scientific understanding. We talked about that earlier in the debate. We want our scientists to succeed, but we also want them to use their skills for good here in the UK. I know that is broad terminology, but I hope noble Lords understand what I mean by this.

To get the legislation right, the Government have to balance certain risks and benefits. We need to have consumer confidence and business confidence; otherwise, all the benefits that could come from the Bill may not happen in the way that we would like. It could mean that we get improvements to environmental sustainability and better food security. A lot of this Bill is obviously around food, but how does it fit in with the much bigger picture that the Government have debated alongside the food strategy, which we all saw—was it last year? I am trying to remember how long ago it was. We talked earlier about different legislations interacting. How will this Bill work with the food strategy? Many of the recommendations were about how our modern food system could be improved and what public benefit could come from the way we farm in future.

The Nuffield Council has made recommendations in its document. One part of that is around aspirations for the UK’s future food system—something that is in the minds of a lot of people who have real influence over the way this technology could be looked at and developed in the future. I was also particularly struck by the evidence given to the Commons Public Bill Committee by Bill Angus, who is a wheat consultant. He noted that the motivations behind the work that he does as a wheat breeder and as vice-chair of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico can be quite different; there are strong passions that drive both ways of working.

We also know that the Crop Science Centre in Cambridge has done interesting work focused on improving the sustainability of our farming systems—in particular, removing the need for inorganic fertilisers. To me, these are the kinds of areas where gene editing could bring significant benefits for the environment, the sustainability of our food systems, and reducing food insecurity across the world. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned these issues in his earlier speech.

It is important that we look at how gene editing could be used for good, because we also know that it can be used for ends that, to many of us, would not be so desirable. Evidence from Compassion in World Farming was very interesting in this area. It talked about some of the harms that traditional breeding has caused—I will not go into detail, as we have heard about that today and at Second Reading. It is important that we work for the public benefit and that the Bill is not used to breed animals in a way that would mean they suffer more or be made to tolerate harsher conditions; the Minister mentioned this earlier. It is important that those questions posed in my amendments are taken account of. How can we ensure that the technology is used for good here in the UK?

There is also the question: who decides what that good might be? We will come on to debate that more to some extent in group 8, where we look at the animal welfare tests, for example. There are also questions around the development of herbicide-resistant crops. Do they allow more herbicide to be used? Is that a good thing? There need perhaps to be more tests in the Bill to make sure that some of the roads that we do not want to go down are not roads that we can go down.

My amendment would create a public benefit test before precision-bred organisms could be authorised and released. It is important that the governance is correct to manage that. Professor Sarah Hartley of the University of Exeter said in evidence:

“The Bill enables science to develop in this area, but it does not enable us to direct the science and technology towards doing any good.”—[Official Report, Commons, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee, 30/6/22; col. 123.]


That is the area that I am trying to look at and ask noble Lords to consider. How would we achieve that? At the moment, it is driven too much by market forces. In making legislation, we have to ensure that we guard against those who are, perhaps, not so interested in the good—the public benefit—that can come out of it but looking just at the market forces. We believe that the Bill could be strengthened through this amendment, and the Government’s stated aims, which the Minister has said he wants to achieve, could be encoded within the legislation itself. I beg to move.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for introducing this amendment so eloquently. I have added my name to it. In fact, I felt that the amendment was almost unnecessary because, earlier this evening, the Minister referred to precision breeding as being used to create public good—I think I am right in saying that. The amendment tries to flesh that out and ask what is meant by “public good”.

It goes without saying that one objective of farming is to produce food or other farm products. Precision breeding will be used to increase the efficiency, and maybe the productivity, of farming in this country. My noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who is not in his place, made a useful comment earlier about what is meant by productivity in farming.

It goes without saying that one objective is to increase efficiency and productivity: that is the “more” bit of “more with less”. Equally important, and what the amendment is about, is enshrining the “less”: less harm to the environment and to people. We have been through many times the kind of harms to the environment that intensive agriculture has delivered, and we hope that precision breeding will be used to reverse those harms rather than augment them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also raised the important point of how bits of the jigsaw fit together. She referred to Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy. I would be interested in knowing from the Minister whether some of the recommendations that Henry Dimbleby made will be implementable or, indeed, supported by the Bill if it goes through—as I hope it will, possibly with some modifications.

In a way, this is almost uncontroversial. We all accept that there have to be public goods that are supported by precision breeding; that has to be balanced with increasing productivity and efficiency of agriculture; and what we are trying to do here is spell out what those public goods are and should look like. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

That is absolutely right. I would just say to the noble Lord that ACRE assessed the evidence put to it by the scientific community. I repeat what I said. Many recent gene-editing studies on animals have reported no incidences of unintended genomic changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. If the noble Lord has information that ACRE should be considering in relation to this, I would be very happy to connect him with ACRE. But that is also the same scientific opinion that was reached by the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU Commission. But the noble Lord is absolutely right that the science on this is moving. There are advances being made, not just here but internationally as well, and we must have the best possible advice to allow Ministers to take the best possible decisions.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for his amendment and for the discussion, but I do not feel qualified to comment on it any further than that. We are having an important debate in these areas, and his knowledge is really helpful and useful as we continue to debate the Bill.

On my Amendment 19, I thank all noble Lords for their support, particularly my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for adding their names to it and supporting me strongly on this—I appreciate it. I am sure that noble Lords and the Minister will not be surprised that I am extremely disappointed in his response. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Jones said, the amendment fits so well with the Agriculture Act and, as the Minister himself said, with what the Government are trying to achieve through the food strategy. I genuinely do not understand why it cannot be part of the Bill. The Minister said that the amendment was too restrictive, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised a question about this and asked for an example, which I am not sure we got. I ask the Minister again: how is it too restrictive?

I am not sure whether all noble Lords have seen the amendment, but it lists 11 different purposes—I tried to keep it broad. One of the 11 is

“protecting or improving the health of plants”,

and another is

“protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals”.

My amendment says that it has to be only “in connection with one” of the 11. In discussing the animal part of the Bill, everyone said the reason for having it is to improve health and welfare; I do not see how the amendment would not fit in with this. The same is true of some of the other areas around plants. I genuinely do not understand why it is too restrictive, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could perhaps think about that before Report, because we will come back to this.

Earlier, I said that, when making legislation, we have to ensure that, as well as welcoming those who are undoubtedly trying to do good, we must guard against those who are not. I think the Minister is looking through rather rose-tinted spectacles. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Exemptions) (Fees) Regulations 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Grand Committee

Lastly, I note that, although the fee will be applied now, the guidance is not ready; it is being developed to be in place by April 2023—it is promised to be ready at the same time the fee is implemented. Can the Minister say how the preparation of this guidance is progressing and whether it will be ready to be published early in the new year so that those affected can familiarise themselves with it? It is concerning that 53 of the 54 businesses involved were opposed to the change in regulations. I understand the need to recover the cost of issuing exemptions but I find the consultant’s fee for assessing applications, at £36,625, very high—as are Defra’s admin costs of more than £3,000. This is an extremely retrograde step as a result of Brexit and one that could have been avoided.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction to this statutory instrument. We have heard that previously, when we were part of the EU, applications around hazardous substances were dealt with in Brussels so did not attract an application fee, which is why this measure will be very new for businesses to deal with.

Much of what I want to say has been covered by other speakers but there are a few things to look at. First, there is the application fee of £39,721. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report commented that it is a “surprisingly precise” figure. Can the Minister give some information on where this surprisingly precise figure came from? That would be helpful. He stressed that it has been calculated on a cost-recovery basis, with applications made between Brexit and now being covered by the taxpayer. It was good to have that clarification.

The Minister also said that the cost per business is high because of the low number of applications likely in the coming years. I understand that the information given to the JCSI said that only one application for a new exemption has been submitted since Brexit and that there are only 23 live exemptions, which may be renewed in future. The SLSC’s report states:

“Defra expects that most applications in GB will be made by international trade associations and industry organisations on behalf of a specific industry, rather than by individual businesses.”


It would be helpful if the Minister could explain where that expectation has come from and how that structure is likely to work in order to give individual businesses some kind of reassurance as to what the expectation on them is likely to be. We know that businesses have been facing supply chain issues and increased costs, so it would be extremely helpful to understand that.

On the refund of fees under Regulation 5, there is mention of partial refunds in the SI and the SLSC’s report. Again, it would be useful to understand how that works and what “reasonable costs” means in this instrument. What are considered to be reasonable costs that the Secretary of State could take into account?

The noble Baronesses both mentioned the shortness of the consultation at six weeks; that would be useful to understand. I am sure the Minister knows that I am quite interested in consultation. Best practice is 12 weeks, so I wonder why it was concertinaed to just the six weeks. The noble Baronesses talked about other areas around the consultation so I will not go into those details.

On the exemptions, it would be useful to have an example of what an exemption is and whether it is possible for a business to move away from the use of hazardous materials. Is that something that certain businesses could do? If that is the case, is Defra able to support or give advice to businesses that want to do that? I think that would be quite helpful.

Finally, on Northern Ireland, I completely agree with the points made about the potential loophole. I ask for reassurance on exactly how that will work with Northern Ireland. It is a bit concerning if that does not work as smoothly as expected.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will address the points that have been made.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked why the fee is being introduced when so many respondents to the consultation did not support it—a point made by both other speakers as well. If I am in business and not facing a cost that is being picked up by somebody else, and I am asked whether I would like to pick it up, I am likely to say no. I am not surprised that they did not want to do this, but there are two reasons for doing it. One is to relieve the poor, overburdened taxpayer from picking up the cost of this. The second is to drive behaviour change and to drive companies to look at the alternatives where possible; I will come on to talk about that. I assure the noble Baroness that introducing the fee is entirely consistent with the Government’s Managing Public Money principles and is based strictly on a cost-recovery basis. It is also worth noting that charging is common practice in circumstances in which industry is required to apply for registrations, authorisations and licensing to comply with regulatory requirements.

Existing guidance on how to submit an application for an exemption is available on GOV.UK and will be updated to reflect the requirement to pay an application fee well in advance of the April 2023 date when the fee will be introduced. I assure the Committee that in granting exemption applications, the Government are not acting to constrain the development of alternative, less harmful substances. A fundamental requirement in considering an exemption is to do a detailed technical appraisal of substitute substances. In circumstances where an application is granted, it will be done for a time-limited period only.

I will address some of the other points. A short consultation was required to ensure that this statutory instrument could be laid using powers that expire at the end of this year, using the EU withdrawal Act. While it was short, key stakeholders were contacted and encouraged to respond. I suspect the noble Baroness and I were on the same side in the referendum, but I can assure her that this gives more accountability for the decisions that are taken. When I was last at Defra, this would just have been rubber-stamped. It would come have from the Commission and we would have had no say over it. At least we can now drive standards and do things in the right way. I hope that responds to the first and second points made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh.

The points raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee are important, but I reiterate that there is no loophole. Products placed on the Northern Ireland market must comply with the EU ROHS and EU exemptions. Unfettered access means that such products can then move freely into Great Britain. They are not required to submit a GB exemption application, so there can be no loophole in avoiding paying the necessary application fee. I hope that satisfies the Committee’s concerns.

Points were made about the REUL Bill. Ministerial colleagues and I are in the process of analysing Defra’s REUL stock and determining what should be preserved as part of domestic law, as well as REUL that should be repealed or amended. This work will determine how we use the powers in the Bill and, therefore, inform assessments of the Bill’s impact.

It is important that we consider whether recognition of exemptions in other jurisdictions with similar ROHS regulations to ours could work. There is no guarantee that we will proceed even after that assessment, but any proposal to proceed will be subject to consultation. It is therefore sensible to proceed now on the basis that no alternative to the current arrangements will be in place.

A number of people asked questions about the fees. The fee will be £39,721, as I said. This is made up of the technical consultant’s fee of £36,625 plus £3,096, which covers the cost of other administrative tasks such as publishing the consultation. The fee will be payable from April 2023. Exemptions last up to five years, or seven years for medical devices such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness. Exemptions are granted to products rather than to the applicant. This reduces the impact on business because, very often, the applications are made by trade bodies and huge multinational companies for which this figure is loose change down the back of the sofa. For an SME it would be a substantial cost, but that cost is very likely to be picked up by a whole range of different SMEs operating together through a trade body.

Since January 2021 we have received two applications for exemptions for Great Britain.

Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to what is, on the face of it, a fairly non-contentious amendment to the fees paid for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes or make certain records about agricultural tenancies under the Act that we have referred to. Other noble Baronesses have talked about the increase in the fees and whether it is still appropriate considering when it was set, so I will not go into detail about that.

I want to focus on the concerns raised by the Tenant Farmers Association about the increased costs that are in this SI, and about tenancy arrangements more generally. The TFA has said it is worried there has been a lack of contact between it and Defra, and the Secretary of State, around the report on the Rock review. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has referred to this. She asked a question yesterday in the Chamber and the Minister basically gave the same response as he has today, which is that the Rock report is very interesting, the Government are benefiting from it, it is being reviewed and had lots of recommendations, and that they will report in due course. I think what we would all like to see is a little more information about what that looks like going forward. Clearly, it is a very important report.

I am sure the Minister will know George Dunn from the Tenant Farmers Association. He has raised some real concerns. If the Minister will bear with me, I would like to go through them because his response to these concerns is important. George Dunn says the TFA is objecting to these proposals, and he cites the recommendations of the Rock review, which expresses concern about the way in which agents operate in general and how arbitration is in need of oversight and reform. The report also highlights the need for a commissioner or ombudsman to oversee the operation of arbitration and the Tenant Farmers Association’s view is that this needs to be implemented, preferably before or alongside any decision to increase the appointment fee. I would be interested in the Minister’s response and comments on that proposal.

George Dunn also says that the increase in the fee would land much better with his members if they had some sort of indication or assurance that Defra would be taking seriously the recommendations set out in the Rock review about the appointment of a commissioner or ombudsman with a role to look at the operation of arbitration. In addition, he comments that most of the costs associated with the accreditation, assessment, training and continuing professional development of arbitrators fall to the arbitrators themselves. He believes that the cost of using arbitrators already reflects increasing costs, as the arbitrators pass on those costs to the parties involved in the process. I hope that is clear. What is unclear is what costs RICS and others incur in the appointment process, because none of that is on the record.

It would be very helpful, ahead of any formal response to the Rock report, to know that Defra and the Minister were listening carefully to the concerns being expressed by the Tenant Farmers Association, so that we can work with it going forward to ensure this process works as it should and is effective. At the end of the day, that is what we want it to be.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Baronesses’ views on this instrument. I believe we all recognise the importance of the tenant farming sector and the need for tenants and landlords to have access to independent arbitrators to resolve any disputes when they arise. I also believe that it is right for the professional authorities delivering arbitration appointments to be able to recover their costs through an appropriate statutory fee. The improvements this Government have made, including widening the choice of professional authorities that tenants and landlords can go to and the introduction of a regular review clause, will drive continuous improvement in delivery of the service going forward.

I am actually someone who has attended one of these tribunals. I was a trainee at the time. It was in Wales. I remember being struck by one thing: the complete breakdown of the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. That is very rare. Mostly, there is a good working relationship. Where disputes occur—even the best relationships can be tested at times of rent reviews and suchlike—there needs to be a mechanism in place for this.

The only issue on which I differ from my noble friend Lady McIntosh is her feeling that we should have somehow given our response to the Rock review by now. That review has taken many months and was published just over a month ago. The Farming Minister, Mark Spencer, and I have spent many hours going through its nearly 80 recommendations. We also have officials working through them. I do not want to prejudge, but noble Lords will be pleased to know that many of them have “agreed” next to them, while there are also some where we need to do some more work. But with all that is going on—and to do my noble friend Lady Rock and her review panel justice—it is not possible just to publish a response that does not respect the work that has gone into the review and thoroughly respond to the important points it makes.

To answer my noble friend’s other point, this instrument relates principally to the Agricultural Holdings Act, which is a succession tenancy law. There are of course many other types of tenure that can be the subject of disputes, such as farm business tenancies. My noble friend is entirely right that the best type of tenure is a long-term tenancy where there is a commitment to invest and improve. In extreme cases, some short-term tenancies have the effect of little or no investment and a lot of extractive activities, so the natural environment and natural capital involved in the farm are depleted. In most cases, longer-term tenancies are better, but we want to create flexibility for certain circumstances where, for whatever reason, for the landlord or the tenant’s advantage, there is the possibility of short-term arrangements.

Of course, there are many other types of tenancy; my noble friend referred to her family but it could be a grazing tenancy or many others. On our uplands we see how farmers work together with commoners’ rights, which also need to be respected. My noble friend is absolutely right that small farmers need to be supported. I believe passionately in that; I want to see coming through our transition in agriculture a real attempt to understand that small can be beautiful. Small farmers can adapt in a way that some bigger farmers cannot. Some of them will be able to access government support when they were not able to do so before. People who were not able to use the basic payment scheme will be able to access our environmental land management schemes.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the cases that could be taken to such an arbitration. I remember from my chartered surveyor training something called the “seven deadly sins”. One of them was the failure to pay rent. Another was poor husbandry, which is incredibly difficult to prove. There are a number of other issues that could go to arbitration. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reports that it receives an average of 195 requests for the appointment of an arbitrator each year. When you think how many thousands of tenants and farmers there are in this country, that is a very small percentage, but it is vital that they have access to a good arbitrator. About 25% of those requests come from tenants, and about 75% from landlords.

The Government recognise that farming is often a long-term business. We are interested in exploring ways of encouraging more landlords and tenants to consider longer-term tenancy agreements. I applaud organisations such as the Duchy of Cornwall, which, by and large, gives 20-year farm business tenancies; that kind of commitment is very valuable. As we transition to new farming systems, there will be more certainty and encouragement for landlords and tenants to enter into a longer term agreement.

There is also a role for industry leadership and best practice guidance in setting out the options and benefits for tenants and landlords of longer term arrangements. A tenant of a small family farm can request the appointment of an arbitrator for all circumstances, such as notice to quit on land resumption, where they have a case to dispute that, as well as for other matters such as tenancy compensation, maintenance and rent reviews. The thorny issue of tenant rights when a tenant vacates land is also sometimes the subject of dispute.

I think 70% over nearly 30 years is probably affordable. We will review it every five years, and I hope it will be considered on a cost basis. We came to the figure working with the CAAV, RICS and the Agricultural Law Association; we did not pluck it out of thin air. It is important that we keep this as a cost-recovery activity for the small number that use it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, made the point that it is three years out of date. After nearly 30 years, I do not think it is an unreasonable figure; in five years’ time, we shall see what it is like and how this is working.

I turn to the points very properly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. First, on lack of contact with the Tenant Farmers Association, nobody has more respect for George Dunn than me. The Tenant Farmers Association operates out of a village next door to where I live. He is somebody with whom I have had the pleasure of working. His contribution to the Rock report and to the welfare—mental, financial and in business terms—of tenants over many years is exemplary. It was a great pleasure to go to an event at the Farmers Club to celebrate a milestone in his commitment to the Tenant Farmers Association.

When we respond, soon, to the Rock review, I hope that he will feel that we have considered the points that he makes. I will not pre-empt that response by saying where we are on issues such as a commissioner. We will not agree on everything, but I state absolutely that it is the Government’s intention—the intention of my colleague Mark Spencer, the Secretary of State and me—that we see a vibrant tenanted farmers’ sector. As I said in the House yesterday, without it, the only way that people can get into farming is by buying land or inheriting it. We think it is vital that we see new entrants being able to get access to farming businesses. We have developed our exit scheme for those who want to exit the farming industry with dignity, and we are also working on a new entrants scheme, which will encourage skills, support and the availability of land for new entrants.

We hope to create more mobility within the sector; we can do that only if we have the right systems in place, the right tenure and, as and when issues result in dispute, a proper mechanism for their resolution. We think that that lies within this SI; it is a small part of it. We will be working with noble Lords as we develop the thinking in the Rock report and other measures in environmental land management to make sure that we are supporting farmers—owner-occupiers, tenants and the large number who are both. We have to recognise that they all have a place in our farming system. With that, I commend this instrument to the Committee.