Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As I have set out, as a point of science, the scientific community and the UK Government rejected the legal conclusion of the European Court of Justice. It is important to point out that that was based on an interpretation of the clauses in EU regulations, rather than on any coherent assessment of the scientific evidence. We will assess the scientific evidence, and it is on that basis that we are bringing the Bill forward.

The hon. Lady asks whether I can be confident that this will not undermine the environment, and I can. Indeed, I am confident that it will lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides, which is a key objective that she will share with Conservative Members. It could also lead to a reduction in the use of synthetic fertilisers—currently the primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

What restrictions are there around the world on the agricultural products of this technology? Does the Secretary of State think that in the very near future, when the European Union appreciates the benefits that this can bring to agriculture, it may well change its mind on it?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In fact, I was at the agrifood council when the European Court of Justice judgment came in 2018. Even countries that had some scepticism about genetically modified foods, such as Germany and France, were very concerned about that judgment. It is also the case, as he may well know, that the European Union itself is now consulting on a change to its own laws. The EU will be some years behind us, but it recognises that the ECJ judgment in 2018 was scientifically flawed. He asked what other countries around the world do. The vast majority of serious agricultural producers with the scientific expertise to assess these things treat gene editing and these precision breeding techniques as being distinct from genetically modified organisms.

Clause 1 of part 1 describes what a precision-bred organism is. Clause 2 establishes the scope of what is considered a plant and an animal for the purposes of the Bill. Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

This Bill comes in a week when food, how we produce it and what it does to us and how food production impacts our planet have been at the forefront of public debate. The Bill was an opportunity to tackle one of the great issues of our time, but instead of rising to that challenge, I am afraid that the Government have flunked it. There was a minimalist response on Monday, when failing to set out a proper food strategy for the future, and a minimalist response today on setting up the right structures to enable innovation to flourish. That is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising. These issues require a long-term view, and an understanding and appreciation of the wider public good. This Government are now reduced to slogans designed to get the Prime Minister to the end of next week. The country deserves better, and many on the Government Benches know that.

Let me set out the position on this side of the House on an issue of significance for the future. Let me start by thanking the many serious people from learned societies and institutions who have done the thinking and spent time briefing me and my team as we grapple with some very big issues. As an example, I wave the weighty report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, “Genome editing and farmed animal breeding”, which runs to many hundreds of pages. I can recommend it to Members—it is actually a very good read. Unlike this Bill, which takes the narrowest possible approach, it stood back and asked the bigger questions about our food system, our treatment of animals, where traditional selective breeding has brought us, how we might approach novel foods, and the great changes that we may see in just a few years. The Royal Society criticises focusing narrowly on just one technology and argues for an outcomes-based approach.

There was a big opportunity, but a weak and disintegrating Government could not take it. I understand that, so I turn to the proposals that we have before us, which are a start. For reasons that I will explain, however, they risk having the opposite effect from those intended. Unless public and investor confidence is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be squandered. Although we will support the Bill’s progress today, we want to see it significantly strengthened and we will propose an array of amendments in Committee, which I genuinely hope the Government will consider carefully.

The Opposition start from a clear principle: we are pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, safety and security of our food system while addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused. That is the challenge that Henry Dimbleby set out in his national food plan, which the Government were unable to meet in their proposals this week.

With that challenge, there is an opportunity for the UK to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others will follow, but sadly this Bill is a rushed job—too thin on detail. With that lack of detail comes a risk, because the public need assurance that those new technologies are being used for the public good, not just for narrow commercial advantage. We have no doubt about the possible benefits. We understand the pressures that are put on farmers when we rightly say, as has been cited, that they cannot use neonicotinoids because of the harm they cause to pollinators. If gene editing can be used to safely ward off virus yellows in sugar beet, that is a definite good that we want to see proceed as quickly as possible.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the public good and commercial advantage are mutually exclusive?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Surely not, but they are not always the same thing, and that is the point.

We do not want a gene edit to modify an animal to allow it to tolerate more cramped conditions; we want a regulatory system that ensures that those technologies are used for the right purposes. We recognise that there will be people who are not convinced that it is right to intervene in these new ways, and who are not convinced that it is right for them or wider society, but we believe that if the system is regulated in the right way, most people can be reassured.

Let us not forget that Labour is the party of food safety. We established the Food Standards Agency, which will play a vital role in giving confidence to the public. Whatever it says and does, however, different approaches to food production must be respected with proper safeguards for organic production, for example, and for those who do not wish to go down these new routes. Their rights matter too.

We fully understand that laws designed almost 30 years ago for genetically modified products do not reflect advances in understanding and technology. We also see that many countries are recognising that gene editing should be treated differently. While we understand that, we must also recognise the importance of that distinction being drafted clearly and transparently, as has already been touched on.

The public will want to be assured that allowing the editing of genes in one organism does not also allow the introduction of genes from another organism. I hope that the Secretary of State can clearly confirm that today, because it is very important. Our reading of those complicated definitions, and the advice that we are being given, suggests that that subject is not entirely clear. I hope it can be explored in Committee.

We want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK. We know that over the years, traditional crop development and innovation has brought us all significant gains, but as we enter this new territory we need that strong regulatory framework to make sure that we get it right. As it stands, we are not convinced that the Bill provides that. It needs strengthening.

As it stands, far too much is being left to secondary legislation. We understand why that is always attractive to Government; it largely means, “Trust us.” As we all know, what is brought forward is unamendable and, almost without exception, it is always carried. It is a blank cheque, and on an issue that so relies on trust and public acceptance, that is not a good starting point.

We need more detail in the Bill, not least because this Bill covers both plants and animals, which makes this legislation much more complicated and difficult. In the notices accompanying the Bill, the Government have said they will only introduce new measures for animals after those for plants and after extensive consultation on the right regulatory framework for animals had been established. So far as we can see, there is nothing in this Bill to make that happen. Frankly, it is the wrong way around: sort out the preferred regulatory framework first, then put it into law.

As we have already heard, animal welfare organisations are rightly concerned. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says in its brief that it is “incredibly concerned”. Compassion in World Farming has joined 20 other animal welfare organisations, including the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, in raising similarly strong concerns. Their points are powerful, and Labour will require much stronger tests on animal welfare impacts.

As I suggested earlier, to get this legislation right the Government must provide a proper mechanism to balance the risks and manage trade-offs. Just saying that there is no risk is not that mechanism. In this country, we have always been pretty good at regulation. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is a highly regarded model for dealing with some of these very complicated issues, and a model the Government would do well to consider.

The case for having a strong regulatory framework is not just a matter of giving confidence to the public; that public confidence in turn gives scientists and businesses the confidence to invest here in the UK and sets the example for others to follow. That will be important as many of our trading partners go down the same route. How much better to have something worth copying, giving us first-mover advantage, but also settling some of those tricky trade issues if we end up with different rules.

As part of that framework, we need to recognise that the modern consumer wants and expects good information. Research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that, while consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from that for genetically modified foods, they want clear labelling and effective regulation of gene-edited products. Just telling them that they need not worry because there is no difference just does not cut it in the modern world.

Clear labelling is the way to help deal with another potentially difficult issue, which is the legitimately held views of different Administrations within the United Kingdom. I think it is fair to say—I suspect we will be hearing this in a minute—that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way this has been handled so far, and I suggest that the Government should tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.

In conclusion, we are in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. The world faces huge global challenges, and although much can be done by reforming global food systems, science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon. We need a regulatory framework that prioritises that. At the moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is to leave it to the market, and that risks repeating the mistakes of the past.

These are big and important issues. They will be explored in much greater depth in Committee and the evidence sessions, and the Opposition look forward to working with the Government to improve the legislation and create the strong regulatory framework that is needed, but currently lacking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I am going to make progress.

As previously, where the EU offers new scientific advice and moves to change legislative frameworks, the Scottish Government consider the implications for Scotland and seek to stay closely aligned with that approach where practicable. Holyrood passed the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 before Brexit, committing the Scottish Government to alignment with EU standards and regulations. In keeping with that, we are closely monitoring the EU, including its public consultation which I believe is continuing at the moment, as it reviews its policy on certain new genomic techniques.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the hon. Lady not appreciate that farmers are also businesspeople and that a farmer will not grow something that the consumer does not want to buy? Does she insult the intelligence of Scottish farmers by suggesting that they will grow crops nobody wants to buy?

[Deidre Brock]

This is about the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Government and our intention to stay aligned with EU regulations, as we have committed to in the 2021 continuity Act. We are in constant discussions with farmers and will continue to be.

Surely it would be practical for the UK Government to follow the approach of monitoring the EU and its ongoing public consultation as it reviews this policy, ensuring alignment and avoiding divergence that could further threaten trade with our largest trading partner. As the European Commission’s formal policy announcement is expected in the first half of 2023, the wait would not greatly undermine the UK’s competitive edge but would ensure minimal trade disruption. The UK economy suffered a 4% reduction in GDP, according the Office for Budget Responsibility, thanks to a hard Tory Brexit. The last thing Scotland needs is further disruption to EU trade.

It is worth noting, too, that the EU’s 2021 study into gene editing and new genetic technologies highlighted that research into animals and micro-organisms is “still limited or lacking”, especially when it comes to safety. The SNP would advise the UK Government to return to the precautionary principle in the deployment of such new technologies, especially those developing produce for human consumption.

There is no doubt that these issues are complex and emotive, with a variety of views across science, industry and other stakeholders. The SNP does not oppose further research in this area and it acknowledges the work of the James Hutton Institute, the Roslin Institute and other Scottish scientists and researchers. The more empirical data available in this area, the better we can understand exactly the effects in crops and animals, and in genetically modified organisms. However, the SNP will always listen to the concerns of the public and producers and take them into consideration in agricultural matters or in scientific development. Indeed, DEFRA’s own consultation last year found that 88% of individuals and 64% of businesses supported continuing to regulate such organisms as GMOs. The strength and range of opposition to the use of gene editing should give us pause to reflect.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

It has been said, but it bears repetition, that gene editing is different from genetic modification, because it does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species. Gene editing creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced more slowly by traditional natural breeding processes. Without this legislation, that process would continue to be regulated in the same way as genetically modified organisms.

The Bill will introduce simpler regulatory measures to enable these products to be authorised and brought to market more easily, but not without the appropriate controls. The devil, as they say, is in the detail, and however the legislation is progressed and scrutinised in Parliament, and whatever final form it takes, we can be assured that it will be more fit for purpose for our country than the EU regulations it replaces.

I am, of course, aware that the legislation will apply only in England, but I welcome the UK Government’s invitation to the devolved Administrations, particularly the Scottish Government, to take part in this process on a UK-wide basis. Although disappointed that the Scottish Government have so far declined to accept that invitation, favouring rather to remain aligned with the EU, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that that door remains open for them to take part. I am hopeful that, ultimately, they may welcome the opportunity to participate in that programme.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that the Scottish National party would like to move at the more pedestrian pace of the European Union, some two years behind us on the introduction of this technology?

[David Duguid]

I may be tempted to agree with that, but, in my experience as a Scotland Office Minister, I think that it is much more productive to work with Scottish Government Ministers behind the scenes; outside the sometimes febrile mode of this Chamber, we can work together on these things. Again, I encourage the Scottish Government and my SNP colleagues in this House to come to the table and work on that basis.

From talking to farmers and food producers in my own constituency, as well as to the National Farmers Union of Scotland, I know that gene editing technology in food production is not only desirable, but one of many crucial tools that can be made available to all British farmers. I quoted the president of NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy, earlier. He did go on to say that the NFU of Scotland

“is disappointed that the Scottish Government has chosen not to partake in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in favour of a European ruling on gene editing.”

In my regular ongoing discussions with NFU Scotland over the years, one of its major concerns—not its only concern, to be fair—is maintaining the integrity of the UK internal market, which is something that I very much hope will not be impacted by any divergence in legislation across Great Britain.

Gene editing, as has been said, can improve crop yields by allowing scientists to modify crops to be more resilient to the changing climate and produce more nutrient-rich produce. I therefore believe that such a Bill will advance the UK’s crop resilience and agricultural economy for years to come.

I am glad to see that the UK, including the Roslin Institute and the James Hutton Institute in Scotland, are leading gene editing technology across Europe, promoting agricultural development in an environmentally sustainable way, and prompting, we hope, an increase in investment in United Kingdom businesses. I therefore believe that this Bill will help to energise the UK’s agriculture and food production industry.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to establish a proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred animals, which will allow the UK to retain its high animal welfare standards while increasing livestock resistance to health issues, such as respiratory syndrome in pigs, improving their welfare and quality of life. I do not think that it is an either/or proposition. We can be improving living conditions for animals and using this technology.

In conclusion, this Bill is a valuable piece of legislation that should benefit our food production industry right across the UK, and I look forward to seeing its progress through Parliament. I again express my hope that, at this early stage of the Bill, the Scottish Government and SNP colleagues in this place—with their customary challenge and scrutiny, of course—decide to take part in this process for the good of farmers and food producers in Scotland as well as across the rest of the United Kingdom.