Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Jo Churchill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). I also thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and the Opposition for the constructive way they have leaned into this debate today. I would immediately say, “Yes, we need to work together on this.” I think the majority of those in this House see the huge opportunity we have here.

“The emergence of genome editing is a significant moment, as it represents a possible step change in introducing a new generation of potentially transformative biotechnologies into the food and farming system.”

Those are not my words; they are from the Nuffield report.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I welcome this Bill, which will hugely enhance our future food security. May I draw the Minister’s attention to pioneering new genetic editing techniques being developed at the University of Nottingham’s Sutton Bonington campus, and invite her to join me on a visit there to see that groundbreaking research in action?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble is an alumna of that august institution, as indeed am I, so I would be delighted to visit it. That intervention raises a key point that, because of the limited time, I will address in a general sense.

We do have some of the finest institutions, and many of them are lodged in Scotland. The James Hutton Institute and the Roslin Institute are beyond good in this space. They need to be supported. They do not need to wait for others to follow. Our door is open. We want to get this right. We want to work with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Professor Colin Campbell of the James Hutton Institute has said that it is right. Professor Helen Sang from the Roslin Institute has given evidence to say that this is what we need. She is working on ensuring that we can beat avian flu, which attacks both animals kept inside barns and those kept outside.

We have the opportunity to improve animal welfare here, and I would like to address that point full on. Animal welfare is currently of a high standard in this country, and it is not true to say that this Bill will affect it. Our animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, passed by Labour. These provisions help to reinforce the fact that the welfare of animals is a key priority, and it is simply not true to say that the Bill will lead to a diminution in those standards.

The Bill allows us to take the opportunities that have been presented to us through leaving the European Union. It is important to celebrate our country’s strengths at Rothamsted, James Hutton, John Innes and Roslin, all of which I have visited, and I hope to go to Aberystwyth soon. It is important that we move on this as a country. By encouraging greater research and development in the use of precision-breeding technologies, we are supporting that drive. Innovation is key to enhancing the sustainability and resilience of our agricultural systems by harnessing the benefits of precision breeding to eradicate disease, as we have discussed.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer addressed the issue of section 3. The Bill provides the Food Standards Agency with an opportunity to build from scratch a tailor-made framework that is proportionate for the UK. This will allow swifter progress for businesses wishing to market precision-bred organisms while still ensuring the safety of our food.

I could not agree more that safety, transparency, proportionality, traceability and customer confidence is what we are building here. The EU is currently reviewing its systems and has acknowledged that its current system is not fit for purpose. I would indeed be happy to share that documentation, which is publicly available, with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. It is important that we move ahead in this area, and our scientists, farmers and researchers all want us to do it. It is simply not true to say that this will allow multinationals and conglomerates to drive forward in this space. Actually, in the countries that have already driven PBOs into their system, we see democratisation, with a greater proportion of precision breeding patents being held by smaller and local businesses.

In response to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in her place, I agree that food security is a top priority. We have taken account of the Nuffield report and public concerns, and we are constantly in dialogue with our stakeholders. On Monday, we met animal welfare stakeholders to talk about the declaration and how they can feed into that. I agree that consumers need clear labelling, but the FSA will authorise products for sale only if they present no risk to health and do not mislead customers.

As this technology brings no safety risk, labelling will not be required to indicate the methods used in breeding. It is unnecessary because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it is the same as traditional breeding. The countries that are already in this space—Canada, Japan, the United States, Brazil and Argentina—do not do that. A public register will be available on gov.uk to ensure further traceability.

There is a great deal more that I could go into on the particular things that were brought up, but I want to finish by saying that this is a huge area of advantage. We need to go forward as a country making sure that we take our scientists with us, enhance our research and breeding practices, and enable consumer confidence. Ultimately the key aim of the Bill is to ensure that precision-bred plants, animals, food and feed products are regulated proportionately to their risk so that we can fully embrace the benefits and advantages of scientific progress that has been made over the past 30 years. The Bill is good news, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from David Exwood, vice-president, and Dr Helen Ferrier, chief science and regulatory affairs adviser, both of the National Farmers Union. Thank you for coming this morning. I can see that you are both there—both our witnesses are appearing via Zoom.

Before calling the Minister to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must also stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. This session will finish at 10.10 am. With all witnesses, I will first call the Minister and then the shadow Minister, before opening up to questions from others in the Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

Q Good morning, David and Helen, and thank you very much for attending this morning. I will start with a broad question, if I may. What are the views of farmers on precision breeding and how the Bill is likely to impact across both the crop and the livestock sectors? Perhaps we will go to David first.

David Exwood: I think farmers welcome this Bill, because of the possibilities it offers. I am really clear that the big gains, the big changes, in farming are all around breeding. Yes, there are gains in productivity around my machinery, but really the exciting things in the future are all around breeding and the possibilities that brings, and the Bill will help with that.

For all my farming career, I have used pesticides as part of the process. I am very happy about that, but we now genuinely have an opportunity to produce as much food as we do now but with much less impact. So I think farmers welcome the Bill, which opens a world of possibilities and addresses the challenges we face at the moment. There is so much pressure on land use, and the ability to produce the same amount of food as we do now but with less environmental impact and more sustainably is something all farmers welcome.

Dr Ferrier: Ultimately, the market will decide whether this technology is adopted here, but I think that, before that happens, the regulatory system and the legislative process will decide whether farmers and growers have access. The technology is clearly being developed around the world, and regulatory processes are being reviewed and put in place around the world. Farmers and growers are not going to be able to access the products of the technology and realise those benefits that David has talked about if companies are discouraged or regulation is not enabling. So the impact of the Bill depends on how well it is written and whether it will be proportionate and fit for purpose and will therefore encourage the investment of breeding companies that then enables farmers to adopt the products of the technology.

[Jo Churchill]

I have other questions, but I would like this process to be collegiate, so perhaps we should go to others, because they may ask the same questions as I will.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you for giving us your time this morning.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Good morning, Professor Henderson. Are you content that this Bill is based on the best available science? Would you like to explain the input you have had into the Bill?

Professor Henderson: Yes, I would. I think I can reassure the Committee on both those questions. I have been involved since the very early stages of the preparation of this Bill in consulting widely with the scientific community, advising Ministers and officials in my Department and others, and talking to stakeholder groups about the science and its implications. The Bill has taken into account the science and the most expert views of it in a very diverse way. I am personally content that it is fit for purpose and will ensure the continued safety of the environment and food.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good morning, professor. It is very good to see you. You will appreciate that one of the big discussions about this Bill is likely to be about definitions. I want to go into some of them, because you will be aware that some of the learned societies—the Royal Society of Biology, for instance—have questioned the very existence of the concept of a precision bred organism. Can a precision bred organism contain exogenous genetic material? If so, can you explain how that is different from a genetically modified organism?

Professor Henderson: There is an interesting question about how far deregulation into genetic technologies ought to go in one step. Some groups of scientists would certainly favour a model in which you relax the regulation much more widely and base all the outcomes on the traits that are produced through that technology—the outcome in the product—rather than having any view about the technology or the process by which the product is made. That is certainly a view that some scientists would hold.

The view of Government—this has played out in a number of stakeholder groups— has been that moving more cautiously to deregulate or lower the regulation of some aspects of genetic technologies first is a cautious and stepwise way to move. That takes account of the science, enables us to be aware of the issues as they arise, and most importantly builds the confidence of the public as those technologies are used more widely in food production. That is the justification for moving first into the use of technologies only to mimic breeding processes through precision breeding, as described in the Bill.

There is a difficulty in describing the limits of what is possible with breeding. It is clear that some things that are possible—we know they are possible because we have done them—are very similar to things that have been done, and they are therefore clearly in scope. There are other examples that are clearly not possible through breeding. In between those, there is something of a grey area. There is now detailed advice from an expert group—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—that lays out the definition of the circumstances in which something would be considered possible through breeding, and therefore would be considered a precision bred organism, to define the line within that grey area.

You also asked about exogenous material, by which I take it you mean material from another species. That sort of material can occur entirely naturally, and it can occur during breeding processes as well, but in general it does not lead to any functional change or any phenotypic change. The Bill is designed not to allow exogenous material, if it has any functional or phenotypic outcome in the product. In that way, it does mimic the action of traditional breeding. I hope that answers your question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

Perhaps we can ask Professor Henderson to dial off and dial back. Let us see if we can retrieve him.

[The Chair]

You are back, Professor Henderson. We move on to the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

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

[Jo Churchill]

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

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

[Jo Churchill]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now come to Professor Robin May. We have until 11 am, so we have gained five minutes. Thank you for giving us your time and expertise this morning. Could you briefly introduce yourself?

Professor May: Certainly. I am Robin May, chief scientific adviser at the Food Standards Agency and a professor of infectious disease at the University of Birmingham.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Good morning, Professor May. I will start with a broad question. Why is it necessary to create a new regulatory framework for precision bred food and feed products, and how will the FSA balance safety in doing so?

Professor May: There are probably two answers to why this is necessary. Currently, precision bred foods and feeds will be encapsulated within the existing GM framework. If they are moving out of that framework, it is important to be sure that those products are safe. The key difference here with traditional breeding is one of pace. The entire point of this technology is to do things that could have been achieved through traditional breeding, but much faster. It is important that we have safety checks along that pathway.

On your question about balance, I think the key balance to strike here is between supporting innovation and ensuring safety. At the moment, our thinking around this is to have a two-streamed process for regulation, where there is a very light-touch process for anything where there is unlikely to be a substantive change in the food and more scrutiny of anything where the final food product is different. I think that is quite appropriate for this blend of technology.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good morning and welcome. You may have heard some of the previous discussion around labelling. Indeed, it is something the Food Standards Agency has looked into. Could you tell us what work the Food Standards Agency has done on assessing the public view on labelling and what conclusions you have come to?

Professor May: We have undertaken quite a lot of consumer research in this area, as have many others. There are various take-home messages from that. The first is that there has been a perceptible shift in public views over the last 10 or 20 years, and there has been more interest in the potential benefits of this technology. That is mirrored by a really strong view that the public want some level of regulation and safeguards in this and other genetic technologies.

Specifically around labelling, there is a very strong majority of the public that we have polled, and that others have seen, who would like labelling of these products. There is some difference of views about what that labelling should entail, but there is a strong feeling around it. From an FSA perspective, we would in principle support that, because we stand very strongly for transparency. The problem, sitting here as a scientist, is that this is not really achievable for this particular group of foods, because the entire nature of the precision breeding legislation is to consider things that could have been produced traditionally.

Consequently, you may end up in the future with two apples, for instance, and one was produced by precision breeding that involves gene editing and the other was produced by traditional methods. It would be scientifically impossible—at least, at the moment—to tell those two apart.

Then, from my perspective, my view is that a label that is not enforceable and that might be misleading is actually worse than no label at all, because you then start to spread doubt about the validity of other labels in the food system: allergen labels, nutritional labels. While in principle I think labelling would be a good thing, the fact that we cannot enforce it makes me feel that this is not appropriate for this type of food.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q But as far as you understand it, the purpose of the register is to give that public reassurance. It is a public information issue.

Professor May: That is correct, yes.

[Jo Churchill]

Q What learnings have you taken from looking at countries that already have taken this technology forward? I am thinking in particular of Canada, Japan and Argentina—places where we holiday and are very comfortable with eating foods there. What have we learned from looking at other countries across the world, and how have you referenced that learning in the proposal you have put forward?

Professor May: There is a range of approaches across the world. It is probably true to say that no two countries have exactly the same approach at the moment. Perhaps I may give some examples.

At one end of the scale, you would have the current approach in the European Union, where all genetic modification, even genome editing that would fall within precision breeding, is regulated as GM and goes through a full risk assessment, often involving toxicology and quite a lot of analytics. At the other end of the scale, you have the US, for example, which has a default setting: if it is similar to something that was traditionally bred, there is no regulation.

Perhaps in between, the Canadian example is an interesting one. In Canada, they regulate the product and not the technology that has created it. They ask—let us go for an apple—“If you have created this apple, is it different from an apple I can buy currently?” If it is not different, it is not a novel food and it is not regulated; if it is different, it is a novel food and it gets assessed, regardless of how you made it. If I made that apple by precision breeding and it is different, it would be regulated; if I made it by crossing two apples in my orchard and creating a new apple tree that was different, it would still be regulated through that process. Scientifically, that is a very valid approach, but it means that you encompass within it all of traditional breeding and all the things that are done but not regulated in that way in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Good morning, Professor Dunwell, and thank you for giving us your time. We will finish this session at 11.25 am. Will you introduce yourself briefly?

Professor Dunwell: I am Jim Dunwell, professor of plant biotechnology at the University of Reading. I am also chair of ACRE, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, and have been for the past nearly three years.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Welcome, professor, and thank you for coming this morning. One of the challenges is that people hear that this will be swifter, and that concerns them. However, does the increased speed of the precision breeding method make the technologies less safe?

Professor Dunwell: Absolutely not. Some people suggest that speed, when it is applied in this kind of science, somehow has an intrinsic risk attached to it. That is slightly strange, as in most areas of science and innovation we are striving towards efficiency, whether it be in producing better vaccines or better batteries for electric cars. We are in a competitive world, and we can be sure that, as a nation and a scientific group, we are up against people who are having the same discussions elsewhere. If you are a plant breeder—not that it is a particularly profitable business—the ones who are successful are those who make genetic gains more efficiently and more quickly. Ever since we have known how genes control plant development, there have been advances in plant breeding to try to go through generations more quickly, so that people can capture, create and select genetic variation more quickly, and get their products to market more quickly. This is another element in that, which allows further increase in efficiency. Therefore, I have no intrinsic doubt about it.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Have you identified any greater risks involved in precision bred organisms, when compared with traditional organisms?

Professor Dunwell: No, not at all. It is something that ACRE as a group has had discussions about in the past decade, saying that the traditional methods of regulation were not really keeping pace with the change in the scientific information. Some 10 years ago nearly, we produced a report leading the way on that. Some of those issues have now fed through into the present proposal for regulation. Something you do with gene editing is to make slightly different, smaller genetic changes—that is the precision—enabling you to take a good variety and make it slightly better, just by making an existing change. In the past, you would have to put together different hybrid combinations. You would then have to go through massive selections of the best progeny, and that takes time. In terms of breeding a new variety, it may take five, eight or 10 years. That, now, can be cut back substantially.

[Jo Churchill]

Q I hope the Committee will indulge me as I ask my final question. Is this a good time to be bringing this legislation forward, given that you have highlighted to the Committee that we perhaps needed to look at our regulation a decade ago?

Professor Dunwell: I think it is very appropriate. Obviously, it follows on from our removal from the EU. As for the legal case that created this, I suppose, concern, most scientists in the UK and the EU realised that it was a sort of perverse judgment when it comes to traditional so-called mutagenesis, where you apply chemicals or radiation—that is considered a traditional method and has been for 50 years. If you go back to the ’50s, there was a society of atomic gardening. That was when atomic energy was “good”. There was a very popular and interesting character who set up the atomic gardening group. She used to demonstrate her plants at Chelsea; she used to have dinner parties and carry round irradiated peanuts to offer to people. It was considered a good thing, but it was a complete unknown. But there was no evidence of any problems relating to it. We can now make particular small genetic changes in a much more precise way, and I think it is a good time for the UK to take a lead and apply the best scientific principles that we have at our disposal.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Welcome and good morning, Professor Dunwell. I am going to try to pursue some of the vexed issues of definition at the start of the Bill, and I will ask you first the question that I asked Professor Henderson earlier. Can a precision bred organism contain exogenous genetic material, and if so, how is it different from a genetically modified organism?

Professor Dunwell: I think this comes back to our understanding of genomes. Some of the wording in here comes out of the discussions that we have had within ACRE and the recognition that, probably 20 or 30 years ago, we assumed that one crop had one genome and that was it, but we now know, because you can sequence genomes very easily and quickly, that in fact there is an enormous underlying diversity of genetic material. The number of genes in one variety of maize or corn is different from the number of genes in another. There are also structural rearrangements. You can have great pieces of chromosomes interchanged or moved; it is still a maize plant. These so-called structural variations are an intrinsic part of plant breeding—and also animal breeding. The more we see the diversity of this variation, the more we pick up the fact that many, many plants have DNA that has come from other organisms throughout their evolution; it is the same with animals. Plants have segments of DNA from, say, virus infections hundreds or thousands of years ago perhaps. They have been incorporated into the genome and so, in old-fashioned definitions of GM, those organisms would be considered genetically modified organisms, because they have material from another organism in them. But we accept now that that is the baseline—that many, many organisms have small parts of DNA from many, many organisms. We have nematodes that have plant DNA. We have insects that have plant DNA. These have been moved around during evolution. They do not change the purity of the species. In evolutionary terms, they create the diversity that enables evolution to take place.

That is the background in which the term “natural transformation” has been created. The simple presence of a small fragment or a bit of DNA from another species, which might have been there anyway, is not something that has any impact on hazard or risk.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Second sitting)

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. We will open questions with the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

Q Thank you and welcome to Professor Lovell-Badge and Mr Coatti. I believe, Professor, that you are at the Crick for your day job.

Professor Lovell-Badge: I am, yes.

[Jo Churchill]

I would like to take a little from the narrative that you have given us, and from something that you stated in your returns to the consultation. Thank you for saying that the Bill has been consulted on widely; we are trying to get it right, so any advice would be gratefully received. You stated:

“If appropriately managed, precision breeding offers a route to achieving many potential and much-need benefits to society.”

That rather articulates your argument that it is outcomes-based. With that in mind, you stated that you support the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment that precision breeding poses no greater risk than traditional breeding methods. Can you explain why, and can you refer to whether you think the current regulatory framework has held up? I think that was what you were saying in the narrative about research and development. Where would you go with that regulatory framework in order to optimise the R&D so that we can evolve into being outcomes-based, both in environmental and human health terms?

Professor Lovell-Badge: Right. There is a lot there.

[Jo Churchill]

There is a lot there, but there was a lot in your opening remarks to try to encapsulate.

Professor Lovell-Badge: The first question was about risk, I believe. Generally, on the risk of a random mutation versus a genome-edited one, you are actually better off with a genome-edited one because you know what you are doing. Of course, there can be some examples where you might not know exactly what is happening. There is very little mention of human health in here and so there is concern about zoonosis, where an animal virus can jump to humans, for example. You could, in theory, make what you think is a fairly simple change to give a trait that you want, but inadvertently you allow an animal virus to jump to humans. That needs to be looked at, in terms of risk. Exactly the same thing can happen with traditional breeding, but I imagine it is not generally looked at. That is a risk.

Alessandro Coatti: The case that Robin used before is quite important, where you think about adding multiple changes to genes in the same organism. The Bill covers plants and animals, but it does not cover micro-organisms, which are an interesting aspect that we can discuss later. You also really have to think about the fact that the dynamics of the genomic changes in different organisms are different, just like the way they reproduce is different. The type of gene flow that you would see in plants is different from the one you would see in animals.

The case that Robin was discussing of adding multiple changes in neighbouring genes in an animal is harder, through traditional breeding, than it has been in plants. For example, you can mutagenise into this very big screening. You might get to that point faster in plants than in animals. Perhaps the fast pace where this technology now allows development is not, as you say, either a morally or a practically neutral question. It is interesting that the Government have decided to frame it as something that could have arisen through traditional breeding or spontaneously. There is a reason why that is. However, at some point, it becomes a bit stretched, because in traditional breeding it would take many generations, and it would be quite hard to do it in certain animals.

However, this is again talking about the techniques. When it comes to adding those two traits in neighbouring genes, you might end up actually making the life of the animal way better. That is why you look at the outcomes. By using genome editing, people have corrected genetic defects that have arisen traditionally in breeding, for example of cattle. There is this Japanese breed of cattle that has a genetic syndrome. With genome editing, they corrected it because it was due to a single gene. In fact, even if it were very unlikely that you might have done it with traditional breeding, it is a very valuable use and we should do that because it enhances the welfare and the health of the animal.

[Jo Churchill]

Q That is sufficient, because everybody will want some time. I think I glean from what you have said that it would take many generations but it is still possible, particularly in plants. It therefore allows you to target derived beneficials, but this is caveated with the regulatory framework being appropriate.

Professor Lovell-Badge: The question would be: if someone made a plant or an animal where you have targeted two adjacent genes, would that be permitted or not under these rules? It is hard to think that it might be, because you could not simply do it by traditional methods. You might have to wait thousands of years and it would cost you a lot of money. That is the question.

[Jo Churchill]

Right—noted.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q I start by thanking you and your colleagues for your excellent evidence, some of it submitted to the consultation. It has certainly informed a lot of our thinking, although it also raised a lot of questions. In your introductions, you restated what was essentially in the evidence, which is that there is a problematic set of definitions and this would not necessarily have been the way that you would have gone.

I want to explore something slightly different: the role of advisory bodies. You began to touch on that in your last answer. The Bill at the moment is very thin on what the advisory bodies are there to do. In some of your written evidence, both your organisations suggested that the different bodies should have some kind of remit to look at the wider public good. Could you say a little bit about that? I have been taken by the example of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, or some aspects of the work that it does.

Professor Lovell-Badge: I have been very much involved in the HFEA public engagement exercises. When you are considering a broad area, or potential uses and outcomes, it is really important to have proper public engagement, including democracy, dialogue, or however you want to refer to it, where you really get to understand what the public will think about a topic.

When it comes to assessing technical aspects, it will be challenging. It is fine to have a lay member on a panel, but I do not know whether consulting the public about really detailed, technical issues might be challenging. It depends on what the advisory committee’s role is and whether it is to look more broadly at potential uses and outcomes or to focus on the specific techniques that are being used.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from William Angus, owner of Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd, who will join us via Zoom, Professor Johnathan Napier, research group leader, and Professor Nigel Halford, who is a crop scientist. Both are from Rothamsted Research and are with us in person. Could you introduce yourselves for the record? I will go first to William Angus.

William Angus: My name is Bill Angus—christened William, but anyway. I am a wheat breeder, and my job is to breed new varieties of wheat. I have been doing it for quite a long time. I started in the public sector at the Plant Breeding Institute, and then moved to the private sector with Nickerson. I started my own wheat breeding and oat activities in 2016, which has resulted in us being the largest privately owned wheat and oat breeder in the UK. That is not too hard, because the agricultural landscape is dominated by multinationals. I am also vice-chairman of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre board of trustees in Mexico. This is the largest publicly funded wheat programme on the planet, breeding for 200 million hectares. To put that into context, that is 100 times the size of the UK. Their focus is primarily on the developing world.

Professor Napier: Hello. My name is Johnathan Napier. I am a project leader at Rothamsted Research. I am a plant biotechnologist. I have a degree—PhD and DSc—from the University of Nottingham. Rothamsted is a publicly funded research institute. I am passionate about using basic research for public good and translation. I am very keen to see the research move beyond just discovery. I ran the first gene edited field trials in the UK in 2018. I have run GM field trials at Rothamsted since 2011 or 2012, and I am looking forward to talking with you.

Professor Halford: I am Nigel Halford. I am also at Rothamsted Research. I have been there a long time—all through the biotech period. In fact, I was involved in GM wheat trials in Bristol in the 1990s. Like Johnathan, I am very passionate about taking our research through to products that are actually going to help British farming, agriculture and consumers. I am currently running a gene edited wheat field trial at Rothamsted. We are looking at reducing the acrylamide content of wheat products, so it is a food safety target.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Good afternoon Bill, Professor Halford and Professor Napier. I would like to declare for the record that Bill is a constituent of mine, but I think we have only met once, in a field—to my memory—looking at wheat. I will ask Bill one question and then move on to the professors.

From the point of view of small and medium-sized enterprises, do you think this Bill will help smaller players to have some access to market, or would you like to see this Bill enable smaller breeders, such as yourself, to have access to these technologies?

William Angus: That is a good question. I have worked for a large multinational company. I was interested to hear both Johnathan and Nigel talk passionately about public good—that is what I do. When I was at the PBI this was part of your culture and it became part of my culture when I was at Limagrain.

I love the entrepreneurial spirit that we have in the UK. We started off this, which may be considered by some to be a slight mission of madness, but I had the opportunity to do it. We started in my lounge, then we moved to the greenhouse and then the garage, and now we have built up quite a significant activity.

I am worried about perhaps an agenda that this could be dominated by large multinationals, although one of the joys of wheat-breeding globally over the last 100-plus years has been the freedom to exchange germplasm. As soon as we start putting constraints on that, as soon as we start having people talking about ownership of genes and ownership of genetic material, or licensing genes that are already in the public domain, it starts to fill me with a great sense of foreboding.

Also, being on the CIMMYT board, I am really concerned and very passionate about the smallholder farmers that we have around the world. It has changed my life being on CIMMYT, in that it opened my eyes to the fact that there are millions and millions of people in very dire circumstances. Many people do not realise that the vast majority of farmers in the world are women.

So, yes, I am concerned about that and I would like to see some mechanisms whereby the freedom that currently exists for small companies, or individuals, to start up is not diminished. Therefore, I hope that some protection will be put in place.

Johnathan and Nigel may agree or disagree, but what we have in the UK is that, if you go back 40 years ago, we had a publicly dominating plant-feeding activity in the PBI. We have a really mature situation now. Globally, we are probably the best, and I have seen a lot around the world, of having these public-private partnerships. These guys at Rothamsted, or the John Innes Centre, or whatever, cannot take it to the market and we have a wonderful relationship with them, in that they do the fundamental research and then we, as the plant breeders, translate it into the field. And I include the multinationals in that.

We have a very mature situation and we must make sure that, whatever comes out of this Bill, that relationship is not damaged in any way and continues.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Lovely; thank you. Perhaps a question that you could think about is how gene editing, in your view and with your international experience, might help those developing countries.

However, I will direct my next question to both professors, in the hope that you both cover it to a degree. You have both expressed a passion, and have longevity about looking at this issue, and I think it was Professor Halford who said that he was involved in the GM trials in the ’90s. Can you please help us to understand how far we have come and say what benefits we should try to capture through this Bill in order to drive things forward?

Professor Halford: Any target you can think of for plant breeding—whether it is something that aids farmers, such as nitrogen-use efficiency or simplifying weed control, climate resilience, which is an urgent problem that we have to address in agriculture, or the kind of things that we are working on, benefits to consumers—gene editing can play a role in it. It is not sweeping anything else aside, but it certainly enables you to do some things that other methods in plant breeding do not allow you to do. That is what we are talking about.

Professor Napier: Nigel and I are veterans of the GM of the ’90s, the problems that emerged from that and the hiatus of seeing none of our research translated for a decade. Then, at Rothamsted, we restarted GM field trials in 2012, just because we realised that there was this urgent need to translate the research. The UK has a fantastic reputation for doing basic plant sciences, making lots of fantastic discoveries in labs, but that is no good to feed people or to solve the challenges of climate change and food security. You cannot eat promise; you really need a product.

The reason I am in agriculture is that it is the ultimate scalable solution: once you demonstrate that you can grow something in one field, you can grow it in a million fields. But until you have actually done it in the first field, you do not know whether the technology works. That is the exciting thing that has already changed in the regulation in the past few months—it is easier to do experimental gene edited field trials. Nigel and I are doing those at Rothamsted under the new regulations, and that is great, that is enabling. That is what we need.

We want to enable the technology to advance, which is not to say that we ignore the importance of safety and all those other things. On one level, it goes without saying that those are important, but it should not go without saying—you have to say that those are of paramount importance. What we want is enabling regulation. I am not totally sure I have answered your question, but it gives you the idea.

[Jo Churchill]

Q That gives us a very clear picture: to be overly prescriptive might be as difficult, and the regulatory framework needs to be appropriate.

Professor Napier: That is exactly right. Even if you look at the situation in the US, which is imagined to be the most tolerant and enabling of regulatory environments for GM, for example, it still costs probably $10 million to deregulate a crop. That is an utter barrier to entry to any small or medium-sized enterprise. The reason why the market is dominated by the large corporations is that they are the only people who can afford to pay those costs. If the barrier to entry is lower, basically you make it much more open to the more entrepreneurial, smaller, nimbler but less deep-pocketed organisations.

Professor Halford: The GM revolution is now a generation old. It is a 20th-century technology. We see varieties in the Americas and Asia with multiple input traits, output traits, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, high lysine with a cherry on the top. None of that is available here—absolutely nothing, not a single GM crop plant grown commercially in the UK. We have completely missed the boat on that one, and it is really important that we do not miss the next boat.

We will have to go some way to persuade plant breeding companies, biotechnology companies, that there is a market in the UK. Currently, I can tell you, nobody is thinking about developing a GM or GE commercial crop for the UK or Europe. We will have to have regulation in place that gives breeders confidence that when they get their product to market, they can actually sell it. If my wheat all pans out, it works really well and I hand it to breeders to incorporate into their breeding programmes, we are still talking probably five to 10 years before we could possibly see anything on the market. That is a lot of work and investment. So farmers need to be confident that, at the end of that, they have a market.

[The Chair]

I remind people that we have until 3.15 pm for this session. A couple of Members have caught my eye. I will start with Daniel Zeichner.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you, William. We have less than a minute left. I know the Minister wants a quick question—it is less than a minute for your question and the answer.

[Jo Churchill]

Q You want to see this applied and translated. Bill, you stated that you already feel that, with some tweaks, we have a strong regulatory appeal in this country anyway. In one word, is the Bill proportionate?

Professor Napier: Yes.

Professor Halford: Yes.

William Angus: Yes.

[Jo Churchill]

This feels like “Britain’s Got Talent”. There we go; we have finished before 3.15 pm.

[The Chair]

That brings this session to an end. I thank all our contributors for a really informative session.

Examination of Witnesses

Roger Kerr, Steven Jacobs, Joanna Lewis and Christopher Atkinson gave evidence.

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Roger Kerr, chief executive, and Steven Jacobs, business development manager, both of Organic Farmers & Growers, and from Joanna Lewis, policy and strategy director, and Christopher Atkinson, head of standards, both of the Soil Association. All the witnesses are with us in person. We have until 3.50 pm for the session. Will each of you in turn introduce yourself for the record, and then we will come to questions?

Roger Kerr: My name is Roger Kerr. I am chief executive of Organic Famers & Growers. I am also a trustee of the Organic Research Centre, which is an independent organic research organisation. I am also a director of the Organic Trade Board.

Steven Jacobs: I am Steven Jacobs. I am the business development manager for Organic Farmers & Growers.

Joanna Lewis: I am Joanna Lewis. I am the policy and strategy director for the Soil Association and a trustee at the Food Ethics Council and at Sustain, the alliance for food and farming.

Christopher Atkinson: Hello. I am Chris Atkinson. I am head of standards at the Soil Association charity. I am also an elected board member of IFOAM Organics Europe, our European umbrella organisation.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Welcome, lady and gentlemen. The organic industry currently keeps supply chains separate between organic and non-organic. I wonder whether you could explain how that system works and what you view as the challenges in carrying on that system, given the current legislation.

Christopher Atkinson: Organic is a regulated activity, so the requirements for organic production, including separation and segregation, are laid out in law. In the UK, that is currently a retained European regulation, No. 834. That mandates an inspection and certification system based on international norms for product certification. The way in which producers who are under the control system specified in the regulation notify their activity and interaction with independent third-party certifiers, such as Organic Famers & Gowers and the Soil Association, is described in that regulation.

It is very much a farm-to-fork regulation: it covers all parts of the production process, from the farm, beyond the farm gate, right through to the point of sale. There is complete traceability, which is overseen by the certification bodies and maintained through record keeping and some elements of testing and checking, which are carried out both by those who are subject to the regulation and by the certification bodies that oversee their activity.

Roger Kerr: The question was also about the risk of GM to the supply chain.

Christopher Atkinson: Yes. At the moment, there is prohibition of GMOs in organic production, and organic producers rely on the current labelling regime to verify and identify freedom from GM. There is also a testing regime based on detection thresholds for GM specified in the legislation, and there are duties both on the producers and on the certification bodies to apply those requirements.

[Jo Churchill]

Q With respect, we are not talking about GM products but about gene edited products and precision breeding. Therefore, I suppose I would like to tease out why it does not work for precision-bred crops that arguably are akin to traditional breeding. In the animal world, we already have scientists at Roslin and so on working on avian flu in our bird population, and we have porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome devastating our pig population. Looking some 10 years hence, are you saying that advances to combat such diseases would not be compatible in your current system, given that those are arguably beneficial in stopping an animal dying in distress? I am trying to understand your world, if you see what I mean. It will be quite difficult to undo the potential benefits.

Joanna Lewis: Your mention of PRRS offers a good way to explain why the global organic movement currently does not support the genetic engineering approach. That movement is very much founded on the principle that you harness natural processes to stop pest and disease problems arising in the first place. For instance, PRRS is widely accepted to be a disease that arises from industrial farming systems as a result of overcrowding. The crucial thing is to make sure that there is a public interest test at the heart of the Bill, and that is what we are calling for.

We noted that the Regulatory Policy Committee has raised a red flag about the impact assessment—I am sure that it has been discussed before. We found that the impact assessment had overlooked three crucial areas: first, clearly, the freedom of choice for citizens; secondly, the needs and interests of organic agroecological farmers and growers, who have a key role to play in the Government’s ambitions for a sustainable farming transition; and, thirdly, the impact on the Government’s ability to achieve their own really important legal biodiversity and climate targets, and to address their professed concern about animal welfare and their desire to improve those welfare standards.

One does not need to doubt the good intentions of the research institutions that are involved in the research, but there are strong commercial drivers at play here. It is no accident that current and recent developments on gene editing of crops relates overwhelmingly to herbicide resistance. When you have four companies controlling 60% of the global seed market and two of them, Bayer-Monsanto and ChemChina, which owns Syngenta, account for more than half the agrichemical market, it is no accident that there is that commercial bias.

When it comes to the interests of farm animals, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics held a public dialogue on gene editing and farmed animals. The concern expressed by the public, now backed by the support of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and Sciencewise—I am on the oversight group for that dialogue—was clearly centred not so much on the distinctions between gene editing and conventional breeding, but on the fact that the direction of travel for conventional breeding had been to prioritise traits that came at the expense of animal welfare and which facilitated the keeping of animals in inhumane industrial farming systems. The concern was that gene editing might accelerate that trend.

That brings us back to the question of where the public interest test is that could allow the Government to do more than just presuppose and gamble on the benefits of this for climate, nature and health. Norway has developed a gene technology Act, which places that public interest test at its heart. I do not know if that has been discussed yet, but there is a test that requires evidence of community benefit and support for sustainable development, so we would like to see that considered in the deliberation of this Bill.

Steven Jacobs: Just to pick up on where we stand as an organic control body, our role is to maintain integrity through the whole chain of custody, from farm to fork and from seed to shelf. You cannot necessarily tell that a bottle of milk is organic by testing it—actually, there could be tests for that. You can tell a bottle of milk is organic because we have inspected every stage of the process. According to our licensees—and we license more than half the organic land in this country—that is not onerous. They already do various certifications, such as Red Tractor. Our inspectors will be able to do two, three or four of those in one visit. Asking the same question can generate two, three or four certification requirements.

The situation we have is one where there is an established market. In this country, it is worth around £3 billion. Globally, it is worth around $100 billion. It has been going for 60 or 70 years. The regulatory regime has been in existence since the early ’90s. That integrity is accepted in the marketplace and is being bought by shoppers. In the consultation, something like 85% of respondents said it was not that they necessarily objected to gene editing, but they would like to see existing regulatory frameworks upheld. We work in a regulatory framework. We have ISO standards. We are audited by a Government-approved auditor every year. That is how we ensure that that integrity is maintained. For us, those customers have said they do not want GE or GM.

[Jo Churchill]

Right, okay. I am not sure that I entirely understand why you feel it would be any different with GE, which is a completely different technique—with all due respect—from GM. If I could tease out that animal welfare point, you are predicating your argument on the idea that everything is detrimental on a welfare front. Surely the eradication of avian flu—particularly as we have had the challenge in the last year—would be beneficial to free-range birds as well. I am keen that the rest of the Committee has its chance to contribute, though.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon and welcome. I am glad that you raised the impact assessment because there is a lot of interesting stuff there. Some of it is a touch surprising, which we will probably explore in more detail when we go through the Bill line by line. You already touched on some of this, but what are the threats from these developments for your sector? What would you like to see in the Bill to deal with those challenges, as you see them?

Roger Kerr: From an organic regulatory basis, as Chris has already indicated, GE is still defined as GM. We need to be much clearer about what GE is being defined as, and we still do not have that clarity. As things stand, it is not allowed within the organic regulation, so the risk is where there is a lack of co-existence measures in place, which means that organic crops are contaminated. Organic consumers make these purchasing decisions because they believe they are avoiding GM, and that is a right they should have.

By not having robust co-existence measures in place, we are obviously putting our consumers at risk, because they are purchasing organic products on the basis that they do not believe they are consuming GM. It is a personal choice—I am not saying that you should not—and the organic sector is not saying per se that we should not have genetic editing. What we are saying is that it is incompatible with organic. Organic is out there, and there is a market for it, as Steve has clearly stated. There is a significant opportunity, both domestically and internationally, for the UK organic sector.

We should protect the organic sector, and there should be some visibility in terms of GE—where it is being grown, what is being grown and what the potential risks associated with that are for the organic sector—so we can ensure that the organic sector remains free from GM or GE, as it is at the moment. There is concern that if we are looking to provide consumers with the choice of having GE or not, we will end up with quite a significant cost within the supply chain to ensure co-existence, in terms of space and time, between GM and non-GM. This is not organic per se; it is just GM and non-GM. We will then have to have extra storage, more vehicle movements and a much higher level of testing. There are concerns that, without real clarity about what is going on and where the potential points of contamination arise, a significant cost will be borne by the food sector, which is already under significant pressure.

Joanna Lewis: I understand that you are addressing us as the organic industry and the organic sector, but I just want to reiterate that the Soil Association is a charity of 70 years’ standing that represents all citizens, farmers, growers and scientists who want to see a mainstream transition to agroecological farming and regenerative farming for climate, nature and health.

The response to the consultation on the Bill—85% of people and businesses were opposed—reflects a deeper unease not just about the safety issues and technicalities around the distinction between gene editing and GMOs. That is what I was trying to bring through with reference to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’s public dialogue. It is really important to emphasise the very legitimate public concerns about the fact that breeding as a whole—plant and animal breeding—has been on an unhelpful trajectory that is not up to the challenge of the Government’s goals on sustainable farming transition. We therefore need to ensure that we are not accelerating that trend through carte blanche deregulation.

There is an opportunity to put good governance at the heart of this Bill, set that public interest test, and ensure full supply chain traceability, transparency and labelling for citizens who want and deserve the right to choose whether this is the solution for them. I would not want it narrowed down to saying we are representing an economic sector. This is a broader movement, and it is very much one for mainstream transition.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear evidence from Dr Richard Harrison, director of Cambridge Crop Research and member of the BBSRC agrifood strategic advisory panel, from NIAB, and Professor Giles Oldroyd, professor of crop science at the Cambridge Crop Science Centre. Both witnesses are with us in person, and we have until 4.30 pm for this session. If you could both introduce yourselves, and then we will begin questioning.

Dr Harrison: I am Richard Harrison and I am director of crop research at NIAB. NIAB is an independent research organisation based around the country. It receives both public and private funding, and it sits in the area of strategic and translational research in crops. My role in NIAB is as the director of Cambridge Crop Research, which encompasses most of the arable crop research we do in the organisation. That include genetics, biotechnology and some of the statutory work that we deliver in seed certification and variety valuation for the Animal and Plant Health Agency on behalf of DEFRA. My own research is in the area of plant-microbe interactions in complex trait genetics. Most of that work has been done over the past 10 years in horticultural crops—strawberries, cherries, raspberries and other tasty things—where my group have worked on disease resistance but also developed and implemented gene editing technologies in those crops.

Professor Oldroyd: I am Professor Giles Oldroyd. I am professor of crop sciences at the University of Cambridge. I am a fellow of the Royal Society and I am director of the Crop Science Centre, which is an alliance between the University of Cambridge and NIAB. I am the University of Cambridge component of that alliance. My research focuses on how we improve the sustainability of farming systems, with a particular focus on removing the need for inorganic fertilisers from farming. I work on driving sustainability in developed-world farming, but also for smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. I get most of my funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I currently have a field trial ongoing in Cambridge that uses a combination of genetically modified lines as well as genetically edited lines.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome. I will go for a broad-brush question. What impact do you think the Bill could have in terms of the benefits from translating research and freeing up research and development? Given your experience in particular, Professor Oldroyd, how will it help to address challenges such as food security, climate change and so on?

Professor Oldroyd: I think that the current Bill would be truly transformative in our ability to see impact from the foundational research that happens in many of our universities around the country. The UK is a world leader in plant sciences. It has been very frustrating for plant scientists to struggle to see impact from their research because of the restrictions that are placed on the release of potential products from their work.

I believe that gene editing is equivalent to what you can achieve from conventional natural processes, but the level of precision that it provides allows us to do things in a way that we could not—or found it difficult to do—when restricted to only what is available in the natural diversity of that crop. It really does allow us to move things from the lab to the field to the consumer in a manner that is much more straightforward, to apply the phenomenal knowledge that we have developed in plant research in the UK over the last 30 or 40 years, and really to drive what I believe is a crucial transformation in food production. We have phenomenal challenges facing us: we have to feed a growing population, drive sustainability and cope with climate change, all over the next 30 years. That is not easy and we cannot do it with our hands tied behind our backs.

Dr Harrison: I could not agree more with that synopsis. One of the major strengths in the UK is our fundamental research base. Over the past 30 years, we really have understood at a deep level how genes function—in plants and in animals—and the ability not only to capture what is there in nature through conventional breeding, but to use technologies that allow the directed introduction of mutations that could occur naturally but are not necessarily present or are not in the right pre-adapted germplasm. Bringing those into the gene pool and using them for crop and animal improvement is, as Giles says, transformative to our abilities to address the major challenges that we face in food production and the sustainability of food production.

[Jo Churchill]

Q When you are doing this research, you are bound by regulatory frameworks and have to keep the safety of the product. How do you, as leaders in science, challenge yourselves to make sure that the products that end up on our shelves—albeit that they have to go through FSA approval and so on—are bred for safety, and how we and the consumers assure ourselves of that?

Professor Oldroyd: There are currently very tight restrictions on validating the health and safety of GM products. For products produced by conventional breeding, we also have tests with regards to their performance in the environment, their performance relative to other varieties and their health. We have a robust regulatory framework in place that addresses the safety of the consumer, and it has served us well over many decades. I cannot think of an example where we can say, “Okay, this line has caused genuine risk to human health,” and that is because of the regulatory framework that exists.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon and a warm welcome to you. May I say how much I enjoyed visiting your splendid new offices a few months ago to meet your new director?

My questions are about public confidence. We know that this has been a vexed debate over many years. There is fantastic science being done in Cambridge, but it often strikes me that the wider public have very little idea about it; that is hardly a unique issue there. Do you think there are sufficient measures in the Bill to secure the public confidence that is needed? If not, what extra could be put in to secure that?

Dr Harrison: The key point is proportionality. In all the preamble to the Bill, it is suggested that there is a proportionate response to how the technology is regulated. What we must never forget about gene editing and the scope of the types of changes that can be introduced is that they are indistinguishable from nature, so fundamentally we are not doing anything that could not happen or arise through natural processes.

The level and proportionality of the regulation of, and the transparency of, those products is important, and it is important that the public are aware, which I suppose is why there are systems in the Bill to register intent to put into the existing system gene edited products, but I do not think we need to stretch much beyond that. We have, as Bill Angus said, very well established regulatory frameworks in which to evaluate the performance of crops. We have the DUS system—distinctiveness, uniformity and stability—and we have the value for cultivatable use system. They have shown over many years that when varieties are put on the market, they are safe. The legislation that exists beyond that gives any country the right, if they find a problem with a variety, to remove that from what is the common catalogue in the EU, or, in our case, from our national list. As long as the proportionality is adhered to, the Bill is appropriate.

Professor Oldroyd: There are a lot of studies that have looked at the general public’s position on biotechnology. There are really only a few at either extreme—who absolutely support it outright or who are very scared of it. Most of the general public are looking to people like me—to scientists—and to the regulatory framework to define what is safe to consume.

Within precision breeding, as is intrinsic to the Bill, is the fact that these are events that could happen by exactly the same natural diversity and so already could be introduced, theoretically, through a conventional breeding process. One of the issues is that some—in particular, those on the previous panel—have taken as a presumption that anything that is biotechnology is inherently dangerous, and that is not correct. It is not correct to say that just because it is being developed by this mechanism there is an inherent danger in that approach. That is the erroneous position to take when comparing with conventional breeding.

We use many varieties that have been generated by mutagenesis breeding, by double haploid production. These are conventional breeding approaches. There is very little about gene editing that is different from that in the end product; it is just how you get to that event.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Minister, you have another point.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Just a quick question in conclusion: could you articulate whether, in your view, this will lead to more investment in R&D in this country, including philanthropically—you mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—for the benefit of others across the world? We know that the majority of the world tends to farm on less than a hectare, so enabling them to have disease-resistant crops or crops that do not need expensive inputs could arguably have a beneficial effect. What is the quality of our research? I think Dr Harrison said that we have the absolute chance to lead. Any comments? I am slightly hesitant, knowing where you are going to be shortly. How do we optimise that?

[The Chair]

May I jump in here? We have about four and a half minutes left, and Daniel Zeichner wants to ask a question as well.

Professor Oldroyd: A lot of eyes are focused on this country at the moment, with regard to how we approach this. We have to recognise that we influence quite a bit. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are absolutely looking to Europe, to the UK, for leadership on this. Our position will influence internationally how these technologies are legislated for. Certainly, we have a lot. I am excited about the potential to drive up food production for smallholders, as well as the sustainability of farming practices here in the UK. The opportunities are immense. Definitely, having this, the ability to use gene editing, will facilitate that delivery both to smallholder farmers and to UK farmers.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is definitely paying attention to what is happening here in the UK. With regard to additional investment, this Bill opens up opportunities for the UK. We are already a leader—we really are a leader in agricultural research—and I think it will position us even more greatly to be spearheading the impact of all that agricultural research.

Dr Harrison: I, too, see a big opportunity for the UK not only to lead, but to garner additional investment. At NIAB, where we operate in both the private and public sectors, we have seen on both sides a big increase in the attention given to the services we offer to industry and academia for crop transformation and gene editing. I definitely think there is an opportunity here. In the kind of ecosystems that you see around major university cities such as Cambridge, there are a lot of start-ups that are very much trying to bridge the gap between the need to use crop science to transform food and farming to be sustainable, and the use of new technologies. A definite opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Sam Brooke, chief executive of the British Society of Plant Breeders, who will be giving evidence in person. We have until 4.50 pm for this session. Before we open the questions with the Minister, could you please introduce yourself?

Sam Brooke: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Sam Brooke, and I represent the British Society of Plant Breeders, which is a not-for-profit society. We currently represent 80 members of the plant breeding sector, which is virtually 100% of the plant breeding industry in the UK. As you can imagine, because we have 80 members, we range from one-man bands and SMEs to multinational breeders, so we have a very good coverage of the breeding industry in the UK. Our main aim is to continue to promote plant breeding, the importance of genetics, and the importance of seed and where it fits into the scheme of things.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Having such a depth of commercial experience within your organisation, and looking—as you have said—from the SME through to the international plant breeder, what impact do you think this legislation might have on the seed production industry? In particular, could you talk a little about how we ensure fairness and equity, from SMEs through to the internationals? I saw you nodding when Professor Oldroyd was giving his evidence, but I would like to hear it from you.

Sam Brooke: From our perspective and that of our members, the legislation offers huge opportunities. It will definitely open up investment in the UK for plant breeders. When the European Court of Justice ruled in 2018 to legislate precision breeding techniques as genetically modified organisms, around 70% of our members classed as SMEs ceased investment in those new technologies because of the expense and political uncertainty around being able to bring those products to market. From our point of view, it is critical that these new techniques are now available and can be utilised.

We believe that the legislation will naturally bring the cost of those new techniques down, giving a broader range of our members greater access. As I have mentioned, we have guys who are literally one-man bands, who are breeding locally in the Cambridgeshire area where we are based, and we also have the bigger multinational companies. You have mentioned being fair and equitable: breeders have already established a network of trait licensing platforms, which we see working very well across the UK and Europe. A very successful vegetable trait licensing platform is already established, and an agricultural trait licensing platform is being established as we speak. That is a fantastic way of ensuring that those traits are available across all breeders and all entities, of all shapes and sizes, which is great, because it means they have access to broader diversity, more technologies and more traits. That is really important.

[Jo Churchill]

Q One final question from me before I hand over: what would you not want to see in this Bill?

Sam Brooke: As a whole, the BSPB is incredibly supportive of the Bill and what it is trying to achieve. Our main concern would be around clause 3 and a risk assessment around food and feed. All the scientific evidence would show that there is no greater risk in using these technologies than in using what we currently are in conventional or traditional breeding—or whatever we want to call it—so I feel that there is no reason for that extra risk assessment step. We are very concerned that that could act as a blocker to early stage research and development.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon and welcome. I will follow on from some of the previous questions and ask a similar question, really. In the end, it seems that one of the big challenges here is in maintaining public trust. While scientists may give a whole a series of assurances, if the public and perhaps some of the major retailers are not convinced, then there is a problem.

The key issue is getting the balance right between reassuring the public and following the science. However, to many of us, this Bill looks very thin on the “reassuring the public” side—so much so that, despite the FSA and its polling showing that the public would really like more information, as the Bill stands, that is not the way it will be. How convinced are you that the issue of public confidence will be resolved in favour of the science?

Sam Brooke: Having lived and breathed plant breeding for just over 20 years, I think we should have shouted more, and earlier, about how regulated the industry is, both at plant-breeding and seed level. We have a rigorous testing system in the national list process. Each variety undergoes at least two years of testing before it comes to the market. Every variety must be on that UK national list before it can go into sale. All that is underpinned, obviously, by laws on food safety, novel foods, and so on. We have this incredible history of safety of plant breeding in the UK, and of bringing those products into the market in a safe, sensible and secure way.

On top of the registration process, we also have seed marketing legislation, which really protects the user. Naturally, it protects the consumer in that it ensures that all seeds that go out into the market meet a common and prescribed standard. I think that is really important, and it is probably our fault as breeders that we have not shouted in the past about how legislated the process of producing new varieties and seeds actually is. That is what we need to go out and talk about, and tell the consumers. I am a consumer—we are all consumers—and I think, had consumers had more information and knowledge about how regulated varieties and seeds already are, we might already be a step closer to having that absolute trust.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Dr Alan Tinch, vice-president of genetics at the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies. He is appearing via Zoom, as we can all see, and we have about 20 minutes for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself? Thank you also for joining a little bit earlier.

Dr Tinch: No problem. I joined five minutes early just to be prepared. My name is Alan Tinch. I work for the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies, which is a company involved in developing technologies for use in fish breeding and aquaculture. I work on projects in genetics, genomics and gene editing. In terms of my background, I am a geneticist. I graduated from the University of Edinburgh and Roslin Institute in Scotland many years ago. I have worked on a number of different species, both terrestrial and aquatic. Throughout my career, I have worked on genetics, genetic development of breeding programmes and developing new systems for improvement of livestock.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Good afternoon, Dr Tinch. Can I ask how you anticipate the Bill helping in the area of aquatic species? How do you see it fitting in with the international regulatory environment?

Dr Tinch: That is an interesting question. I think all livestock breeding is now very much international, so it is difficult for small companies based in one country to operate successfully. There are a number of large international operators in genetics. In aquaculture in particular, we are not as far down the development of the species as some of the terrestrial species. We have been farming and breeding fish for about 40 to 50 years, so we are domesticating many of the species already. We are working hard to improve things such as disease resistance. There is good evidence, and we have seen very good examples, of genes that can be used to improve health and welfare of fish—particularly with Atlantic salmon, where a Scottish group identified a gene that accounted for over 80% of the variation of disease resistance. That was bred into the salmon populations and is now in most farmed salmon populations, making them resistant to the infectious pancreatic necrosis virus.

I see the implementation of gene editing allowing us to do similar things. Without having to go into the field, if you like, and look for animals that are carrying favourable mutations, we are able to identify genes that affect things like disease resistance, make targeted changes in those genes and make fish resistant as a result. I think that is a very positive way of taking breeding forward. It is not the only tool in the toolbox, but it certainly allows us to do some very interesting and valuable things for the health and welfare of the animals we farm.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon. You will probably find my line of questioning fairly predictable. Animal welfare organisations have consistently said that they are concerned about the introduction of traits, which would allow animals to be farmed more intensively. Given the concerns that have been raised around aquaculture in general, how concerned are you that that is the way it will be perceived and seen? My second question is more to do with the trade issues and comes almost on the back of the first question. If our European partners take a different view on this issue, what effect would it have on your industry’s exports?

Dr Tinch: That is a tough question. The association between improving the ability of animals to perform and changing disease resistance, and the idea that that means we are going to increase stocking density and make welfare worse, is very simplistic, and it is not as simple as that. That is not the way farmers tend to operate, and it is not the way that breeders operate practically. That argument is raised quite often as being a reason not to improve farm animals, but it is not like that.

We should use the technologies that we have to improve animals. We are putting them in a farming environment that is different from the environment they evolved in. We have to adapt them, using genetics, to the farming environment, and that is what we aim to do. We aim to improve health, welfare and the sustainability of the animals from an economic point of view and an ecological point of view, and we use a number of different methods to take that forward. The tool is genetics, and gene editing is the next step forward in our ability to change different things. We should look at how we aim to improve animals in a constructive and welfare-driven way.

On the trade issues, if the legislation put us in a position where we were restricted in the use of the technology, we would be faced with the problem of people farming gene edited animals in other countries, and we would not be as competitive. We are already seeing gene edited animals being farmed in Japan, for example, and there is very permissive legislation in places such as Canada and Australia. I think those countries will be the first to bring in this technology. I see that coming first in some of the economic traits, and we will face competition as a result—maybe not in the species that they are planning and gene editing at the moment, but as it comes through the system in these areas, we will see our industries being uncompetitive in their performance.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Third sitting)

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Gideon Henderson, chief scientific adviser at DEFRA, who is with us today in person. Before calling the first Members to ask a question and before allowing the professor to introduce himself, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings of the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. That means that for this first session we have until 11.45 am. Professor, would you like to introduce yourself briefly? Then we will start with questions from the Minister.

Professor Henderson: Hello. My name is Professor Gideon Henderson and I am chief scientific adviser at DEFRA.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

Q135 Welcome, Professor Henderson. I would like to start with a broad question. Are you content that this Bill is based on the best available science? I would like to understand from your point of view why you think this legislation is necessary now, and why we should not wait for some of the more technical details, which have been asked for, to be developed.

Professor Henderson: I am content that this Bill is scientifically sound. I have given it a great deal of attention and have called on a great many expert witnesses through informal and formal processes. I have interacted with a large number of stakeholder groups over the past 18 months, and I am content that there has been due scientific scrutiny and that this Bill is based on sound science and agreed science.

It is important to move forward with this Bill for several reasons. There are very significant benefits to the environment, human health and resilience to climate change that can accrue from precision bred organisms. The technologies that we can harness to derive those benefits are now sufficiently mature that we are ready to capitalise on them. The UK is well positioned to do that. Many other countries have already made the use of such technologies easier, and it is time for the UK to catch up and it is safe to do so.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Can you say how you work across the four nations? Can you talk about the involvement of the whole of the UK in the evidence gathering that you have been doing?

Professor Henderson: There are two sides to my answer, one of which is the scientific side. The scientific body of knowledge is, of course, shared across the world and certainly across the four nations, and there is strong expertise in gene editing and the technologies we are talking about today in the devolved nations, as well as in England—certainly, those strengths are quite considerable in Scotland and Wales. The UK as a whole is very strong in this area, scientifically.

At a governmental level, there have also been significant discussions between Government scientists. I talk to my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I have been sharing information with other officials and sometimes with Ministers in the devolved nations as well. I think there is agreement about the science across the four nations, but not always about the policy direction.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q Good morning and welcome, Professor Henderson; it is very good to see you in the flesh. Can I start by saying on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West that she has unfortunately tested positive for covid? She was engaged with dialogue with you when the video link went down the other day, Professor, so I will possibly be slightly greedier with questions today.

I will not be repeating the questions we went through last time, but go on to some other things. I was particularly struck by the written evidence from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, members of which we will be hearing from later, and I want to put to you a couple of the questions that were raised in their evidence. They talked about something that I do not think we were aware of, which is that the Department is looking at its advisory frameworks in general. In reference to the Bill, obviously the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment looks like it will play a significant part, so could you say a little bit about what discussions have been had as to whether that is really the appropriate body, or whether some new body should be formed to oversee these complicated trade-offs and issues?

Professor Henderson: There are a number of things that that might refer to. There is a periodic review of how we get advice—scientific and otherwise—into DEFRA, and such a review is ongoing at the moment. I think it is entirely safe to say that that will not impinge on ACRE’s activity. It serves a critical function already, and has an expanded role through this Bill to identify when things are precision bred organisms and when they are not. To me, that body seems to be the right place to attend to that type of decision about whether something is a PBO or not. There are also questions about animal welfare, and it may be that other bodies are required to adjudicate in that area, but that is for further down the line.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Professor John Hammond, group leader of genetics, genomics and immunology at the Pirbright Institute. He will be appearing via Zoom. We will also hear from: Professor Bruce Whitelaw, director at the Roslin Institute, who is with us in person; Dr Craig Lewis, genetic services manager Europe and chair for the European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders at Genus, also with us in person; and Dr Elena Rice, chief scientific officer at Genus, who is appearing via Zoom. The session will run until 12.25 pm. Starting with Professor John Hammond, will you all briefly introduce yourselves, before we go to questions?

Professor Hammond: I am Professor John Hammond and I work at the Pirbright Institute. I look after the science responsible for improving post-livestock genetics to increase disease resistance and resilience.

Professor Whitelaw: Hello, I am Professor Bruce Whitelaw. I hold the chair of animal biotechnology at the University of Edinburgh. I am also the director of the Roslin Institute and have led projects there that have generated genome edited livestock.

Dr Lewis: I am Craig Lewis. In my current role I oversee the implementation, design and execution of practical animal breeding programmes for a subunit of Genus called PIC. Prior to that, I hold advanced degrees in animal genetics, from Roslin, and animal welfare.

Dr Rice: Good morning. I am Elena Rice and I am the chief scientific officer for Genus. I am overseeing the research programme across our business units, PIC and ABS. We are a world leading animal genetics company.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Thank you, lady and gentlemen, for appearing this morning. To Professor Hammond first, I would like to understand your broad thoughts on precision breeding in animals. How do you think the technologies that we are talking about can support research into bringing disease resistance forward in animals?

Professor Hammond: Where we have got to with the precision breeding methodologies in the Bill now supports decades of primary research in the UK and other countries. We understand the complex genetics underlying health traits and, in particular, disease resistance, which is a complex biological process. Because of those advances, and the work that we and others are doing, we are identifying genetic variants that may exist naturally, which, in combination or isolation, can dramatically increase disease resistance and resilience in farm animals.

The ability to undertake precision breeding, which would be the equivalent to the natural variation that we find in those populations, is an almost transformative technology to improve animal welfare and production—for example, there would be a lack of wasted carbon caused by disease. I think it has a really important potential for planetary health in terms of climate change.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Thank you. Professor Whitelaw, can you tell us a little about the work that Roslin has already done in this area, how you consider animal welfare, and how that work might or might not help in mitigating external stresses that farm and other animals have from external diseases?

Professor Whitelaw: Roslin has been involved in a number of species: pigs, cattle, small ruminants and poultry, primarily chickens. We are also now looking at research to do with aquatic species. The main driver of that research has been to reduce stress impact on the animals, and we have focused on disease, partly because it is one of the main stresses imposed on animals around the world, but also because we have a lot of knowledge. As my colleague John just indicated, we have a lot of genetic knowledge and a lot of knowledge around the actual pathogens themselves.

There are two projects that have the highest profile. One is to do with pigs and relates to a disease called porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, and we have done that in collaboration with Genus PIC. The other area we have been looking at extensively is around influenza—primarily in chickens and poultry, but also in pigs—and there are other diseases behind that. From a research perspective, disease is a very challenging topic, but we have a lot of knowledge. There are other stresses that we are looking at, such as heat tolerance. We are looking at the impact of reproductive issues on animals, and these can all be addressed by using genetic technologies, including genome editing.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Where do you think UK science sits in this area globally?

Professor Whitelaw: We are very fortunate that we punch above the size of our island and have been leading in the area of livestock for some considerable time. We all know the reason why Roslin has a high profile: it is because of a certain sheep called Dolly, which was 26 years ago. That whole project was around genetic engineering, and the same exists in the plant community. We have some really strong players in the academic arena. We do not have the numbers that exist globally, but we do sit very well within that. I will quite happily say we are leading, and I will quite happily say that Roslin is a leading player in that too.

[Jo Churchill]

Q My final question is to Dr Rice and Dr Lewis. Can you talk a little about your work on PRRS, and where does that collaboration with the university go next? Is this something that you will be optimising globally, given that we do not yet have the right regulatory framework in this country?

Dr Lewis: To put it into some context, I grew up on a pig farm in Herefordshire, so I have seen PRRS, or what was called blue ear disease here in the UK, at first hand with my father. The focus of my PhD work at Roslin was actually looking for natural variants in terms of PRRS resistance. Are there pigs out there—even today—that we could selectively breed so that we would not have to deal with this problem or could at least make the animals more robust? After three years at Roslin, the bottom line was that although we do a great job at creating genetic improvement to make more robust pigs generally—we can increase feed conversion, growth rate and so on—specific disease resistance is obviously a very complicated trait. This is an opportunity where we can almost create a natural variant, and therefore the mutation in the particular genome that confers the resistance; it would be wonderful if that just happened in the next generation completely naturally, but this is not a fairy tale—it is practical animal breeding. The ability to be able to create that variant so that we can actually implement this in a practical breeding programme, as John said at the beginning, is game-changing technology.

In terms of how that could impact globally, PRRS is endemic in multiple markets around the world. I have worked across the United States, which is very impacted by this particular disease. Right now, Spain is going through a very nasty strain of the PRRS virus. Here in the UK, whether it is indoor intensive units or the outdoor pig units in Norfolk, East Anglia, which we see when we drive around, we have PRRS outbreaks. That is a difficult scenario, for the pigs, obviously, in terms of morbidity and mortality, but there is also a human element. People like my father are deeply impacted when their animals are sick. Fundamentally, that is why I got into science. The scope of delivering truly disease-resistant animals impacts so much, as we look at this technology.

To get into the science, I will hand over to my colleague, Elena.

Dr Rice: The question was where are we today with the development of PRRS-resistant pigs. Today, we have quite a large population of animals that are not the first generation. We did the edits and already bred animals that carry the resistance to the virus. Those animals have been tested in disease challenges and we showed that they are completely 100% resistant to the virus. Because of this small edit in one gene, those animals do not see the virus and cannot get sick, which means that they do not require extensive application of antibiotics on the farm. In our process, we are building a commercial herd now. We are going through the accrual process with the US Food and Drug Administration. The process is very successful. We are moving forward and are actually accelerating our studies. We hope to see approvals in late 2023 or the beginning of 2024. So this is real and it is here.

We are also working with regulatory agencies in other countries, such as Japan, Canada and South Korea, and we are expanding our interaction with many other countries. What we see today is that there is a very clear path in all those countries to get approval for the animals and bring them to the market.

[Jo Churchill]

Lovely, thank you very much. A clear path is what we are aiming for.

[The Chair]

A number of Members have signalled that they want to speak. I remind Members that this session goes to 12.25 pm. I will start with Daniel Zeichner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was talking more about proximity than about numbers.

[Jo Churchill]

Professor Hammond might be interesting on this, because he deals with avian flu, and obviously that might broaden it to the wild community.

[The Chair]

If you want to do that, you have less than a moment. It is for all Members to direct the questions to who they would like to hear answer them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Dr Peter Mills, assistant director at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, who is with us in person; Dr Madeleine Campbell, British Veterinary Association member, RCVS recognised specialist in veterinary reproduction and European diplomate in animal welfare science, ethics and law, who is appearing via Zoom; and Peter Stevenson OBE, chief policy adviser at Compassion in World Farming. This session lasts until five minutes past 1. Again, if everybody could be mindful of that and direct their question to the witness they would like to answer it. Could each of the witnesses introduce themselves for the record, starting with Dr Peter Mills?

Dr Mills: Good afternoon. I am Dr Pete Mills. I am assistant director at Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

Dr Campbell: Good afternoon. I am Dr Madeleine Campbell. I am the current chair of the British Veterinary Association’s ethics and welfare advisory panel. If I may briefly correct something you just said, I am actually an RCVS recognised specialist in animal welfare science, ethics and law and a European diplomate in animal reproduction.

Peter Stevenson: I am Peter Stevenson. I am chief policy adviser at Compassion in World Farming. I am a solicitor by background, although I do not do all that much legal work nowadays.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Good afternoon and welcome. I would like to address my first question to Madeleine. I believe you have argued that it is an ethical imperative that we make use of precision breeding. Do you believe this is a tool that could be used to maintain and potentially improve standards of animal welfare?

Dr Campbell: To clarify, I did indeed argue that at a recent Animal Welfare Foundation event in the course of a debate. I was slightly making an argument, but yes, we do feel that genetic editing of animals could play an important role in enhancing animal welfare and in the broader context of enabling agriculture to develop in a sustainable way, which would minimise the impacts of animal agriculture on the climate and the environment. Yes, it has great potential to do good, but it also has great potential to do harm from an animal welfare point of view. As I say, it needs to be thought about very carefully.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Lovely, thank you. Moving on to Dr Mills, what are your thoughts on the potential opportunities to transform the food and farming system? Given that caveat from Dr Campbell, what do you think are the big questions we should be asking?

Dr Mills: The Bill is a very welcome initiative. The Nuffield Council does not believe that the retained EU regulatory regime is fit for purpose. One of the shortcomings of that regime was the way in which it was relatively indifferent between plants and animals. We believe that the potential power of genome editing as a technology merits some control, so we are pleased that the Government have brought forward this Bill to do that.

The Bill addresses a number of potential mischiefs that could occur as a result of the use of those new technologies. It is perhaps a little bit unambitious in the sense that it leaves a vacuum at the heart of the governance system that applies to breeding technologies. You heard evidence in the previous session about the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is primarily focused on experiments on animals. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was also mentioned, which is to do with the treatment of animals in different settings. There is nothing at present that controls the production of animals of particular kinds.

The precision breeding Bill—despite the title—does not, in a sense, control precision breeding or genetic technologies, except indirectly by causing breeders to anticipate the conditions under which they will be able to market the products of their breeding. What is missing is some more positive statement or principle about the purposes for which precision breeding—and breeding more generally—might be used. As we argued in the Nuffield Council report, breeding of all kinds should be directed towards securing a just, healthy and sustainable food and farming system. Having something like that in the Bill as a framework, within which standards can be elaborated through regulations and by the relevant authorities, would be extremely helpful.

[Jo Churchill]

Q I think we will put that in work in progress for discussion. As we have just heard, there is a broad spectrum as to what one might be working with. My final question is to our final panellist, Mr Stevenson. We have heard evidence about the Bill’s potential for good, given the common goals of tackling climate change, reducing disease and so on. While being aware of further discussions, what is the evidence that we should not move forward with the legislation to the benefit of animal welfare, broader animal disease, enhancing food security and tackling climate change?

Peter Stevenson: I am afraid that I have serious misgivings about gene editing. I think it is going to do a great deal of harm, both during the creation of gene edited animals and then when it is used on farms. Having said that, I recognise that there will be certain cases where it can be beneficial. For example, Compassion in World Farming is working quite closely with a company that is trying to gene edit hens to not produce male chicks. That would prevent millions of male chicks being killed at a day old every year. We are not totally against it.

For me, at the root of the problem is that the Bill argues that gene editing is just a more precise form of traditional breeding, such as selective breeding. If you look at the last 50 years, selective breeding has caused immense health and welfare problems for farmed animals. Meat chickens have been bred to grow so quickly that millions suffer from painful leg disorders each year, while others succumb to heart disease. We have bred dairy cows to produce such high milk yields that many are suffering from lameness, mastitis and reproductive disorders, and the cows live with these welfare problems for a large part of their lives. We have bred hens to produce 300 eggs a year. As a result, many suffer from osteoporosis, making them highly susceptible to bone fractures.

The idea that we will push all this further through gene editing is really worrying, but if we are going ahead with this, which is the clear intention, I think—I am now speaking as a solicitor—that the animal welfare protections in the Bill are drawn in very broad language. They are imprecise and unclear, and they need to be given more focus and strength, so I would love the Government to revisit those provisions.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Thank you very much. Professor Whitelaw, who is still in the room, laid out in previous evidence that gene editing is akin to traditional breeding, but you do not believe in the science as it has been put forward to us—that this is akin to traditional breeding. In the answer, there was both, “Yes, we agree that it can be positive” and “No, we don’t think it can be positive.” Can you clarify that? Professor Whitelaw was quite definitive about the benefits.

Peter Stevenson: In 30 years of working in this field, I have never tried to assert anything that is not supported by the science. I have tried to say that gene editing could be helpful in certain and very limited circumstances, but that it will be harmful overall. The science about the detrimental impact of selective breeding on just about every main farm species is utterly clear. There is a huge amount of science on the subject, some of which comes from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is now called the Animal Welfare Committee. I totally reject any suggestion that what I have said about the damage done by selective breeding is not based on the science. As I say, the idea that we will push this further and drive animals to even higher yields, faster growth and larger litters through gene editing is really disturbing.

[Jo Churchill]

Okay. I will leave it there.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Dr Campbell, may I ask you about the potential future risks, the extent to which we know or do not know the impact on animals, and how we might monitor or check that in the future? Are there sufficient provisions in the Bill to deal with those issues, based on your professional experience?

Dr Campbell: That is a key question. When we talk about whether gene editing will be beneficial or detrimental from an animal welfare point of view, as we have just been discussing, we need the evidence to look at that. I do not feel that the Bill as drafted will provide a mechanism for doing that.

At the moment, the Bill has a mechanism specifically for applications for marketing authorisations to be referred to the animal welfare advisory body. It is somewhat open in Bill as to exactly what that body is, as I understand it; it could be an existing body, or a new one. What will be crucial is that we have a proper mechanism in place to have oversight not only of the marketing and the release of any genetically edited animal organisms, but of the actual processes that are going on with the so-called precision breeding, so the animal welfare advisory body needs to have oversight of those processes as well, and that needs to be an obligatory oversight. It needs to have an obligatory reporting role too.

This needs to be an independent body, with suitable expertise to understand and interrogate both the basic science and the animal welfare science, and to understand and explain the ethics around that. It must be independent of Government and of scientists, and it must be independent of any lobbying—around trade, for example. Then it needs to be able to look both proactively and retrospectively at data about the health and welfare of animals that are produced using so-called precision breeding techniques. It would be an independent oversight body—in my mind’s eye, very analogous to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—that can take an independent look at the data and then make recommendations for policy changes in light of that data, as the science develops.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. We will be finishing at 2.20 pm, so Members should keep their questions brief, and answers should be as precise and brief as possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

Q174 Welcome, Penny, to this afternoon’s session. Can you briefly outline what protections are in place for the welfare of animals, more specifically farmed animals, which were the source of concern this morning? Can you elaborate on whether you are reassured that all precision-bred lines for animals will be developed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 controls assessing the ethics of the approach? In addition, what else would you like to see? Where do you think the Bill does well and where do you perhaps think there are more challenges?

Penny Hawkins: Right, there were quite a few components to that question, so if I start to go off topic, do please bring me back. I will start by saying that my area of expertise is the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, so while I am aware that there are various pieces of legislation and codes of practice that regulate how farmed animals are kept and what it is permissible to do to them—of course, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 comes into play if farm animals are cruelly treated—what I really know about is the 1986 Act.

That was a major concern for the RSPCA, because when you look at the draft Bill, there is actually no mention at all of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which I will call ASPA for short from now on. The drafting team kindly gave us some of their time, so I now understand that every new line—every new precision-bred line that is created and that will then go on to fall under this Bill—will still require licensing under the ASPA for the foreseeable future.

That is absolutely essential, because within the ASPA, you have a framework for minimising the harms to animals, for reducing or avoiding wastage, and for ensuring that gene edited animals are properly characterised or phenotyped, so you understand the physical impact on the animal. There are also proper requirements for welfare assessment and, very importantly, a harm-benefit analysis and ethical review of every line, as you mentioned. In cases of special ethical animal welfare or societal concern, there is the provision to ask the Animals in Science Committee to review the project licence application, which is also critical.

The key reason why the harm-benefit analysis is essential is that at the moment, as drafted—and as previous people who have appeared before the Committee have explained—there is nothing in there about permissible purposes, less permissible purposes or purposes that should be really carefully scrutinised. So I think the ASPA is and will remain an essential safeguard to ensure that there is proper risk minimisation for animals, ethical review, and an element of social licence to use these techniques. People have to remember that the public need to consent to this, and at the moment, there are deep-seated public concerns that have not been properly explored.

[Jo Churchill]

Thank you; that is really helpful.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon and thank you, particularly for your written evidence and for the points that you have just made about ASPA. I want to follow on from that slightly, in relation to laboratory animals. I do not think we have really talked about that at all so far in the evidence sessions and I wonder whether you could say a little about it. Could you also comment on the overall framework of protection and, in particular, where the Animal Sentience Committee might fit in with regard to some of this? We are slightly concerned that it seems that the Bill could be on the statute books before the Animal Sentience Committee is even established.

Penny Hawkins: Indeed. I think some very useful lessons can be learnt from the way in which genetically altered laboratory animals are regulated, but I emphasise that, within a laboratory setting, genetically altered laboratory animals include those in which genes have been inserted from other species. We are very clear that within this Bill we are talking just about gene editing and not about deliberate transgenesis, although there have been some discussions about potential accidental additions of exogenous material.

When genetically altered animals are created under the ASPA, a licence is required for their creation, because, obviously, regulated scientific procedures are required in order to generate these animals—procedures that relate to, for example, administering substances to animals so that they produce large numbers of eggs, or super-ovulation, removing those eggs from animals, preparing other animals to receive the gene edited pregnancies, and so on. All those require licensing, and then, when the line of genetically altered animals has been created, they have to be, as I mentioned, phenotyped. That is a battery of behavioural and biochemical tests to look at what the eventual genetic alteration was and to look at the whole animal that this creates—the phenotype.

There is a system of licensing under which the impact on the animal is categorised as mild, moderate or severe. If a researcher or research team can demonstrate that the gene edit they have done is stable for at least two generations, and if they have phenotyping data and animal welfare assessment data to demonstrate that the animal is not going to suffer as a result of being gene edited—the impact would have to be what is referred to as below threshold; not even mild suffering—then, in those circumstances, they can apply for the breeding of that particular line to be released from the controls of ASPA. That would mean that those animals would still be bred in a laboratory under all the codes of practice that normally apply to laboratory animals, but a licence would not be required in order to breed the animals, because there is no risk to their welfare because of the gene edit.

Those are the safeguards in place for laboratory animals. The issue with farmed animals is that, obviously, if they are released from ASPA and their breeding is then controlled or regulated by this PB legislation, they will not be held in a laboratory setting, with all the controls that that entails; they will join the national herd or flock. That is a very different environment, and it can be far from clear how the genes will express themselves once they are in that environment.

Also, this Bill presumably applies to other animals: companion animals, wild animals and sporting animals. At the moment, for example, projects are under way to look at gene editing grey squirrels to result in fewer females being born or male infertility. Presumably, their breeding will also be covered by the Bill. And when they are released, they really will be released into the wild. Again, that is an extremely different environment. So the safeguards that laboratory animals have will be severely reduced or absent for other types of animal.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have until 2.50 pm for this session, so please could you introduce yourselves very briefly and then we will move straight into questions?

Pat Thomas: Good afternoon, and thank you for having us here today. My name is Pat Thomas. I am the co-founder and co-director of Beyond GM. I come from a journalistic background. I am a former trustee of the Soil Association and the Organic Research Centre, and I currently sit on the board of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ dialogues on genetically engineered animals.

Lawrence Woodward: I am Lawrence Woodward. I am co-director of Beyond GM; I am also a director of Whole Health Agriculture. I am an adviser to the Seed Sovereignty UK and Ireland programme. My previous life was as director of the Organic Research Centre, during which time I was involved in setting up an organic seed breeding company, developing a programme of evolutionary plant breeding. I was also a founder and director of the European Consortium for Organic Plant Breeding.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Good afternoon. We have heard from witnesses earlier today, and on Tuesday, that this technology is equivalent to traditional breeding—that is the term I will use, just for ease—and carries the same level of risk. I understand that you have a different point of view. I would like to understand what the evidence base for that view is, with specific reference to precision breeding and gene editing, in both plants and animals.

Lawrence Woodward: The first issue is clarity of definition and terminology, which indicates concerns and differences of view regarding areas of risk. We start with this terminology, “precision breeding”, which is found nowhere else in any regulation of any other authority—it does not exist. It is a new term, and the definition of what that is, the description of what that is, only exists in this Bill and nowhere else, so there is a question about where safety issues and issues of regulation and risk assessment come in.

The Bill itself starts off with the premise that all these technologies arise from genetically modified organisms. The definitions in the Bill start off with GMOs as defined in the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002. Those definitions have given rise over the years to contested science in relation to risk assessment and safety. The Bill goes on to say that any of those techniques under those GMO regulations can be considered to be precision breeding if they could have been achieved by traditional processes, but there is no international clarity about what traditional breeding or traditional processes actually are. The narrative in the UK is, “This is traditional breeding”, but different people mean different things by that. In fact, I noted that several speakers on Tuesday talked about conventional breeding, which is probably more accurate. When we talk about that definition of traditional breeding or conventional breeding in modern times, the methods are very different, and the contention is that the damage within the breeding process—the potential risks within the genome—varies according to the different methods.

The evidence presented by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and numerous scientific bodies in this country is that risk can be assessed adequately on the basis of the final product, on the phenotype: what it looks like, and how equivalent it is to something that comes from conventional or traditional breeding. That, it has to be said, is the opinion of most research establishments and plant breeders in the UK and in some other countries, but it is not true to say that it is an overwhelming consensus. There is a body of evidence that says, “Actually, there are other risks”, and that looking at and assessing risk in relation to the end product misses disruption within the genome, and the potential health and safety aspects of that.

Disruption in the genome is at the heart of genome editing technologies, because you are going right into the cell—into the organism. I have to say, I think it is unfortunate that this Committee has not taken oral evidence from the number of scientists who work in medical practice and agriculture who have looked at the evidence of the risks of this damage within the genome and what that means, and can talk about it much better than me.

In our view, the extent of the damage and disruption within the genome is a contested area. The question then is: what does that mean for the composition of the final product, and what level of risk assessment is appropriate? That is another critical issue in this scientific debate. A number of witnesses on Tuesday referred to proportionate regulation and proportionate risk assessment. We absolutely agree with that, but it is a question of how you discuss proportionate risk assessment. Other regulatory authorities work on a system of tiered risk assessment and risk safety analysis, with different tiers for different levels of the application of this technology. We think that really should be looked at. To come back to your question, the evidence of safety and the evidence of risk is in our view entirely dependent on that tiered risk assessment.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Thank you. With sufficient risk assessment, and defined as conventional breeding, you are not opposed to this technology? Is that what I should take from that?

Lawrence Woodward: We are not opposed to the overall application of biotechnologies. Some aspects of genetic engineering technologies are very interesting, and there is certainly some amazing science happening. We are not opposed per se; it is about the context, the framework, the risk assessment and the wider social utility and environmental impact assessments.

[Jo Churchill]

I should just say that it was probably out of scope to call people who are much more based in the world of the human genome, but of course we know what advances have been made there using this technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you for joining us.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Thank you for your attendance this afternoon. A question to Dr Edenborough first: what impact has changing regulations on precision breeding had on the patents that are held in countries, with specific reference to small businesses? I am interested in how we can ensure a spread of the benefit of such techniques is felt across different organisations.

Dr Edenborough: The Bill itself does not purport to alter the intellectual property regime at all, so therefore this Bill will not have any effect on the underlying mechanisms whereby you can obtain protection—be that, for example, plant breeders’ rights or a patent. Therefore, it will still be open to small and medium-sized enterprises to secure rights as they would have done. To that extent, this has no effect.

[Jo Churchill]

Q That is very useful and similar to the evidence that Mr Angus gave us earlier this week—indeed, it gives an open market. To Professor Hartley, your experience in this area is extensive, including understanding the global impact that this technology could have, or is having. Could this technology allow us to be a good global neighbour to those across the world who are struggling to feed themselves? That is more a food security point of view.

Professor Hartley: 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. That would require a different form of governance. We know that gene editing and genetic modification are used in similar ways because we have not seen them separated out in any great detail yet globally. There have been some successes, but there have also been some failures—I would point to the GM cotton in Africa, particularly in Burkina Faso, where it failed to deliver the benefits and, in fact, had quite a negative impact. The question is whether the Bill can provide any public good; the answer is that it would make no difference to the public good. It may allow gene editing to develop, but whether or not it serves the public good would require a different level of governance.

[Jo Churchill]

Q The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsors work in this area—at the Roslin, I think. Given that degree of altruism in this area, what changes to the governance framework might assist in improving food security? Or is that best left to that philanthropic drive?

Professor Hartley: We could leave it to philanthropists, but the process of governance within the philanthropy organisations is quite closed and run by very few people, often within the United States of America. Social scientists working in this space have shown that we need more people from the area where the problem is based to be engaged and involved in the development of the technology. You would need stakeholders, farmers, conservationists and so on to be involved in the development of the technology early on.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Would you say it is the design of how the work progresses more than anything?

Professor Hartley: Indeed. That can happen as early as the funding agencies that fund the research all the way through the development and design process.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon to both of you. Professor Hartley, in your previous answer, you said there was essentially nothing in this Bill to promote the public good. What would need to be in there to allow that to happen?

Professor Hartley: One of the challenges the Bill faces is that it does not address the results from the consultation that DEFRA held. Some important issues came up through that consultation—around transparency, traceability, labelling and engagement—that do not appear to be addressed at the moment. I also think the focus of the Bill on the consultation has been around agriculture, and yet applications in conservation and environmental management are also possible in the Bill. There are a range of stakeholders in those areas who have not been sufficiently engaged, I believe, in the development of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Welcome to the Committee. For the next session, we have until 3.50 pm. Would you please briefly introduce yourself by telling us your name and position?

Ed Barker: I am Ed Barker, head of policy at the Agricultural Industries Confederation. We represent agri-supply businesses in the UK, including animal feed companies, manufacturers, seed suppliers and distributors, fertiliser suppliers, arable marketing companies, grain traders and crop protection distributors. We also run a number of assurance schemes covering those individual commodities and products.

[Jo Churchill]

Q For the sake of transparency, I would like to put on record that I have known Ed for some years and many of his family are constituents of mine.

We have focused a great deal on food in our two days of conversations with witnesses. Can you expand a little more on what benefits there might be within the feed sector?

Ed Barker: We can certainly see potential benefits in the feed sector. There are a number of challenges across UK livestock sectors at the moment, and feed is a considerable way in which we can address issues such as reducing our reliance on imports, particularly of high-protein products such as soya from South America, and divert that to UK—in this case, England—sources. We also see huge benefits by way of having a greater number of crops available to UK growers. By doing that, we also provide a better feed market, particularly in crops such as oilseed rape, peas and beans, which often either provide direct feed or are made into feed by processing.

We can also see other potential benefits in feed additives and feed products as a way of reducing emissions. It was interesting that the food strategy announced a couple of weeks ago referred to this issue, and innovation technology is certainly a way in which we can look to address that. Looking far ahead, there is some really pioneering work looking at the digestibility of certain grasses that can be fed to monogastric sectors, such as pigs and poultry. There are some very interesting areas where we could really look to change a lot of the challenges that we know the supply chain has with regard to animal feed.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Some of those comments looked at the positive impacts that might be available through the use of this technology moving forward. Do you think the uptake across farmers and the wider supply chain—I think your membership covers the UK, so feel free to speak from a UK-wide perspective—would be large, and could you give me your views on labelling? Would it be possible to have a compulsory focus on labelling, and would that be an enhancement? What do you think about that?

Ed Barker: To take those one by one, certainly the opportunities are there, and the uptake opportunities would certainly come in. A question we often get asked is: “How soon can the benefits be realised?” That is very difficult, particularly in combinable crops, which obviously have a much longer cycle of research and turnaround to be able to realise the benefits. From our point of view, however, the Bill’s benefit is that it provides long-term flexibility—five, 15 or 20 years—for growers, farmers and agri-supply businesses around the UK. We know the world is moving on quite quickly. We have heard about Canada and Japan, and even the EU is not static on this issue. There is a huge amount of interest. If nothing else, we are preparing ourselves for the inevitable demands on innovation in the future.

For take-up from a farming point of view, one area that we really want to focus on, particularly in the trade, is what we call the fungibility of goods. If you take cereals, for example, a real benefit to growers at the moment is that there are multiple markets available to them. For feed wheat, there are markets in the animal feed sector. It can also be exported or go to biofuel sectors. Having that flexibility is a real benefit to a lot of growers, and it provides a lot of resilience in businesses.

A short-term challenge that we could see is that if a product were considered to be gene edited, of course, at the moment in the EU that would be considered GM. As a result, we would have to go through quite an extensive approvals process to export that product to the European Union. That is a big part of the fungibility and flexibility of the product, so in the short term, we are only really likely to see benefits if it goes into the UK or England as a market.

However, a potential opportunity would be to have within the Bill a parallel process in place whereby authorisations were made for approval in the European Union when a product is approved for release by the Secretary of State. That would make a big difference, because inevitably, no farmer or grower is going to grow a crop that has a very limited market available to it. The next witness will probably be able to talk about that in a lot more detail. That is a real difficulty, and in the trade, if you are trying to buy and sell these products and you have a very limited outlet market in place, you might actually find that the product has less of a market the more of it you have, and there may be a deficit. To take the example of assurance in the supply chain at the moment, if you have unassured wheat, it usually trades at a discount because the market available to it is less. I do not want that to stop the Bill from progressing, but it is a short-term to medium-term challenge that we have to recognise, given the EU’s importance. In the past year, for example, we have exported about 1 million tonnes of cereal grains to the European Union, including the Republic of Ireland, so that flexibility is important.

Labelling has been mentioned. I think overall, labelling would be extremely difficult for the trade, because you need to label something right the way from start to finish. Let us take milling wheat as an example. You have to be able to define whatever the label is—gene edited or non-gene edited, GM or organic—and demonstrate that across the whole supply chain, and the compliance is quite strong. To do that, you have to segregate, and segregating throughout the supply chain is extremely challenging, very expensive and very difficult to do. The reason why it happens, for example, in the organic sector is that there is a market for it; the organic control bodies ensure that, but there is a market for it to ensure the additional costs of segregation are put in place.

With precision breeding—which, according to the Bill documents, can be bred by conventional means; it is just that it is quicker—the market would not see any great benefit from that. There has to be a pull factor for labelling, which would usually come as a result of added value, a health claim or a fortification, and the FSA and other bodies would already be asking for that evidence. If you are providing a claim on allergens or fortification with vitamins, the burden of compliance and providing that information will probably be much higher than anything that you do on precision breeding or gene editing labelling. The traders in the agri-supply business and throughout the supply chain would see no benefits whatsoever from labelling. In the trade, it would probably kill off a lot of the provisions in the Bill completely, because it just would not be economically viable to do.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q You have probably answered some of my questions already, but I am going to explore some of those points further. If I understood you correctly, the risk is that if we end up moving a bit more quickly than our European partners but it is not clear that we are getting to the same point, it is quite likely that the industry as a whole will look at it and think, “This is too expensive and too risky, so we will wait.” Is that your analysis?

Ed Barker: It would depend on the approval processes set out by the FSA, in this case. Breeders, companies, developers and the market would look at the process to go through for receiving authorisation as laid out in the Bill, whatever it might be for—an environmental benefit, lower inputs at the crop end, or a fortification or a food benefit at the other end—and if they feel that it is too laborious and too challenging, and too much evidence or time is required to do it, it is very unlikely that those technologies will move ahead, so the implementation of this is really important.

We see it, for example, in the UK for certain minor use crops such as linseed, where a number of businesses have had to seek authorisation for individual farm protection products because they are essential for that particular crop. The problem is that it is often unviable to make that authorisation because the crop in the UK is such a small size. That does not necessarily mean it will always be unviable—far from it. It depends entirely on the role of the FSA and the approval processes that are set in place.

It could well be that UK markets are available for precision bred goods, whatever they might be. We have mentioned animal feed, but other food items and even non-food and feed products could have a genuine market uptake. For example, a retailer may well want to seek to remove or lessen the amount of soy in monogastric diets, and may look to work with a plant breeder to develop a crop that has a high protein source. That could be carried right the way through to the retailer’s end products. In those situations, I can see it as viable in the short term, but it depends on the type of products we are looking at and the type of markets we have in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. We will move on to questions, starting with the Minister.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Good afternoon, Mr Temple. I wonder if I could ask you on a broad basis what you, as a member of the farming community and somebody with vast experience in farming and seed production, feel the likely uptake by farmers of precision bred products and technologies will be. What is your experience from other countries of PBOs? Could you speak a little about how you manage co-existence currently and whether you think the same regime will continue?

Paul Temple: That is quite a lot.

[Jo Churchill]

It is, but you can answer as much or as little as you like.

Paul Temple: I took part in the field-scale evaluation trials because I was sceptical, but I have always had an interest in science. I participated because it would expose me to field-scale working with these crops. I then realised my naivety about the amount of science and genetics behind breeding. I certainly learned, to my horror, how the quality of the scientists tended to be lumped against those protesting with a subjective view rather than an objective view. I learned then about appreciating the science behind genetics, but I would not have done unless I had participated.

A lot of farmers in the UK will not have been exposed to what I have, so they will not appreciate it. With farmers, you tend to find that if something works and is of benefit, they are pretty quick adopters. They tend to adopt it most when they have seen other farmers adopt it. I adopted conservation agricultural practice because I had seen that it did work. I am hoping that trials will happen as part of this to allow farmers to see it first hand in their own geographic region. Then they will make their own decisions. Usually if something works, they are pretty quick at picking something up.

Across the world, I think my frustration, especially being involved in Europe, is with Spanish farmers. I have seen GM maize grown in Spain, and they grow it because they had a problem. GM solved the problem, and they use a lot less water to produce more crop. It just made pure commercial sense, and that primarily is what drives it. It is usually a matter of making commercial sense. GM delivers benefits in terms of reduced inputs. It usually comes with significant environmental benefit, because you are reducing your pesticides load, and that tends to get mixed up. Again, from a UK perspective, because I have seen what happens in south and north America, I understand the scale of adoption and what it has delivered into the marketplace in meeting China’s demand for maize and soya, which is unusual for most farmers.

On the co-existence element, we obviously had to closely monitor it when we were growing these crops. We did not change any practices, found no problems looking after the crops and found no problems subsequently with volunteers that might be left over. We continued with trials on those, and that was not an issue. Co-existence really is not much of a problem. In any country I have been to, that is not the issue. It is usually the access to it that is a limitation. It has always fascinated me that a lot of the small farmers in Africa and Asia are given access to technology in a way that you cannot appreciate, which delivers benefit to them. Have I missed anything out?

[Jo Churchill]

No, that was perfect. It was an interesting contrast between the field—literally—and to how this can help on a global basis, rather than from a more academic standpoint. It is an interesting juxtaposition to what we heard earlier. Thank you very much.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon and welcome. I do not know how much of a chance you have had to look at the details of the Bill, but it proposes a notification system and a public register. How supportive of that approach are you, and what effect do you think they will have?

Paul Temple: Obviously, I am not an expert in these particular areas, but I do not think we have anything to hide, so public registers—registers of seed varieties and what we are growing—are really important. What you put in the public domain, to my mind, has to be measured by what benefit or what risk there actually is. I suppose my frustration with the field scale evaluation trials was that, by making everything public, it just highlighted those who wanted to protest, rather than actually look at the science. So I think is it really important that whatever element goes into this Bill is done from a science perspective and a risk-based perspective. I do not have any problem with being open as to what is happening on my farm. I think it is really important, but there just has to be some kind of sensible balance, so that it does not drag things down to where you cannot do anything.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Excellent. Would you introduce yourself for the record, please?

Ross Houston: I am Ross Houston, I am currently the director of innovation at Benchmark Genetics, which is an agriculture breeding company supplying genetically improved Atlantic salmon, whiteleg shrimp and Nile tilapia for various global markets. I am fairly recent to the role; in my previous role I spent 18 years as a researcher at the Roslin Institute as part of the University of Edinburgh.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Welcome, Professor Houston. Could you explain how you are using precision breeding in your work, and what the potential benefits might be for aquaculture in the UK—Scotland in particular—and across the world?

Ross Houston: What we are currently doing is running family-based breeding programmes for genetic improvement of several traits in Atlantic salmon, whiteleg shrimp and Nile tilapia. Those traits, of course, include growth, but we are also focused on improving the resistance of the animals to infectious diseases. Some examples in salmon are sea lice and some viral diseases. That is not precision breeding as I understand it but family-based selection using genomic tools. We are undertaking research and development in the use of CRISPR.

I am talking to you from Norway because I was attending a project meeting where there are two large consortia—one Norwegian funded, by the Norwegian seafood agency, and one funded by the BBSRC, primarily geared towards using CRISPR as a tool to achieve substantial and possibly complete genetic resistance to sea lice in Atlantic salmon. The reason we are excited by those projects is that sea lice are currently one of the most pressing environmental, cost and animal welfare concerns for the industry. In particular, I would say that some of the treatment measures that we are using and, indeed, are obliged to use, have several downsides that I think we could potentially avoid if we were to develop resistant salmon that did not require those treatments. In so doing, we are not only improving the animal welfare but reducing the impact on the environment and improving the economics of the industry.

[Jo Churchill]

Q I will ask one further quick question before others have their chance. You explained that you are using CRISPR technology and the broader technologies, hence why in the Bill the definition is slightly broader. Will you define how fast this field is moving and spend a moment discussing the Bill and whether you think that we have the balance right to allow research? Arguably, the Bill is about enabling; it is not about that further piece down the line. Do you think that we have got it about right in the Bill, and that regulatory environment domestically and internationally?

Ross Houston: The Bill is a welcome initiative. It has been really useful to have this debate and discussion, because we see that CRISPR or similar technologies can help us achieve traits that are of benefit to animal welfare and the environment faster than we could do with conventional breeding alone—substantially faster in some cases. That is why we are investing in it. That is why the research councils, Government and industry in general are investing in this technology.

This technology is developing fast, I agree. It is exciting to scientists involved in it. We are narrowly focused on using CRISPR to introduce changes that could potentially have occurred naturally, so I think that is a welcome part of the Bill, that we are mentioning that those changes could occur naturally, via natural mutation. We are adding to the genetic variation that we have in our toolbox to select for. The way I see it is that CRISPR would ideally be a tool in the toolbox alongside the technologies that we use currently to develop improved strains of salmon and other species for production.

I think that a register of precision breeding would be a reasonable measure. I would be worried about going too far in trying to identify whether any particular product contained any particular edit, for example. That might be disproportionately difficult and complex, and to my mind without any real scientific basis. I do see that, if you were changing the genetic makeup of a plant or animal to have some potentially different human health benefit, such as removing allergens or something like that, there might be a rationale for labelling that particular edit. In this case, however, I think that the register is reasonable, but that the practicalities of tracing through particular edits would make that very unattractive to implement in practice, because of the logistical impracticality of doing so.

[Jo Churchill]

That is excellent. Thank you.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Thank you for joining us this afternoon, Mr Houston. Aquaculture is slightly different—I assume you are talking about the farmed sector—as there is always the issue of escape and the impact that could have on the wider environment in our seas and oceans. How do we protect against that? Given the measures in the Bill, how do we check, or what is the authority that would be overseeing, to see whether there had been any impacts as a consequence?

Ross Houston: Obviously, there are measures to try to stop escapees, but they happen from salmon farms. I think that CRISPR precision breeding technologies are a very promising route, and indeed the subject of much R&D, to ensure that the production animals are sterilised so there would not be any genetic introgression with wild strains. The way we are thinking about it, at least, is that we would be looking to farm sterile Atlantic salmon in the future. That is a desirable thing to do anyway, but in particular if we were to introduce gene editing in the future.

The other part to it would be, I suppose, the impact of issues such as sea lice, which I mentioned before, which could also impact on wild salmon. But, there again, that is within our toolbox, and the R&D is heading in this direction. That is what we would want to use the technology for: to try to tackle these problems in a sustainable, environmentally friendly and animal welfare-friendly way. So I see that these technologies have significant promise for reducing any potential impacts on wild Atlantic salmon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q I will be very brief. There were tanks of fish when I was at university and I have seen the distress that sea lice cause to salmon. It is a problem that has been impenetrable to science, so I can see why that is exciting. My question, as someone who is going to practically implement this, is not necessarily about the technique for inserting the change, but about the thing that is concerning most people. How are we absolutely certain that we have made a very specific change and we have not missed a bit or left a bit of rogue DNA in the wrong place? Can you briefly talk about what you would do within Benchmark Genetics to ensure that, in the nicest possible way, you were getting what you had paid for?

Ross Houston: I see what you mean. Of course CRISPR, the technique we are focusing on, is making a double-stranded cut to the genome and allowing the cells’ natural repair mechanisms to repair the cut and either introduce a small deletion or a small change, or possibly insert a synthetic template of DNA, which would essentially be changing the sequence in a slightly more precise way. There are a couple of parts to that.

In terms of the potential for the CRISPR molecule to make cuts elsewhere in the genome—called off-target effects—we would have to be doing some fairly rigorous DNA sequencing of our animals to ensure that we are not detecting any of those off-target effects. My opinion is that we are now getting very good data from research experiments showing that off-target effects are very rare, and as we learn more about the genomes of our species we are able to design the guide RNAs to take to a specific part of the region that is unique and precise. I see that as a very small risk, but also one that it is important to address.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Did I catch you saying that the Scottish Government are funding precision breeding work within your institute?

Ross Houston: Yes. I moved job recently; I was working for a number of years at the Roslin Institute doing academic research together with industry. The Scottish Government centre, the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre, is funding projects using precision breeding technologies as a research tool with the goal of—

[Jo Churchill]

Q Brilliant. The “yes” was all I needed. Could you please expand? Professor Whitelaw, whom you must know very well, basically said that the value of moving now was that it enables us to enjoy the benefit of the R&D. You said we would fall behind. How would this affect our ability to potentially attract world-leading scientists from all over the world, some of whom I met at Roslin, to come and work with us on finding some of these solutions? Would it be detrimental if we did not move ahead?

[The Chair]

A very quick response.

Ross Houston: Yes, of course. As I mentioned earlier, the Scottish and UK science base is really at the forefront of some of these technologies, moving through from genetics, traditional breeding, family-based selection, genomics and now gene editing. That is a real plus point for attracting researchers. If we were to stop unnecessarily, both in research and potential applications, then it is a fair assumption that we would lose talent to elsewhere, and I think we would also lose business to elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. We will finish this session at 5.10 pm. I will move straight to questions, but I ask our witnesses not to say if they agree with somebody; that just takes time. If there is a different point of view, we are interested in that.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Good afternoon everybody and thank you for taking the time to join us. I will start with Mario. I know that NIAB works with a range of partners across industry and academia. What effect do you think the Bill would have on research and the plant breeding industry? Where would you look to improve the Bill? What challenges or areas would you like to bring up?

Professor Caccamo: I think there are two components to the question. First, the benefit is clearly in incentivising investment in human capital. There is a lot of expertise in the UK—we are global leaders. Investment has come from the public sector. Taxpayer money has been put in place to develop skills, and seeing those skills put into practice would be fantastic. I see that as the biggest benefit. I will leave that there because my colleagues here will probably bring in other points.

On concerns and improving the Bill, I think the Bill is very balanced in terms of the definitions. There is a space left open for how much downstream regulation might be required, which I think is probably unnecessary and not proportional to what we might want to achieve with the Bill. The principle behind the Bill is that we would like to consider genome edited crops in the same way as any other crop that has been bred using traditional technologies. With that in mind, we should look into anything that comes downstream in terms of how we use outputs from these technologies in a proportional way. There is probably space there to be less specific and include so much detail, which could potentially be a deterrent for industry if it seen as adding unnecessary steps downstream. That is my main concern.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Thank you. That is helpful. Moving to Nigel, do you think the legislation allows for enough transparency from breeders? Could you talk a little bit about the current seed system and whether we need to enhance the regulatory framework?

Nigel Moore: Transparency is really important. As plant breeders, we do not have anything to hide. One thing that is often overlooked is that within the current regulatory regime around plant rights and seeds, there is already inherently a lot of transparency and traceability in terms of registering new varieties on national catalogues in the public domain, which will have had an identity check and at least two years of performance checking through DUS and VCU, which test for distinctiveness, uniformity and stability, and value for cultivation. The seeds of those varieties are then sold as certified seed with clear labels, with the variety name, batches, qualities, plant health status and operator identity all held within the seed certification regulation. We believe that allows a lot of traceability, so the transparency that is envisaged in the Bill of adding breeding method and genome edited varieties to the national register enables the market to segregate as it wishes.

Varieties will be suitable for markets or not. They can very easily select which varieties to enable within a standard, such as an organic standard. The one with the organic standard can say, “No, I don’t want to use variety A, B or C because it is genome edited”, and that is on the public register as envisaged in part 2 of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

Q Thank you. Moving to Professor Martin, in your current work researching the bio-fortified tomato—which, as you said, is your fruit of choice—what are the benefits of using gene editing techniques?

Professor Martin: Really, getting something that might translate into a product. I am a fundamental research scientist. I want to do things that have social utility, and I believe very strongly in improving the number of plants in our diet because that benefits health. I started off trying to do this by genetic modification and we made purple tomatoes with their GMOs. Fourteen years later, I am about to get them approved for commercialisation in the USA. It has taken me 14 years to get to that point. For the pro-vitamin D tomatoes, because they qualify as having no foreign DNA in them, that means I can even start within 20 days of notifying DEFRA under the new legislation. I can have a field trial of them. I could not possibly have a field trial of the purple tomatoes, so for me, it is the realisation that this could actually be something we could give to people that would be better for them. It might actually happen.

[Jo Churchill]

Q I can almost feel your excitement. Thank you. To Professor Harwood, as a member of the advisory committee on novel foods and processes, which I think you said was your other hat, what are your thoughts on food safety in regard to the use of precision bred technologies? It is obviously of paramount concern to not only those in this room, but the broader population, as we have heard.

Professor Harwood: I will just say that I am here in a personal capacity, not as a representative of the committee. Obviously, food safety is extremely important, and a lot of the things that the technology can do—we have heard many examples—are almost identical to things that could have been done using other methods, for example, through mutation breeding.

However, there are some things that the technology could do, and Cathie’s tomato is one example, and there are others, of where a change would be made. It would still be just a tiny change in the DNA—something that could have happened naturally, but has not happened naturally so far—but it is making a change that might cause concern for certain people in the population.

Another example might be something like a low-gluten wheat. You can imagine that this would be something that would need a bit of extra scrutiny. There might be a food safety issue there, so it would need to be looked at. It is very much looking at things on a case-by-case basis. You would need to pick out those things that would need that extra level of scrutiny and risk assessment from those that probably need very light-touch regulation.

[Jo Churchill]

Okay, so more of a two-tier approach.

Professor Harwood: Yes.

[Jo Churchill]

Thank you.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Welcome to all of you, particularly the representative from NIAB. I have three quick questions, if we could rattle through them with each of you.

First, you will all recall the public confidence issues from 20 or 30 years ago, and that is one of the challenges now. I would like to hear whether you think the Bill has enough in it to reassure the public around some of those issues. Secondly, and in some ways related to that, most of you are plant focused, but this Bill obviously introduces animals, which is a very different set of issues and is, in some ways, perhaps more challenging. Do you think they should have been separated out? Thirdly, what do you think the public register will be used for and what benefit does it bring?

Finally, specifically for Cathie and Wendy, I had a constituent contact me, who has an issue around vitamin D being added to tomatoes. How will that constituent know whether these tomatoes have been modified in that way in future? It touches on Professor Harwood’s final point, and goes back to my initial point, on the question of labelling and reassurance. Where should that balance be struck?

Professor Harwood: Shall I take the last question first? We have talked a lot about labelling. If there was something like a high vitamin D tomato, there would be a nutritional difference, which I imagine would be picked up on labelling. That would make sense.

Professor Martin: You would probably want to advertise it.

Professor Harwood: You probably would, yes. Where there is something that might be appropriate for certain members of public and not others, clearly you would want some sort of labelling.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair again, Ms McVey, as we continue this interesting discussion. You were part of the evidence sessions.

We come to a series of clauses about precision bred confirmation, and we have a number of amendments that largely relate to how Parliament scrutinises the secondary legislation. As we argued this morning, we think that far too much is being pushed off into secondary legislation. Even within that, too much of the secondary legislation is subject to the negative procedure, so it will go through without any scrutiny. I will not repeat the broad points about why we think that is not the way to do it, as they are familiar to most people.

Clause 6 concerns the applications for precision bred confirmation. The Government will be given powers to make secondary legislation that prescribes the form and content of a marketing notice and the information that is to accompany one. It is really important that the advisory committee, the welfare body and the Secretary of State have all the information they need to come to an informed decision on both the release and the marketing of precision bred organisms. Frankly, I am not comfortable —and I do not think many others will be—giving the Government a blank cheque to determine what information must be provided. I understand that it needs further consideration and thought, but it seems to us to be too significant an issue not to merit proper scrutiny in this House. Amendment 11 simply tweaks it to make the clause subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure.

Clause 9 allows for the revocation of a precision bred confirmation. Again, that is a very important matter, and I have a series of questions, which I touched on in the discussion before lunch, about how these decisions are arrived at. What triggers them? What is the information? What is the process? As one begins to think it through, one can see that there is really not a lot of detail in the Bill as it stands. It is not clear to me, and I hope the Minister can go through in detail some examples of how all this might work.

If the Government are no longer satisfied that a precision bred organism is indeed precision bred—perhaps it has become apparent through some complaint or some new science that it does utilise genetic modification technologies, which require a higher level of regulation, or perhaps some adverse impacts have come to light—we appreciate that they would need to be able to revoke an authorisation, and we support that, but I cannot quite see in the real world how that situation arises. It would be really helpful for me and, I am sure, others if the Minister could walk us through an actual example. In what circumstances would that happen? Does the Minister anticipate that there will be challenges, and that the Government might lose and therefore have to step back? In that case, it is right to have a procedure for dealing with this. It would be useful to know quite what the thinking was behind it. We need proper scrutiny of some of these powers, and amendment 12 would make the clause subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure proper scrutiny takes place.

When a precision bred confirmation is revoked, even though we cannot entirely envisage how it will work, it is important that the Secretary of State has a process to safeguard the health and welfare of those animals—we are talking about animals in this case—that are no longer deemed to be precision bred. We took advice from Compassion in World Farming on this, which gave evidence in the evidence sessions. It says that where that is the case, it will be because the organism has either been mischaracterised or the genome is no longer stable, which, in their view, may create health and welfare risks. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether that is that situation is envisaged. That raises the question of what to do with the creatures that have been created through this process and how to bring the breeding of the line back under the appropriate regulations.

What I am saying about this amendment goes right back to the beginning, when we were nervous about embarking on the animal route without knowing more detail. As one begins to look at the detail in the Bill for dealing with some of these issues, without knowing the wider thinking, wider background and wider regulatory framework, it is quite hard to comment on the potential unintended consequences and how they might be dealt with. The reason that this matters to all of us is that animal welfare matters. I hardly need remind the Minister of her Government’s 2019 manifesto commitment, which I helpfully have before me:

“High standards of animal welfare are one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. We have a long tradition of protecting animals in this country, often many years before others follow. Under a Conservative Government, that will continue”

—well, quite. We fully endorse that. In the spirit of that commitment, I hope that the Government will welcome amendment 31, which would require the regulations that make provision for the procedure to be followed if the Secretary of State proposes to revoke a precision bred confirmation to include provisions to safeguard the health and welfare of any animals that are no longer deemed to be precision bred.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Amendment 11 would provide for further parliamentary scrutiny on the marketing notice. The amendment is not necessary, as this power cannot be used to deliver a substantive change in policy; it is merely to prescribe details that are technical and administrative in nature, such as the form of the marketing notice or the information that must accompany that notice. I worry that what the hon. Member for Cambridge is seeking is because these regulations are as yet not in place. We have gone over the fact that we will look to work with experts and stakeholders and so on in order to ensure that we have the right guidelines so that we can move forward.

The criteria for defining a precision bred organism is set out in the Bill. We will continue to seek expert, independent advice on the technical details before any regulations are brought before Parliament. It is appropriate for the technical detail which demonstrates how the given organism meets these criteria to be specified in regulations and for such regulations to follow the negative procedure, as there may be an appropriate time for them to be added to.

In amendment 31, the hon. Gentleman proposes placing a duty on the Secretary of State when revoking a precision bred animal confirmation to safeguard the health and welfare of animals. All vertebrate animals are already protected by extensive animal health and welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence either to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 include specific requirements to protect animals when bred or kept, prohibiting breeding procedures that

“cause, or are likely to cause, suffering or injury”.

The regulations further state that:

“Animals may only be kept for farming purposes if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health or welfare.”

The protections provided by these regulations would apply to an animal where a precision bred confirmation relating to that animal had been revoked. Those welfare requirements cover all animals. With those protections already in place, we see no need for anything further and I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

On amendment 12, I stand by what I have said before on the use of parliamentary time. The key proposition that a precision bred confirmation should be capable of being revoked is set out in the Bill.

Clause 9 sets out a pathway by which a precision bred confirmation may be revoked. It is a criminal offence to market genetically modified organisms without prior consent, and we believe that companies will continue to be incredibly careful to avoid mistakes. However, to provide a belt-and-braces measure, in the unlikely event that a GMO goes through the procedures under this Bill and is marketed as a precision bred organism, the clause establishes a transparent process for dealing with such an eventuality. That is important for consumer confidence and transparency.

Clause 9(4) addresses conferring additional functions on the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. The ability to seek scientific advice on any relevant new information that comes to light will be an important component part of this process. The clause states that we will need the help of outside experts to ensure that we move forward appropriately.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am afraid that I am still not entirely convinced, for a number of reasons, going back to some of the points I made just before we broke for lunch. There seems to be a closed, narrow group of people making these decisions. What ACRE—this group of eminent people—is being asked to do is to make a judgment on whether something that has been submitted to them is a PBO.

Following our discussions on the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022 a few months ago, ACRE released guidance on how the process would be approached. The guidance is quite technical, to put it mildly, and it is thoughtful and nuanced, and has quite a lot of caveats. Obviously, the guidance is not before us today, but it is relevant, because it is what ACRE will consider—there are no additional terms of reference being introduced in these clauses. There will not be a simple, clear-cut process and that probably explains why the Government have introduced this method for revoking confirmations, because more science and more evidence can come to light.

My worry is that it feels like a discussion between a very small group of people. If we are trying to address the question of public confidence, which is key, it does not seem to give the degree of reassurance that people seek. If one were being kind and generous to the Government, as obviously I would be, one way to provide that reassurance might be to bring forward secondary legislation so that it is discussed, rather than just being passed without discussion, as we know many statutory instruments are all the time. We think it is worth looking more closely at the procedure and making the secondary legislation subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure.

Although the Minister did respond to my invitation to give us an example, I am still not really very clear quite how it would happen. What happens to the animals—we are talking about animals here rather than plants—in those circumstances? I appreciate that there are existing protections, but the question is whether any additional protections are needed given the new set of procedures available, and how that should be handled. That seems to be worthy of further interrogation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

The amendments in this group are relatively straightforward, the Committee will be glad to hear. We are interested in looking at the relationship between the Bill and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which some of us were involved in, discussing it in this very room only a few months ago. To our joint delight, it received Royal Assent in April.

The Act defines “animal” as

“any vertebrate other than homo sapiens…any cephalopod mollusc, and…any decapod crustacean”.

Members may remember the debate about the definition, which was based on a Government amendment, if I recall, after a report commissioned by them to review the scientific evidence for the sentience of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. The London School of Economics published that review in November last year, after which the Government made their amendment to the animal sentience Bill to reflect the most up-to-date understanding. Despite that, however, clause 10 of this Bill defines animals only as vertebrates.

There are all kinds of exciting jokes that one can make about vertebrates and all the rest of it, but I shall resist that today. We also note that the clause does not exclude homo sapiens explicitly. Basically, our issue is about trying to align the definitions with the most recent piece of legislation to have gone through the House.

The clause also makes provision for the Bill’s definition to be extended to include invertebrates if the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is extended to include them. It therefore seems to pose rather a strange system involving two different definitions of “animal” in law: one from the 2006 legislation and the other from the very recent legislation. We still seem to be waiting to get our definitions in line.

As an aside, given that the Government’s aim of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act was to recognise the sentience of animals in law, we are slightly surprised that the Animal Welfare Act has not been extended to reflect the Government’s latest stance. Regardless of that, it seems that the Bill should use the most up to date definition, that is why we have tabled amendment 33, and we think that amendment 34 is consequential on that, to replace the definition of animal in the Bill to the one from the 2022 Act. It is possible that it was mistake—that happens—or an accidental oversight, which we think could be rectified if the Government were to accept the amendment. If not, it would be useful to hear the Government’s explanation, and I invite the Minister to give it.

[Jo Churchill]

The hon. Gentleman proposes that we change the substance of the definition of relevant animal from that in 2006 Act to the more recent definition in the 2022 Act. Although we do not feel that the amendment is necessary, I am really grateful for the opportunity to put down on record our reasons for that.

Clause 10 defines relevant animal as a vertebrate for the purpose of welfare protection measures in clauses 11 to 15. That is line with the definition of animal in the 2006 Act—the core legislation that establishes the practical rules for individuals and businesses that handle, keep and care for animals in this country. For that reason, it is the right definition to apply.

It is worth noting that the definition of animal in the 2022 Act sets out what type of animals the animal sentience committee can consider when carrying out its work, but it does automatically not extend the definition of animal in the 2006 Act. We totally accept that it will be more than likely appropriate to broaden that definition so it is important to note that in clause 10 we allow a provision for regulations to be made to extend the definition of relevant animal, if the definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is extended to include invertebrates of any description. Any amending regulations that extend that definition would be subject to the affirmative procedure in the House, and therefore subject to debate and approval by both Houses before being made.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, like the Opposition, were very pleased that the sentience Bill received Royal Assent, but the next step is to carefully consider the implications of extending the 2006 Act to include cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans because that will include implications for how they are caught and handled, treated and transported. The Government are working constructively with industry and stakeholders on this issue; I assure the hon. Gentleman of that.

I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman but the appropriate definition of animal is that which sits in the 2006 Act, although I agree that the extension of that definition is in process. It is not correct, however, to say that the definition in the 2022 Act would sit appropriately in this legislation for the reasons I have cited.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the explanation, although I am not entirely sure that I am convinced by it. It seems to me to be a slightly curious way of proceeding. At the end of it, I am not entirely sure whether it means that cephalopods and decapods are protected under the Bill or not—possibly not, as it stands. I understand why the new regulations have practical implications, particularly for the fishing sector, and why they need to be thought through carefully. I can see why there might be complications, although that is more to do with the animal sentience Act than it is to do with the Bill.

We will come back in a moment to the question of the relationship between the animal sentience Act and the Bill. It is an interesting one, because it goes to the heart of the concern that we on the Labour Benches have: that the various structures that are in place to make decisions, give expert advice, and so on may no longer be quite right. During the evidence session, we heard the suggestion that there may well be people within Departments who are already thinking along those lines and looking at ways in which those structures may be updated. That, of course, creates some difficulties for us, because we are looking at the legislation as it stands today. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but that is the problem with trying to second-guess the thinking of the Government when they are so vague on some of these animal welfare issues.

There is considerable interest in the whole question about cephalopods and decapods, and we think it would be more consistent to have a unified approach. On that basis, I am afraid we will test the opinion of the Committee by pressing amendment 33 to a vote, although we will not feel the need to move amendment 34.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

As discussed, clause 10 defines a relevant animal as a vertebrate for the purposes of the welfare protection measures in clauses 11 to 15. That is in line with the definition of an animal in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which is the core legislation that establishes the practical rules for individuals and businesses that keep, handle, or care for animals in this country. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will be brief, given that we have just discussed the amendments. I stand by the comments we have already made, but I am grateful that regulations made under subsection (2) of the clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will doubtless be back here on another day, discussing this issue again.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Application for precision bred animal marketing authorisation

--- Later in debate ---

I am afraid that there are rather a lot of amendments relating to a number of clauses. We do not intend to divide on all of them, although on some of them I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response before we get into that particular set of complications.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, because animal welfare is close to all our hearts. It is something that this Government—indeed, any Government—need to be cognisant of, and I am proud that we have a strong record of supporting and improving it. With the animal health and welfare pathway, we have laid out where we intend to go further.

I will take the eight amendments in turn. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not feel that amendment 13 is necessary. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to create the regulatory framework for the approval of marketing authorisations for precision bred animals. I assure all Members that we propose to work closely with the industry, expert groups, scientific advisers, non-governmental organisations and all other stakeholders on the development of that technical detail. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is important that all those voices are heard, and that we work on that technical detail with everyone.

For the animal welfare declaration, that will include setting out metrics and the evidence that is necessary to accompany it. As part of that work, we will commission—indeed, we are commissioning—further evidence through independent research, and we will draw on our animal welfare advisory board. Once the technical details are designed, they will be set out in secondary legislation and guidance will be provided. They will benefit from co-design with those expertise and stakeholders. That is important to ensure we get this right.

We want to enable, rather than hamper, innovation while ensuring that animal welfare requirements are fully regarded and adhered to. We believe the amendment to clause 11 is not needed because it would cover only administrative and technical details. I hope the hon. Gentleman feels reassured that, in order to get to the right conclusion, we are trying to do this openly and transparently with all those who need to have their voices heard.

In essence, the clause signals to science and innovators, who are at the forefront, that the Government support the adoption of beneficial modern technologies and that they should have confidence moving forward. However, we recognise that as well as enabling innovation to keep pace with new and beneficial technologies, we must continue to uphold the high standards of animal welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

One might think so, but consider the lifespan of cows and that fact that they become infertile pretty quickly. One would think that logic would suggest that a farmer would want a cow that they did not literally milk for everything, and that lived a longer, healthier and fertile life. That is not what happens on some farms. Some farmers view the economic advantage to them as getting as much out of a cow as possible in its shorter lifespan. We want to encourage best practice, and I am not casting aspersions on farmers who want to do the right thing, but we know that big market forces are at work, particularly in chicken production. In fact, wherever products are sold in bulk and consumed in vast quantities, some players in that market will not have animal welfare in mind.

I am conscious of time, so to conclude, amendment 7 calls for welfare reports to be submitted to the Secretary of State to consider whether yields would be increased and whether that would lead to suffering. That goes to the nub of the issue. I will not repeat what I said earlier, but if the development of gene editing led to the phase out of some of the diseases that affect animal welfare, I would like more reassurances about what that would mean for increased density and animals kept in cramped conditions, and so on. If we have a stronger animal, that might mean that it is thought they can withstand such treatment.

I think the welfare provisions are too weak, and far too much is being left to regulations and consideration at some point in the future. The Bill should have been put on hold while we made more inquiries and gathered more information. That would have meant that we were discussing a fully rounded Bill, and that we knew what we were likely to get from it.

[Jo Churchill]

I am content to note those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, in clause 15, page 10, line 42, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

Clause 15 stand part.

[Jo Churchill]

Clause 14 sets out the reporting obligations that will apply once a precision bred animal marketing authorisation has been issued. Although the provisions in the Bill are intended to prevent adverse welfare outcomes in precision bred animals, we consider it prudent to have a monitoring function in place during the early stages of the marketing of precision bred animals in England. The Bill will provide for the ability to place a time-limited and proportionate duty on breeders and developers to monitor animals and their offspring for any significant adverse health and welfare outcomes that can be linked to the new trait, and to report any such outcome to DEFRA.

The clause sets out that regulations may make provision to require the notifier, or any other specified person, to provide information to the Secretary of State about the welfare of the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny. If the relevant animal is supplied to another person, the notifier may be required to take steps to collect health and welfare information, or enable it to be collected from the other person. Regulations may set requirements on the information that must be collected, including, for example, specific time periods for reporting, and technical requirements for the types of information to be provided.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are now getting to the Bill’s more administrative details, about which we have fewer concerns.

Clause 14 concerns the reporting obligations for precision bred animal marketing authorisations. Clause 15 concerns the suspension and revocation of precision bred animal marketing authorisations. In many ways, what I am about to say is similar to what I have said before about those things. I am glad that reporting obligations are included in the Bill, especially those that relate to animal welfare and to potential unintended consequences. It is right that those processes be monitored and reported on.

The suspension and revocation of authorisations concerning animals appears to be an area where greater scrutiny of secondary legislation would be beneficial. The clause confers powers on the Government to introduce secondary legislation, with provisions to suspend or revoke precision bred animal marketing authorisations where the Secretary of State receives information regarding the health and welfare of the animal concerned, and where they believe the health or welfare of an animal is likely to be adversely affected. It also contains provisions for those decisions to be publicly announced and shared. That raises the question of who is doing the monitoring and how, and it would be helpful if the Minister said a little more about that.

At the risk of being endlessly repetitive, it would be better for the secondary legislation to be subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative. That is the force of amendment 14. As we have said frequently, the House should be able to scrutinise the Government’s proposals, especially as they have been decidedly vague so far. These things do matter, because they concern the potential pain and suffering of sentient beings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendment. Clause 15 allows for provision to be made in regulation for the circumstances in which a precision bred animal marketing authorisation may be revoked or suspended, and to set out the procedure to follow in such cases. The affirmative procedure would not be a meaningful use of parliamentary time. The power to make regulations for the circumstances in which an authorisation may be revoked or suspended is, in effect, a power to specify more details of those circumstances, but the circumstances are already set out in the Bill and cannot be changed. Given the content of the regulations made under clause 15, the negative procedure is a better fit.

We, like the Opposition, are committed to animal welfare and want the Bill’s provisions to be backed by proportionate and workable measures to safeguard animal welfare. Clause 15 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations, using the negative procedure, to suspend or revoke a precision bred animal marketing authorisation in certain circumstances. The requirement to provide a welfare declaration before an animal welfare marketing authorisation is granted will ensure the proper evaluation of known risks. The clause provides further reassurance that Government will have the power to act should there be adverse effects.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear the Minister and in some ways I am comforted, but clause 15(3) states:

“Regulations under this section may confer a function on the welfare advisory body.”

What on earth does “may confer a function” mean? That seems extraordinarily wide, and it is not unreasonable that something so wide should come back to this place for a discussion.

[Jo Churchill]

It is important that the Animal Welfare Committee has the space to look at such things. The clause covers scenarios in which new information shows that animal welfare may be affected contrary to the assessment conducted when the authorisation was issued. In such cases, the welfare declaration no longer holds, so it may be appropriate that the Secretary of State revokes an authorisation in the interests of animal welfare. If the Secretary of State receives new information on animal health or welfare, he may consider it appropriate to suspend the marketing authorisation while information is properly considered. If the Secretary of State has not received the health and welfare information that he needs because the developer has failed to report it under clause 14, it may be appropriate that he suspend the authorisation pending investigation, or revoke it if there are concerns. In both scenarios, we set out to protect animal welfare as strongly as we can.

Clause 15 also sets out that the regulations may allow bespoke reporting requirements in particular cases. That flexibility is essential to ensure that any obligations placed on businesses are minimised proportionately to risk. Good practice indicates that breeders and developers will already carry out health and welfare monitoring as part of their breeding programmes. We want to work with stakeholders to ensure that that element of the new measures works in practice and is proportionate before it is introduced.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Reviews and appeals relating to Part 2

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

The clause is about reviews and appeals relating to part 2. We heard about the relative power in the industry from some of the witnesses. There are some very big organisations, and hopefully some smaller enterprises coming forward that are able to operate in the sector. We want a system that is fair to all. We want to make sure that the appeals system does not disproportionately benefit, possibly unintentionally, those who have the most resource to make the system work for them.

The clause begins to lay out what an appeals system under the Bill might look like, but once again the fine detail is left to secondary legislation. We want to be able to see and scrutinise any delegated powers in the area, and that is what amendment 15, which is similar to a number of the other amendments, would do. It is an important clause, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

[Jo Churchill]

As the hon. Member laid out, the amendment seeks further parliamentary scrutiny of the reviews and appeals conferred by part 2. He will not be surprised to hear that I do not feel the amendment is necessary. What it proposes would not, in our view, be a meaningful use of time. I want to assure hon. Members that the power does not signal a change in policy, as all key substantive requirements of the review and appeal processes are set out in the Bill. Therefore, it is appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the negative procedure.

We are committed to bringing in appropriate safeguards to ensure that decisions affecting a person’s ability to market a precision bred organism are correct, and to provide for an appropriate and efficient mechanism to challenge decisions. To achieve that, the clause requires regulations to provide for a mechanism for reviews and appeals. That mechanism can be used if the appellant considers that certain decisions made by the Secretary of State were based on an error of fact, wrong in law or unreasonable.

The clause covers decisions not to issue a precision bred confirmation or a precision bred animal marketing authorisation, to revoke a precision bred confirmation, or to revoke or suspend a precision bred animal marketing authorisation. It aims to deal with such issues in a sensible fashion. Having a review mechanism allows the Secretary of State to review the decision and to uphold or reverse it in a quick and cost-effective manner, without the need for legal proceedings. A subsequent right to appeal to the first-tier tribunal ensures that, where the appellant is not satisfied with the outcome of the review, said person can ask an independent tribunal to adjudicate.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear what the Minister says. I am still nervous about this. It is striking that a lot in the Bill is on the appeal and challenge processes, but without the earlier detail—which would make it easier to envisage how things work—to explain how we might get to that point in the process. I worry that that will benefit those with the resources to use the system effectively to make their case in a way that others might not. That is sufficient to say that we would want to see this again, rather than just let it go through under the negative procedure. We will therefore proceed to a vote on this one.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I seek clarification from the Minister on a point arising from the clause. It is about whether the passing of the Bill will open the UK to gene edited organisms from other countries that have adopted such practices to a greater extent than has been the case up to now or, indeed, to the extent that there has been a case up to now. I am interested to hear the Minister.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for introducing amendment 19, although he will not be surprised to hear that I do not think it is necessary. The clause contains the power to maintain the current risk assessment requirements that apply in relation to precision bred plants and animals that are imported or acquired for use in contained-use conditions, such as laboratories, glasshouses and animal-rearing facilities. The amendment is not needed because we want to maintain the proportionate science-based approach to the regulation that has enabled the UK’s research community to carry out world-class science under contained-use conditions, such as in laboratories.

The Government have been clear that we do not intend to make changes to the existing substantive policy position in relation to the contained-use regime, because it is agreed to be fine. The power in the clause allows the existing position to be maintained. The Secretary of State intends to make use of the power for this purpose; there is no need to require him to do so. Risk assessments are essential, and we want to make sure that we cover all the bases and maintain the status quo, rather than introduce a new arrangement.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asked about imports. If our regulatory environment is more proportionate, I expect that to encourage other scientists to base their research here and work with our scientists. The clause is about maintaining the status quo and not making changes to the policy on the contained-use regime.

[Deidre Brock]

Is the Minister saying that the clause relates only to organisms produced through scientific research, not to commercial production?

[Jo Churchill]

Through scientific research.

In amendment 16, the hon. Member for Cambridge proposes to provide for further parliamentary scrutiny of the provisions on environmental risk assessments that may be required before importing a precision bred organisation into England, or acquiring a precision bred organism that is in England. The amendment is not needed because, in the case of clause 17, the affirmative procedure would not be meaningful. I want to reassure all hon. Members that this power does not signal a change in policy, but we think it appropriate to set out the relevant obligations in regulations. The corresponding provision in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows for the details of risk assessment to be set out in regulations, together with the exemption provisions. The regulations will be concerned primarily with the details of the nature of the risk assessment to be carried out, which makes them appropriate to be subject to the negative procedure. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendments.

On whether clause 17 should stand part of the Bill, I remind the Committee of the evidence we heard last week that precision bred plants and animals do not present a greater risk to human health or the environment than their conventional counterparts. As such, the Government do not intend to introduce additional risk assessment requirements for organisms of this type that are imported or acquired when they are released into the environment. Our approach is to maintain the proportionate science-based approach to regulation that has enable the UK’s research community to carry out world-leading science under contained-use conditions, such as in laboratories. I think we all agree that we are exceptionally lucky to have such individuals across the UK. The powers in the clause will enable the Government to make regulations to maintain the risk assessment requirements that currently apply to precision bred organisms imported or acquired for contained use under the genetically modified organism legislation, from which they will be removed.

[Daniel Zeichner]

How interesting. Once again, it seems to me that the Minister’s explanation says a lot more than is in the Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith raised a good point. As I read the clause, it does not seem to me to say what the Minister has just explained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

As I made clear on Second Reading, it is absolutely clear that consumers want information about what they are eating and where it has come from. Excellent research by the Food Standards Agency has found that most consumers think it is appropriate to regulate gene edited foods differently from genetically modified foods, but that they want transparent labelling, reassurance about the thoroughness of regulation and safety assessments, and consideration of animal welfare impacts. I suspect that we will talk more about that as we proceed with our consideration of the Bill. We have already discussed the animal welfare impacts, but clause 18 includes some important points on this front.

The clause will establish a publicly available register of precision bred organisms, which we welcome, and lays out the sort of information that the register might include, ranging from release notices to information provided by the welfare advisory body. However, the clause also states that the Secretary of State can disapply those requirements in the interests of commercial confidentiality, requiring only disclosure of the name of the notifier and a general description of the organism. Something tells me that quite of lot of applications will cite commercial confidentiality. Given the importance of transparent information to consumers, and the lack of any explicit labelling requirements in the Bill as it stands, the very least we need is a strong and publicly accessible register.

The importance of nutritional and allergen information was raised several times in our evidence sessions. Despite the Government giving a reassurance on nutritional labelling, these promises are not made in the Bill, so far as we can see, so the register is the only public source of information that is absolutely guaranteed within it. If a plant or animal has been gene edited so that its nutritional content differs from its natural content—we have talked repeatedly about tomatoes with high levels of vitamin D, for example—consumers might need to know about that. My constituent with a vitamin D allergy will need to know if she can no longer buy certain tomatoes. I pursued that with one or two witnesses in evidence, and we will come back to it.

Given that the register might be the only mechanism by which people can find that out, it is important that we consider more closely what it will contain and, in particular, how the commercial confidentiality provisions will work. If every application is subject to commercial confidentiality, the register really will not achieve the purpose that the Government have set out. However, as I tried to pursue with one or two witnesses, when we look at the impact assessment, we see that the purpose of the register is not so much to inform the public as to check whether more registrations are coming forward—in other words, to see whether the deregulatory intent behind the Bill has had an effect. We have not discussed that until now, but it seems rather different from what most of us understand the purpose of the register to be. There are issues with the register that we think will need to be revisited when it is introduced in secondary legislation. I suspect that the Minister will not agree and that the Committee will have to vote on this, but I will listen to her comments with interest.

[Jo Churchill]

I will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I do not agree. The amendment is not needed, because in the context of clause 18 it would not be meaningful. This power does not warrant a change in policy, as all key substantive requirements in respect of the register are set out in the Bill, so it is appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the negative procedure.

However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find a little more light when I speak on clause stand part. In line with our commitment to transparency, clause 18 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to maintain a new public register, which the hon. Gentleman welcomed in his comments. The register will include information on precision bred organisms that have been notified for release into the environment for research and development, as well as for marketing purposes. As we have discussed during the course of the day, those will have passed other frameworks in order to get to that point.

The register will contain information provided in notifications as well as further information, such as reports from the advisory committee and the welfare advisory body, enforcement notices and other information relating to precision bred organisms set out in this clause and prescribed in regulations. The register will provide transparency and assure the public that the Government have oversight of plants and animals developed using such techniques. The register will be kept electronically in a free and accessible form on gov.uk.

The hon. Gentleman made a specific point about food, which we have touched on—Professor May’s evidence was good. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the FSA has sent further information overnight. The product in the example that he gave would be subject to the FSA’s procedure before the it arrived on the market, so it could be labelled to outline the health benefits for 2.5 billion people across the globe, while alerting constituents such as his, who might wish to steer away from it. On the basis that we are offering transparency, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I hear the Minister’s point, and again, the additional information from the Food Standards Agency, which I suspect we will look at more closely as we proceed, is helpful. It occasionally feels as if I am in a very large room with the lights off, holding a very small torch, and every now and then, I turn it on and can gradually discern part of the structure emerging. I have a feeling that the Minister has had the lights on the whole time. That is the problem: we are beginning, bit by bit, to get a sense of how the measures might work, but if we are trying to persuade the wider world about how the system will work, it would be better to turn the lights on at the beginning.

I still think there is some difficulty. Yes, we welcome the register, but I notice that the Minister did not address commercial confidentiality. I appreciate that that is not simple, but there is a danger that the register ends up being very limited indeed, and that would be disappointing. I would much rather have the opportunity to look at the matter again later as the secondary legislation comes through, because it is too important to go through without further consideration. On that basis, I will divide the Committee on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

We come now to the clauses pertaining to monitoring and inspection. As no amendments have been tabled, I anticipate the Committee will assist me by passing this part of the Bill.

Clause 19 gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint inspectors to carry out enforcement of the obligations in part 2 of the Bill that relate to the release and marketing of precision bred organisms. The clause also contains the standard provision that protects inspectors from personal liability for actions taken in good faith in the purported exercise of their functions, while ensuring that the inspectorate remains accountable for its actions.

Under clause 20, the obligations created by the Bill will be backed by proportionate sanctions to encourage compliance. The Government want to provide inspectors with powers to inspect premises, gather evidence and to issue enforcement notices, stop notices and fines if they find evidence of non-compliance with the obligations imposed by the Bill and by delegated legislation made under the Bill.

The Government plan to use the same inspectorate that currently undertakes inspection and enforcement functions under part 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Genetic Modification Inspectorate, to undertake inspection and enforcement functions in relation to the regulatory regime for precision bred organisms. Experts in other subject matters may need to be present at some inspections—for example, vets, where there is an inspection that relates to animals. We want to allow for the inspectors to be accompanied by such experts when an inspector considers it necessary.

We believe that the clause provides for an effective and proportionate inspection regime, with appropriate safeguards. For instance, the power of entry would be exercisable in relation to private dwellings only with the occupier’s consent or a warrant. The inspectors will have powers to inspect and search premises, organisms and documents, to take photographs and copies and to take samples.

Clause 21 defines a “part 2 obligation”, a key term used in the Bill to describe obligations under part 2 that can be subject to enforcement through civil sanctions and to set the remits of inspectors’ powers under the Bill and secondary legislation made under it. That will help developers and stakeholders better to understand their obligations under part 2, which can be subject to inspection and enforcement. Further, the clause allows regulations to treat the provision of false information in an application as a failure to comply with a part 2 obligation. That would enable inspectors to check whether false information has been provided and to issue enforcement notices if the evidence shows that it has.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Amendment 18 is another that seeks to replace the negative procedure with the affirmative procedure. Much has been said about the advisory bodies in the Bill—that is the point we are reaching in the clauses. We understand—because it is outlined in clause 22(1), which contains a reference to the Environmental Protection Act 1990—that ACRE will be the advisory committee that considers whether precision bred organisms are indeed precision bred. We are familiar with ACRE, a senior member of which gave oral evidence.

As I hinted in my previous comments, however, the welfare advisory body that considers the impacts on animal welfare is much less clearly defined. The Bill allows for that body to be an existing committee or a new one. Much of the administrative set up of the Committee, and details on how it will operate, are—guess what?—being left to secondary legislation.

Had the Bill not been drafted in such haste, and had the Government determined those details, we would not have felt the need to table so many new clauses. This is a framework Bill. It is a far-from-satisfactory piece of legislation that, as I have just explained, makes it quite hard to work out how the whole system will function. In the light of the role that the welfare advisory body will play in making important considerations about the welfare, pain and health of animals that we now all agree are sentient beings, the provisions in clause 22 should be laid under the affirmative procedure, not the negative procedure. We have tabled amendment 18 to that effect.

I mentioned that I would come to the definition of “adverse effects”, which are referenced in clause 25 but are not laid out in full. That clause states simply that “regulations may prescribe” what is considered an adverse effect on the health or welfare of an animal. As this matter underpins the Bill, and given the ability of the welfare body to consider applications, I believe that that necessary requirement should be a “must” rather than a “may”. We have tabled amendment 20 to that effect.

Amendment 9 was tabled to give examples of what the Bill should consider when it comes to adverse welfare effects, such as the impact of precision breeding traits on the respiratory system, on the immune system and on the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. There is a fairly familiar pattern in what we are seeking to achieve through our amendments, and I suspect that I know what the Minister’s answer will be.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendment 18, but he will not be surprised to hear that I do not feel that it is necessary. In the case of the measures in clause 22, the affirmative procedure would be inappropriate. The identity of the welfare body will be of interest to Parliament. The appointment itself is a straightforward administrative matter, and it is therefore appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Almost inevitably, I disagree. The measures are of considerable significance and public interest, so I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Davies. If the Opposition were to choose to press amendment 29 to a vote, I would support it. From the moment the Bill was published, the Scottish Government raised the issue as a direct threat to Scottish interests. The EU is not considering animals as part of its review, so the potential for the UK Government to align with our largest trading partner and its eventual position is even further reduced by this measure. I look forward very much to the Minister’s comments on those points and to the points I raise in the future.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for his opening statement, which highlighted that Labour is supportive of science and innovation, and of making sure that as a country we optimise those things in which we really do excel.

I acknowledge the support that the Bill has received from the research community, industry and a broad base of stakeholders. We heard in the evidence sessions how important and exciting this area is, and about the potential benefits for the food system and the environment. None the less, at the outset, I would like to state that I appreciate the concerns raised. I hope that the debates that follow and the way in which we proceed reassure the hon. Member and others. We intend to move slowly and steadily and to follow the science.

As explained on Second Reading, the Government believe that legislation has not kept pace with developments. The existing provision is some 30 years old, and our understanding of the safety and benefits of technology such as gene editing has advanced significantly. We have already taken that first step in regulatory reform with the statutory instrument that came into force in April. It has already enabled exciting research in the hon. Gentleman’s and my part of the world, East Anglia, into high vitamin D tomatoes, which could bring health benefits to many, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s observation that even in that case we need to think carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I appreciate the Minister’s enthusiasm and her ambitions for everything that the Bill might be able to achieve, but given that Europe is not looking at gene editing for animals as a part of its review—certainly not at the moment—how will that further affect our trade in animals with Europe, particularly if no labels or traceability are attached to these animals?

[Jo Churchill]

I believe that the hon. Lady has tabled amendments on that subject, and we will come on to discuss them. In my view, this is part of our responsibility, alongside that of the scientists, who are at the forefront of what they do. I would gently temper the hon. Lady’s description: this is not unbounded enthusiasm; it is pragmatism. It is about a deep belief in our science and our ability to do good; that is different from enthusiasm. We are building in transparency, and we need to utilise those skills. On my visits to these great institutes around the country, I have met scientists and researchers from across the world, not only Europe. Although I take the hon. Lady’s point about gravity economics, what we do has a broader benefit to people across the world. There are clear benefits.

We need to safeguard welfare, and that is why we have laid down in the Bill a framework for the regulatory system. It is imperative that we get this right. That is why it is important that we work with expert groups, industry and non-governmental organisations on enabling the right regulations to ensure that the system is effective, safe and workable.

All animals are protected by comprehensive and robust legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering and to not provide for their welfare needs. The Bill’s system to protect animal health and welfare will work with those regulations. The Animal Welfare Act is supplemented by detailed regulations on farmed animal welfare. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 include specific requirements to protect animals that are bred or kept. The regulations prohibit breeding procedures that cause or are likely to cause suffering or injury. They state:

“Animals may only be kept for farming purposes if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health or welfare.”

In addition, animals used in scientific research projects, which would be the first stage of developing a breeding line using precision breeding for animals, are protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—ASPA—which was referred to in the evidence we took from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which was glad to see that that is the case. This legislation ensures that animals are only ever used in science where the potential harm to animals is limited, there are no alternatives, and where the number of animals is the minimum needed to achieve a scientific benefits, and that includes a harm-benefit analysis.

The measures we are introducing support the regulations by requiring an animal welfare declaration and independent scrutiny by an expert group before an animal can be marketed. We are ensuring that the health and welfare of the animal and its offspring will not be adversely affected by any trait resulting from precision breeding.

If we want to drive innovation and investment in this area while continuing to be at the forefront of animal welfare, we need to move forward and show how the best regulatory systems can work. The Bill provides a clear signal that the UK is the best place to conduct the research and bring products to market. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Minister for her constructive tone. I suspect that the arguments we will pursue over the next few days are already becoming clear. There is considerable agreement. No one disputes that it would be wonderful to be able to tackle bird flu or PRRS. Of course, if we can find a solution, it would be hugely beneficial not just in a financial sense but in terms of welfare as well. The question is how best to achieve that, and I suspect that that is going to be the key part of the debate.

I shall start by admitting my first procedural failure of the day. Contrary to my original suggestion, I am advised by the Clerks that we cannot yet vote on amendment 28 because it does not relate to this clause. Therefore, with your permission, Mr Davies, I would like to reverse my original suggestion and ask that we vote on amendment 29 but not on amendments 28 and 30. Despite spending many hours sitting on Bill Committees, some of us are still learning some of the procedures. I understand that amendment 28 relates to the long title of the Bill.

To go back to the broader issue, some of the points made by our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, will come back in our discussions, I am afraid, because where we sit in relation to other jurisdictions and approaches is a complicated question. There is no two ways about that, and I will say more about it in a few moments’ time.

The cost issue raised by the Minister—the £1.75 billion—was interesting. There are potentially huge benefits here, so it is odd, looking at the impact assessment, to see the relatively modest sums that the existing system puts in place. I wonder whether there is a slight mismatch in seeing the current set-up as such a brake on development; it seems to me that there may be other issues as well, although I might be missing something. We are trying to achieve the right regulatory framework to allow investment to take place; the question is whether this the right way to do it. At the moment, I persist in thinking that the measures before us on protection for animals are not sufficiently developed.

Something I have noticed in other Bill Committees I have been involved in is that we home in on the legislation before us and it is quite hard for Members to understand fully the wider landscape in which that legislation sits. It might be assumed that Members are all-knowing and fully understand the entire set-up, but to me, it sometimes feels more like looking at a lump of marble and trying to discern the sculpture within. We need to be pretty imaginative to see exactly where the Bill fits and what consequences it will have.

I am reassured on some of the points about the wider framework for animal protection, but it is also fair to say that there has been a lot of legislation recently. For this, the Government deserve some credit: it is changing the landscape, but it is not entirely clear how it will all fit together. That gives further weight to our view that, on balance, it would be better not to bring the provisions in this part of the Bill into force until further work has been done.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the intervention—enthusiasm is welcome. The hon. Lady gets to the nub of the point: it is very difficult to describe in law—which is what we as legislators are trying to do—the complexities of the natural world. I suspect that we will probably go around in circles on this, but my point is that the reliance on the notion of something occurring naturally would make the law difficult to interpret—that is key. That is why it is hard for legislators to pin those things down, and I have some sympathy with who have had to capture them in drafting the Bill.

As I am sure the Committee will remember, I pressed Professor Henderson on that point. He said:

“The Bill is designed not to allow exogenous material”.

That is not explicitly coded in the Bill, however. He also said that this is

“something of a grey area.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 15, Q18.]

He was absolutely right about that. He said that transgenesis can occur naturally, and he drew a distinction between intentional and unintentional transfer, which, again, I can understand.

I appreciate that, as the hon. Member for South Ribble implied, the distinction is complicated and messy, but it is important. Unfortunately, although that is the distinction that the Government have presented in the Bill, not only does it not appear in the Bill, but it is contradictory. As we read it, it seems that transgenesis is possible under the Bill, so long as it could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding processes. I appreciate that it is difficult, but I ask the Minister to explain today how her earlier remarks, and the remarks made by others—that gene editing does not involve introducing DNA from one organism into another—are reflected in the Bill. I do not think they are.

The other related point is the general looseness of the definitions in the Bill. I am sure we all recall the striking evidence from Dr Edenborough QC, a distinguished lawyer, who may well end up advising on how disputes in this area might be resolved. That is an important point: we are setting the law, but others will then interpret it. If it is not clear, we will see trouble ahead.

As Dr Edenborough explained in the evidence session,

“‘could have resulted from’ is staggeringly imprecise. Is that ‘likely’? Is that ‘very possible’? What level of probability is it?”—Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 125, Q199.]

In essence, he raised that many things that would be permissible under the Bill and qualify as precision bred organisms would be unclear. The Government need to clarify what they intend here. Without clarity, there is a real risk of challenge. That goes back to my opening point, and I think it will be a thread running through our debates. With the lack of clarity comes uncertainty, and with uncertainty comes a risk to investment, which is exactly opposite to what the Bill is designed to achieve.

That is why we have tabled the amendments—to try to bring the Bill in line with the distinctions the Government have themselves drawn between genetic editing and genetic modification. The amendments would tighten up the Bill, provide clarity of purpose and bring the Bill in line with the Government’s stated aims.

Amendment 1 explicitly rules out transgenesis by adding a new subsection to clause 1, while amendment 2 amends the definition in the subsection (8) definition of “modern biotechnology” to exclude the introduction of “exogenous genetic material”. Both amendments would bring the Bill into line with the stated objectives of the Government. We will seek a division on amendment 1, although I am happy to withdraw amendment 2. We hope the Government can support us on amendment 1.

[Jo Churchill]

Amendment 1 would exclude from the definition of a precision bred organism any organism that has contained transgenic material during any step of its development. I thank the hon. Member for the amendment, but do not feel that it follows the best scientific advice and evidence and would undermine the purpose of the Bill.

It is important that we follow scientific advice and regulate based on the nature of genetic changes made to organisms, rather than on techniques used to develop them. The scientific advice is clear: if an organism contains genetic changes that could have occurred naturally or by traditional breeding methods, that does not present a greater risk than a traditionally bred counterpart, irrespective of the techniques used to develop it.

No precision bred organism will contain transgenes. Some of its ancestors may have contained them, but those transgenes must have been removed for the organism to be classified as precision bred. That is laid out in the Bill.

The transgenic intermediate stages are important, as they enable the precise changes to be made to the DNA of organisms. The transgenes themselves are then subsequently removed. For example, CRISPR-Cas9 DNA would need to be taken out of precision bred animals and plants.

During the evidence sessions, we heard from Professor Nigel Halford of Rothamsted Research. He is using that approach to develop low-acrylamide wheat—a wheat that can provide public health benefits, as well as broader benefits.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Committee for displaying my ignorance, but I am interested in the Minister’s comments about the potential ancestry of genes’ genetic material, which would then have been removed by the end of process. Does that happen in nature?

[Jo Churchill]

It has to go through the regulatory framework to be defined as precision bred, to ensure that any of those precise changes are changes that could have occurred in nature, because we are describing what would happen in nature.

[Katherine Fletcher]

In nature there will be random deletions continually within the genome, so the idea of sections of DNA being taken out or added in is part of the process.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend.

[Kate Green]

Is the Minister therefore saying that it is not possible to determine whether the way in which genetic material may have moved in and out will replicate what could have happened in nature, but only that the outcome will replicate what could have happened in nature?

[Jo Churchill]

Yes.

[Kate Green]

I think that worries some people.

[Jo Churchill]

During the evidence sessions, we heard from Professor Halford and Professor John Napier, who is developing camelina crops that are high in healthy oils. In both examples that they cited, transgenic DNA introduced during the gene editing process was removed. Under the amendment, both of those examples would fall outside the scope of the Bill, and the plants would be classed as genetically modified organisms, but they are not, because they do not contain any transgenes that are actually part of the process The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the fact that we can have these little bits of DNA left over in ourselves from viruses and so forth.

We must make sure that we understand what we are looking at. We heard very clearly from Professors Halford and Napier that the techniques are more targeted and therefore very precise, known changes can be made. Therefore we know what we are looking at, and this is stepwise procedure. Some of the narrative infers that the Bill will be passed, and then, tomorrow, the changes will happen. It is not like that; we are talking about the development of science and ensuring that the regulatory framework that we have been working under from 30 years ago, which has been recognised virtually across the world as inadequate, is changed, so that we can keep up with the science.

If we accepted the amendment, it would make the Bill irrelevant. Countries elsewhere with proportionate regulations would be able to exploit the huge potential of the technology as it develops, whereas we would remain impeded by the current legislation. I urge hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment relating to the definition of precision bred organisms, although I think he said that he intended to push it to a vote.

[Daniel Zeichner]

indicated assent.

[Jo Churchill]

Yes.

The hon. Gentleman has said that he will not push amendment 2 to a vote. The amendment focuses on the definition of modern biotechnology. The techniques to which he refers were the subject of the European Court of Justice case in 2018, to which he also referred. That finding set us on today’s path. The Court ruled that all organisms produced by the techniques should be regulated as genetically modified organisms, irrespective of whether the end product could have occurred naturally or by traditional breeding.

As we heard from Sam Brooke of the British Society of Plant Breeders in the first evidence session, that ruling resulted in many companies halting their research on gene editing and other precision breeding techniques. Subsequently, the EU has recognised that that finding is not in line with current scientific knowledge or development, and has committed to reviewing its own legislation. That is why I am keen that we share our knowledge with it to help us all move forward.

Under the Bill as currently drafted, organisms produced by the techniques should only be classed as GMOs if the genetic changes they contain could not have occurred naturally, or been produced by traditional breeding methods. That does not mean that we consider that the exogenous DNA must be excluded from the process of producing such organisms altogether, as stated. The key point is that we should focus on the nature of the genetic changes in organisms, which are actually released or marketed, as per the scientific advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. The broad guidance it produces is very clear. It means that, in order to produce a precision bred organism, developers have to remove exogenous DNA, such as the CRISPR-Cas9 gene used in gene editing, from the organisms. In effect, they are removing the tool they used to make the changes, leaving behind the new trait.

In order to carve out precision bred organisms from the legislation controlling the use of GMOs with the Bill, we have defined the techniques used to produce them as “modern biotechnology”. We are then separating organisms produced by modern biotechnology into GMOs and precision bred organisms in order to ensure that the two regulatory systems dovetail. That term must remain aligned to the GMO legislation, which means continuing to include techniques that introduce exogenous DNA. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing amendment 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I apologise to Members for detaining them, but I want to speak to the clause because it is a key part of the Bill. We are at this point establishing a new category of a precision bred organism. My worry is that it is not a clear category, not least because only a few months ago another new category was introduced—the higher qualifying plant. The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022 were discussed in this very Committee room—I remember the Minister and I discussing them—and have come into force, which was an initial step before this Bill was introduced. At the time, I highlighted the warnings from various learned societies that that was not a category that they recognised, and I am afraid the precision bred organism occupies a similarly ill-defined space.

In the Bill, reference is made to other previous SIs, but not to the most recent one. I notice that the SI from 2002 is referenced in subsection 3, where “modern biotechnologies” are defined, but I cannot see any reference to this year’s SI, so perhaps the Minister will tell us what is happening with that. Paragraph 3.2.2.1 of the impact statement makes it clear that the intention is to revoke the SI and reintroduce the provisions in the Bill, but it certainly is not clear to me where in the Bill that is being done, so I hope the Minister will elucidate. Perhaps it is hidden in the secondary legislation provisions, in which case it is quite opaque, which is part of our general concern about the Bill.

The danger is that we could be in a position where we unintentionally have two pieces of law governing this area and laying out two different definitions at the same time—the qualifying higher plant and the precision bred organism. I want to make this point because it is important, given some of the contributions that have already been made. There is a further problem as the European Union has a different term for what looks like an attempt to define much the same thing—an NGT, or a product of new genetic techniques. I do not want to rile Government Members by suggesting that that might be a better name for what we are doing, but it probably captures more accurately what we have discussed so far, because these are indeed new genetic techniques, and will probably go on being new genetic techniques.

Does that matter? I think it might, and that is the problem. It goes back to the points made earlier by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The movement of goods and materials across borders is vexed at the best of times, and pretty fraught at the moment. The trade implications are explored in section 6 of the impact assessment, which makes interesting reading with some quite bold assertions. I will refer to them because, although the view of the Government is that this probably will not be a problem, they do to their credit go into what could occur as a consequence of it becoming a problem. It is pretty alarming. Should there be a dispute, the impact assessment states:

“This would have a relatively significant impact on UK producers…UK crop-related food exporters are heavily dependent on EU consumers’ demand. Approximately 55% of all crop-related food exports from the UK are to the EU…And so, it would be difficult to replace EU demand. Therefore, there is a possibility for a portion of the £8.56 billion worth of crop related exports to the EU to decrease, potentially outweighing the scale of direct benefits to business. Nonetheless”—

This is very reassuring—

“this represents only 2.5% of our annual total value of exported goods and 5.4% of our annual value of exported goods to the EU. And so, even if UK crop-related food exports are maximally impacted, the overall impact on the UK balance of trade is minimal.”

Well, I do not think it will come as a great reassurance to those involved in the sector if that is part of the potential risk.

There are big risks here. Not only do we have that issue, but there is also the wider issue of the Cartagena protocol, which governs the movement of these organisms across borders. I suspect that by introducing the precision bred organism, we are introducing a new category, which again leaves us open to challenge. In all these cases, the argument will always be, “Is it in anybody else’s interest to challenge?” What we know from all these trade negotiations is that if there is any possibility of someone picking a fight, they can always use something like this to pursue it.

In conclusion, we are stepping into some tricky territory. We generally hope that other countries will come with us in similar ways and that any differences can be resolved without recourse to challenge, but we should be aware of those risks and proceed with care. Investors will ask themselves a simple question: is there a risk here, and if so, does the potential benefit outweigh the potential disadvantage? It has been suggested—indeed we heard it in the evidence from the Agricultural Industries Confederation—that there is a concern that people will look at the legislation and think, “This is not very certain or clear. We will wait and see what others do first.” Far from speeding things up, we could end up delaying them. The Government need to show that these questions have been addressed and answered. This is a small clause, but it has occupied quite a lot of time and is hugely significant to how we go forward.

[Jo Churchill]

The approach we have taken to regulating genetically modified organisms has not kept pace with scientific progress. The hon. Gentleman referenced the UN’s Cartagena protocol on biosafety, in which “modern biotechnology” is a term used. Its definition of modern biotechnology aligns with techniques such as those listed in sub-paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002. We are using the same list of techniques in this clause—see subsection (3)—to ensure that the new regime fits neatly alongside the one that regulates GMOs without leaving gaps or overlaps, which I think is the right course of action to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks, and without bringing any organisms that are not currently regulated as GMOs into the new regime regulating PBOs.

Some 30 years ago, modern biotech was used to transfer DNA between very different organisms. It can now be used to introduce changes that could have occurred naturally and through the use of traditional processes. As we have heard, that makes it much more targeted. The legislation controlling organisms produced by modern biotechnology needs to reflect these developments and our increased knowledge. Most notably, the science is telling us that we should not regulate precision bred organisms differently from their traditionally bred counterparts.

Clause 1 describes precision bred organisms, which we are carving out from legislation on the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. The definitions have been drafted using the latest scientific advice, and they are designed to ensure that this regulatory system can work. We are taking a critical step towards proportionate, science-led regulation of genetic technologies. As highlighted by Sam Brooke in the evidence sessions, the Bill will encourage greater research, innovation and investment in precision bred technologies. In doing so, it will lead to environmental, health and economic benefits for the UK.

It is vital that we add precision breeding to our toolbox to help us address some of the challenges we know we are facing, not only as a country but globally. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the SI. This will be revoked when we introduce secondary legislation after the Bill passes. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Meaning of “plant” and “animal”.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

Clause 2 defines “plant” and “animal” for the purposes of the Bill. The definitions in subsections (1) and (2) cover multicellular plants and animals; they do not cover micro-organisms. The clause expressly excludes humans from the scope of the Bill. Under current legislation, humans and human embryos cannot be classed as genetically modified organisms, and nor will they be classed as precision bred organisms under the Bill. Subsections (3) to (5) establish the developmental stage at which a plant or animal falls into the scope of the Bill, by defining what is meant by an organism.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sure that everyone will be relieved to know that this is going to be a quicker debate than that on the previous clause. The clause appears to be quite straightforward, defining the terms “plant” and “animal”. I have one question. Subsections (3) and (4) mention gametes. Subsection (3)(a) states that references to plants and animals

“include an embryo and all subsequent developmental stages of an organism”.

For plants, references include

“a seed or a vegetative propagule”

but

“do not include a gamete.”

Could the Minister explain why gametes are not included in the definitions and what purpose their mention in the clause serves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

Please bear with me as I go through my copious notes. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat what part of the clause he was referring to?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Subsections (3) and (4). What is the purpose of those subsections, because it is not entirely clear to me?

[Jo Churchill]

The gamete contains only half of the genetic code required to reproduce a whole organism. A whole functioning plant or animal cannot be generated from a gamete and is therefore not considered an organism for the purposes of the Bill. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is certainly an answer to the question—I am not sure it is an answer I fully appreciate and understand, but I will go away and look at it further. I am grateful to her for that answer.

[Jo Churchill]

I am very grateful for the question. As he and I both know, I have learned an awful lot about all these particular things going over all the details. If there is anything further, I would be happy to answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Restrictions on release of precision bred organism in England

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 32, in 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.”.

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is a fair point. Hopefully we will come to that when we get to clause 17.

To conclude, Joanna Lewis at the Soil Association talked about this “unhelpful trajectory”, and how that is in conflict with the Government’s goals on the sustainable farming transition. She says:

“We therefore need to ensure that we are not accelerating that trend through carte blanche deregulation.”—[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 56, Q92.]

I agree. She goes on to say that there is an opportunity to put good governance at the heart of the Bill, and to get that public interest test in there, which I support.

[Jo Churchill]

Amendment 32, as I understand it, would embed public interest into the Bill. We are very much aligned with the intentions behind the amendment, and are already undertaking a range of work across Government that delivers public good. Some of those have been mentioned. We want precision breeding technologies to deliver real benefits. They are a vital part of toolkit to deliver benefits for our food system and the environment. The hon. Member for Bristol East said—rather, implied—that our farmers were not doing the right thing.

[Kerry McCarthy]

indicated dissent.

[Jo Churchill]

Well, if they are doing the right thing and our researchers are, too, there is no need for that reassurance in the Bill. Throughout the Bill there is the PBO assessment via ACRE on both plants and animals; the animal welfare declaration and the animal advisory body; the PVS varieties listing for plants and seeds; the FSA and the food and feed marketing authorisation to check before food comes to market. There are checks and balances throughout the Bill. We are keen to see those things in the Bill that can deliver good—disease resistance, pest resistance and drought resistance.

[Fay Jones]

Does the Minister agree that this legislation is simply a tool to help the industry to carry on the good work that it has already been doing? We have talked about antibiotic use in agriculture. Since 2014, through the responsible use of medicines in agriculture, antibiotic usage has reduced by 50%. We are the fifth lowest user of antibiotics across the European Union. Does she agree that this legislation simply helps the industry carry on that good work?

[Jo Churchill]

I agree very strongly that we should allow our farmers and fishermen to optimise research, with the appropriate checks and balances, to ensure they can bring to market produce that is trusted by the consumer and safe. That is exactly what our system has been set up to deliver. It is really important that they can use cutting-edge science to help them deliver those benefits. I believe we are on the same trajectory; we are just having a worthwhile discussion about whether things should be on the face of the Bill or should be embedded in our systems.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Will the Minister comment on the point I made about the development of herbicide-resistant varieties? We know there has been an issue with glyphosate and so on. That is not necessarily something that we would all welcome. Is there anything in the Bill that would allow the Government to express a view on whether that is beneficial?

[Jo Churchill]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to carry on speaking, I may well get to his point. The research is there to drive forward the ability to grow sustainably. He referred to the altruistic way in which Bill Angus approaches his work. We also heard from Professor Cathie Martin. She had that enthusiasm, but I am sure that many Members heard her contention that if she could get more of the population eating more fruit and vegetables, she would feel that she had really driven things forward and used these technologies to deliver a public good.

Although I understand the intention behind the proposal, I do not think it is necessary because it applies to release into the environment. That is principally covered in field trials, which are crucial to building our understanding of how genetic changes impact organisms under field conditions. They are an integral part of pure research, as well as breeding programmes.

Once again, I come back to the fact that we are at the start of this journey. We already know that the UK is delivering positive research. Professor Martin from the John Innes Centre spoke about the vitamin D tomatoes that her group is developing. We also heard about her commitment to strive towards improving the food we eat for the benefit of our health. It is important that such research proposals, which are often supplemented by money from the public purse, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, go through these assessments. We did not hear from just one person; we heard from many conducting the research. We should be proud of the research and the regulatory framework, which I believe is in place through ACRE, the varieties listing and the animal welfare declaration, for products brought to market—we will discuss that when we come to the provisions in part 3.

We do not think it is necessary to place restrictions on research using these technologies. We have no evidence to suggest that developers are doing anything that would fall outside the purpose of the Bill. The checks and balances, and the fact that ultimately it can be withdrawn if there is a concern over the technology—that is later in the Bill—give us what we need. We are striving to deliver public good.

As can be seen in the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Environment Act 2021, and in the sustainable farming incentive and environmental land management schemes, we are committed to developing a more sustainable and resilient food system, to ensuring and even enhancing animal health and welfare, and to protecting the environment. Recently, we announced the food strategy, which sets out a plan to make sure that we have a food system fit for the future, with sustainability from farm to fork and from catch to plate. We want to seize the opportunities and ensure everyone has access to nutritious and healthy food.

11 am

We are also committed to funding innovation. We have put over £130 million into joint funding with UK Research and Innovation for food systems research and innovation, £100 million into the UK seafood fund, and £270 million into farming innovation. We have invested £11 million to support new research to drive improvements in understanding the relationship between food and health. In total, that is over half a billion pounds, which should show the level of the Government’s commitment. Through the net zero strategy and the national adaptation programme, the Government have as a top priority mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change. Our commitment to the environment is demonstrated through the 25-year environment plan. The Bill can help with all of that. We see precision breeding as an enabling tool to help us to achieve objectives across these critical areas. Public good is very much embedded in what we are already doing and aligned with the interests of our researchers in the UK, and the checks and balances are there to ensure it.

I will end by restating the principle of the Bill, which is to regulate these technologies more proportionately to their risk. Placing additional regulatory requirements goes against that principle, and against the science and evidence. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We have had an interesting and wide-ranging exchange, which touched on a series of the broader principles behind the Bill.

To respond to the interventions from Government Back Benchers, my concern is that when we look at the power relationships in the food system, we see that farmers and producers are not always in the strongest position. Quite often, they are under pressure, and they will be under particular pressure given the price issues that they face at the moment. Frankly, the people who are looking to invest in these new technologies, particularly the big players, will look for proper returns. That is perfectly proper; it is exactly what we would expect them to do. From the point of view of the individual producers, whether of crops or animals, people further up the chain may, in essence, be saying, “We’ve now got this tool and we want you to use it.” It is pretty clear that a lot of farmers pretty much have to do what they are instructed to do by people further up the chain. Consequently, the question whether something is in the “public good” or not becomes a very difficult one for people who may well want to do the right thing.

It also goes back to my question, which I am afraid the Minister did not address, about herbicide-resistant traits. That has been an issue previously, and we know that not all the developers of these technologies are looking to achieve the wider public good. Sometimes, all they are seeking to achieve is market domination and a significant return for themselves. That is not surprising, because that is what some of them are in business to do. What are we as legislators to do to protect wider society and our producers from that kind of pressure? I am not saying that will necessarily happen immediately, but the danger will be that if there is not any protection against that kind of thing, it can happen.

That is why I genuinely do not understand why the Government would not want this amendment to the clause, because everything the Minister said, which I think all of us would agree with in terms of the potential benefits and the good things that people are trying to do, would all be captured within a public benefit test like the one we propose, and only the things that we would not want to see would be discouraged by it. There is nothing to fear. Perhaps we should have spent more time on this during the evidence sessions, but my understanding is that other jurisdictions have introduced some kind of public benefit test for exactly the reasons I am outlining.

The issue goes right back—and I think we will keep going back to it—to where we started: what kind of regulatory framework we are setting up. At this point, I have to say that I think there is an ideological divide between the Government and Labour. Essentially, this is a highly deregulatory Bill—essentially it is saying, “Leave it to the market”. The market will do what the market will do: pursue the best possible return. Whether that always delivers the right societal return in environmental benefits and so on is a moot point. I think there is a genuine difference of opinion between us. The Opposition are clear that we would include such a public benefit test, because we are not convinced that the proposed framework will always work for the public good.

I will not waste the Committee’s time by having endless, pointless votes. I will withdraw amendment 32, but the Opposition would like a vote on amendment 10, because we think that it is significant. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Release of precision bred organism: notification requirements

Amendment proposed: 10, in Clause 4, page 4, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.—[Daniel Zeichner.]

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

We have moved on at some speed. The clause builds on clause 3 and sets out the requirements for notifying the Secretary of State before a precision bred organism is released into the environment for purposes other than marketing, in particular for field trials.

Under the clause, the Secretary of State has powers to make regulations, establishing the form and content of notices that must be submitted before a trial can take place and the information that must accompany them. That will enable us to tailor what information we ask for, which may be placed on a public register, to ensure that the requirements remain relevant and appropriate.

The clause also allows for regulations to be made establishing who can be specified in a release notice and for a minimum time period to be set between the submission of that notice and when a trial can take place. Regulations made under the clause are subject to the negative procedure. The clause will enable us to develop and expand the proportionate pre-trial notification regime that we introduced earlier this year in respect of plants to all precision bred plants and animals.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Clause 5 concerns restrictions on marketing precision bred organisms in England. I do not have a lot to say about it, other than to explore with the Minister how it will be determined that a precision bred organism is indeed that; this goes back to the earlier, earlier debate.

My understanding is that the determination will be based on the definition, agreed by the Committee, as something edited using modern biotechnology in a way that could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding processes. Can the Minister say more about how it will be determined that the organism could have been produced in that kind of way? What kind of evidence will be sought and how will the whole process work? It is not entirely clear to me from the Bill as written.

[Jo Churchill]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the ACRE process and the guidance from the penultimate evidence giver, Nigel Moore. The ACRE guidance lays out how it will be determined, which is part 1 of the PBO assessment. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the guidance notes because they lay out very specifically and clearly how that will be determined.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I suppose my concern is that this seems to be a very closed world in which a group of eminent and expert people are involved in making judgments. There is no external input. Given that all those people basically work in the same institutes, is it not a rather closed system?

[Jo Churchill]

I believe nomination to ACRE works to the Nolan principles. Yes, those people are eminent, but they are also held in high esteem and regard and have to work to those Nolan principles when acting in the capacity of their position on that committee. It is difficult to unpick who the hon. Gentleman would see as the most qualified, if it is not those who are elected by their peers and go through an appropriate system. They must have the expertise because it is important that those who are determining know what they are doing; otherwise, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, he and I would be a lot less enabled.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I return to a point I made when we discussed the statutory instrument. I am in no way trying to question the integrity of those who sit on those committees. However, when we look at their declaration of interests, almost all—perhaps inevitably—are linked to some of the major industries in the field.

I ask the question again. Does the Minister genuinely believe that the system and set-up will fill the public with confidence or will they look at it and worry?

[Jo Churchill]

I think most people will see it as proportionate and want to have those who are expert in the field making judgments. It is they who will say whether the technology is a PBO and can move forward. The hon. Gentleman’s argument slightly falls down because the issue applies to just about every overarching body, in that they have, by definition, some knowledge of the issue on which they are deciding.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Gareth Johnson.)