Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for tabling her amendments in this group. They all seek to upgrade certain regulation-making powers in the Bill from the negative procedure to the affirmative. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward her concerns about the Henry VIII powers which could be used in this Bill and to which other noble Lords have referred during our discussions.

The main thing for us to raise here is that, once again, we are concerned about the sheer amount of work being left for the months and years after the Bill makes it on to the statute book, and the lack of parliamentary involvement when these instruments are eventually brought forward. During Monday’s debate, the Minister made it clear that it would take years to put the core regulatory structures in place and extend the regime beyond its original focus on crop plants. During this time, there could be significant changes such as new scientific analysis, changes in market conditions, developments in other jurisdictions and shifts in public perception.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the use of the negative procedure. The question then is, would making certain regulations subject to the affirmative procedure guard against all possibilities? It would not, but it would at least provide MPs and Peers with regular opportunities to share their views.

We have already had discussions about the welfare advisory body, including the form it may take and the functions it will fulfil. We know that colleagues across the Committee are understandably anxious about getting this right, yet the proposal is for the Secretary of State to designate key animal welfare responsibilities to an as yet unidentified committee or body through a negative SI.

I will listen to the Minister’s response to these amendments with great interest and hope that, at the very least, we can have more information about this ahead of Report. The power to make consequential provision is a standard inclusion in legislation, but we also accept that drafting often makes the power appear unnecessarily broad. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide any examples of what would or would not be permitted.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have tabled these amendments. Before I reply to them, may I clarify a point I made earlier, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is in his place? When referring to CRISPR-Cas9, I was trying to respond to a point the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made. That technology is fundamental to this Bill, and he was referring to where it took place. Of course, I meant to say that CRISPR will not be used on the farm. It is important to this Bill and will be used in laboratories that will have to be licensed under this mechanism.

Turning to the amendments tabled concerning changes to the parliamentary procedure for making regulations under certain powers in this Bill, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for them, and I reassure her that these powers are administrative in nature and therefore do not require an increased level of parliamentary scrutiny.

Taking Amendment 26 first, the intended purpose of the power in Clause 4 is to prescribe details which are administrative in nature—for example, the types of persons who can be specified in a release notice, or the form such a notice needs to be given in. This is an important function as it will allow the Bill to operate as intended. Unnecessary scrutiny being applied to these administrative regulations through an affirmative procedure could delay the implementation of the Bill and reduce our ability to move quickly towards gaining the significant benefits the Bill has to offer. It would also make it more cumbersome for us to make technical adjustments to the requirements as to the form and content of the release notice and any accompanying information, to reflect developments in technology and industry practice. We do not believe that debating such technical and administrative details would be a beneficial use of parliamentary time.

Turning to Amendment 33, Clause 11 is clear that an application will be required to include

“a declaration that the notifier does not expect the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny to be adversely affected … by any precision bred trait”.

It is also clear in this clause that the application will have to be accompanied by

“an assessment of the risks to the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny”

and an explanation of the steps taken to identify these risks. These key requirements are set out on the face of the Bill. The delegated powers merely allow Ministers to prescribe further details in relation to these applications, which will be more administrative or technical in nature.

Regarding the amendment to Clause 18, I reassure the noble Baroness that a list of matters which could be included on the register is set out in the Bill. This list includes, but is not limited to, information relating to the release and marketing notices, reports from the advisory committees and enforcement notices.

This clause therefore enables information on a wide range of matters relating to precision-bred organisms to be made public, in the interest of transparency and public reassurance. Specific details of the information to be entered in the register are an administrative matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I think “must” is clearly in line with every other sort of legislation in this respect. Indeed, with regard to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, there have been occasions where people have been inspected on a standard inspection and have had their licence removed in consequence because they have not been providing the basic information that is required in the Bill. It is as simple as that. I do not think there should be an argument about it.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for raising an issue with Clause 17 because it gives me an opportunity to clarify its purpose and, I hope, to reassure him and other noble Lords that its intended application is limited. I am able to get passionate about certain subjects from time to time, and in future I will try to channel my inner Rooker when dealing with such matters because it is quite powerful when it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says and will reflect on it. This comes under a number of issues which I would like to engage noble Lords on before Report to see whether any changes are necessary. I would certainly be happy to have further discussions with him.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, much has been said during our debates about the strength of the food and public health measures in the Bill but also about the fact that the Food Standards Agency is going to have a role to play in ensuring that any precision-bred organisms that reach our supermarket shelves are adequately regulated.

Our concern is about the wording as it currently stands because, although it confers on the Government the option to create a provision for regulating the placing on the market of food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms, it does not make that mandatory. In other words, although the Bill makes the regulation of precision-bred food and feed a possibility, it leaves it open to the Government not to take up that power should they not desire to do so.

That is why I have added my name to Amendment 57, of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which would change that subsection’s language from “may” to “must” so that the Government would be mandated to take up the power; it would not be an option—and likewise with her Amendment 58. I thank her for her thorough introduction to her amendments.

We also support Amendment 60, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. This part of the Bill proposes to introduce powers that will empower the FSA to create a proportionate framework for regulating precision-bred organisms. If approved, the framework will form the basis upon which precision-bred food and feed products are to be authorised and placed on the market in England. That is one reason why I tabled Amendment 63; I felt it was important that we understand what preparatory work has been undertaken on the planned food and feed register and whether there is likely to be any further consultation on it.

As my noble friend Lady Jones has said, the FSA is already under financial and resource pressures. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked an important question: what happens, what are the implications, if there are no new resources for the FSA? My noble friend Lord Rooker raised some serious and important points and questions that need to be answered. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to those points.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords and I will start by answering some of the points that were raised. First, I make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords—I think we are all interested in this—that the precautionary principle is at the heart of the Environment Act and our desire to reverse the decline in biodiversity and the tragic loss of species, with no net loss by 2030, and our provisions in the 25-year environment plan. I am not sure that the precautionary principle in recent decades has been particularly well used in relation to what it was originally defined as, and we want to get back to making sure that we are committed to a proportionate, science- based regulation that protects people, animals and the environment.

On the question of the Food Standards Agency and its resourcing, I have had regular meetings with the chair of the FSA and other senior officials as we have progressed this Bill through both Houses, and I have been assured that precision breeding will remain an important area of work now and in future and, as such, the need to meet continuing resource requirements to support that work will be taken fully into account in future spending review bids.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised about a skeleton Bill, I fear that I may excite him again, but I shall say what I believe to be the case. The delegated powers are quite specific and technical in how they are intended to be used, so I would say that this is not a skeleton Bill. It has powers to supplement the principal policy measures that are set out in the Bill. I have some experience in the other place, and in my short time here, of legislation and how it can be Christmas-treed by MPs and others. I want to make sure that this is a precise piece of legislation, with as much in the Bill as can be, and that the powers that lie within it are technical and administrative.

I turn, first, to Amendment 57. As it stands, the Bill grants the necessary power to put in place a new regulatory framework for food and feed produced from precision-bred plants and animals. This will allow the FSA to continue to ensure that the food that we eat is food that we can trust. Until this new regulatory framework is in place, food and feed produced from precision-bred plants and animals will continue to be regulated under the regulatory regime for GM food and feed. So I can assure noble Lords there would not be a regulatory gap in relation to these products as a result of this Bill.

The FSA has published key papers over the past few months, giving details of its proposals on how food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms will be regulated. Noble Lords will also be aware of the support from the FSA board for this Bill and the letters we have received from the chair of the FSA board on this matter. The FSA has commissioned independent scientific advice from the Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes, the FSA’s independent scientific advisory committee, to determine the appropriate means of regulating precision-bred food and feed to ensure that measures are in place to safeguard consumers’ safety in relation to food that they eat. The advice will recommend the criteria for determining how food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms will be assessed. In addition, scientific advice will be provided on the technical information that developers will need to provide to enable assessment under the new framework by the FSA. The Bill should not pre-empt this advice or unduly restrict our ability to implement the most suitable regulatory framework for these products.

Regulations setting up the regime developed by the FSA will also be subject to the affirmative procedure and would therefore need to be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. The FSA is committed to food safety and to developing a system that would be put in place by the Secretary of State, using these powers in a proportionate way that both supports innovation and protects consumers. This will deliver a proportionate regulatory framework.

I turn to Amendment 58 and reassure noble Lords that there are already well-established provisions in existing general food law that secure the traceability of all food and feed throughout the supply chain and assist with its recall or withdrawal from the market when it may be proved unsafe. Businesses producing or marketing food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms will need to comply with this existing law. The Bill gives Ministers the option to impose, by regulations, specific requirements to enhance traceability of food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms beyond existing traceability requirements. This provides flexibility to make adjustments to meet any future needs that are not covered by general food law. The FSA will advise Ministers in this regard and ensure that proposals are subject to a public consultation before any such measures are implemented.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for Amendment 59. The primary policy objective of the Bill is to ensure that plants and animals developed using precision breeding, and food and feed produced from them, are regulated proportionately to risk. To do this, the Bill and the regulations to be made under it would remove precision-bred plants and animals, and food and feed produced from them, from the regulatory requirements applicable to genetically modified organisms. However, I take on board the noble Baroness’s concerns around thorough risk assessment and reassure her that any risk-assessment framework will be based on robust scientific advice provided by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

The provisions in Part 3 of the Bill will allow the FSA to design a framework that adequately responds to the risk profile of precision-bred organisms and provide consumers with food they can trust, based on independent scientific advice. Detailed proposals for the future framework will be subject to full public consultation, as is required under food law, and the detailed scrutiny of Parliament through the affirmative process.

I turn now to the additional amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—Amendment 60. Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the FSA has expanded the expertise of its independent scientific advisory committees to assist with considering the range of possible food safety risks posed by new and existing technologies. This is reflected in the composition of the ACNFP and a new subgroup of that committee, which was formed to consider these issues. This committee can bring in wider experience where specific issues arise.

The FSA is committed to food safety. We have two former chairs of it in this Chamber and they can assert this. It has been active in bolstering the resources of its scientific advisory committees and I am satisfied that they have sufficient resources and expertise to fulfil their intended functions in relation to regulating the placing on the market of food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms, including undertaking risk assessments of food and feed produced by precision-breeding technologies.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I am reluctant to intervene, but there is something I want to ask. Would the Minister agree to provide, by Report, an analysis of the unsung heroes of food safety in this country—the environmental protection people in local government? The FSA works through local government. It audits the activities of food safety in local government. That is the Achilles heel, simply because of the cuts in local government. By Report, could the Minister give us details or produce a factsheet of the latest assessment of the performance of local government food and feed inspection—they tend to forget feed—so we can look at it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I was referring to the capacity of the FSA to have the right information to feed through to precisely the people she is talking about. I am assured that it has the resources necessary to do this.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is also right. The unsung heroes are very often the sometimes underappreciated food safety and trading standards officers in our local authorities. I am wondering—I might have to have a discussion with the noble Lord before Report—whether they would have an application here for precision bred-food. That lies at the heart of what the FSA does and there is a question around whether it goes through to what happens in local authorities. We will come on to talk about labelling in a moment, but I think this traceability element is covered by the FSA. I am not sure how much more work we are going to require of local authorities in order to deliver this, but I am happy to have further discussions with the noble Lord.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I want to follow up on that point. We will come to it in a moment when we discuss labelling, because I will mention it again then, but the pressure on local authorities will be more through trading standards than through environmental health. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised a point about traceability and authenticity, and that is really the job of trading standards and public analysts, with their analytical methods of determining the authenticity of food. That might be where the pressure applies in local authorities, rather than with EHOs.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I was uncertain about the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was making, but I take the noble Lord’s point seriously. In our discussions with the FSA, I will make sure that all actors in this field are engaged and understand their responsibilities.

Lastly, in relation to the amendments to Part 3 of the Bill, I will discuss Amendment 63. The FSA is fully committed to establishing and maintaining a register of food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms in the best possible way. The FSA already maintains similar registers for other regulated products that communicate to stakeholders the decisions made by the Secretary of State to authorise regulated products, including feed additives, smoke flavourings, and GMOs for food and feed uses. The register relating to food and feed from precision-bred organisms will be incorporated into this framework. It will give a comprehensive record of precision-bred organisms authorised for use in food and feed in England.

As I have already laid out, detailed proposals for the register will be included in the new framework for precision-bred organisms. This will be subject to a full public consultation. The consultation findings will be presented to Parliament as part of the full scrutiny process of the affirmative resolution for the resulting draft regulations.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for the opportunity to debate whether Clauses 26, 27, 28 and 29 should stand part of the Bill. We recognise noble Lords’ concerns in these areas. I hope that my words regarding the crucial role and important work that the FSA has and will continue to undertake have provided some reassurance about the importance of these clauses standing part of the Bill. We will of course provide a detailed response to the DPRRC report, having heard the views of noble Lords and having taken into account the valuable detail provided in that report. With that, I hope that I have reassured noble Lords.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and everyone who has taken part, in what is getting to be a fairly late night, for their detailed and forensic examination of this part of the Bill and the proposed amendments.

I do not think that I can add to the debate on Amendment 60 on the resources of the FSA, except to say that we could not possibly have had a better team of people who commented on that. Their concerns should be heard and listened to.

On what the Minister said about the precautionary principle, it is possible that the word “proportionate” in the description is carrying a lot of weight. The question is whether we are talking about proportionate to risk or to the impact on potential profits. None the less, I thank the Minister for his reassurance about the precautionary principle. I should warn him in advance that I suspect that I might quote those words back to him in the future.

I will start with my Amendment 58 on traceability. As the Minister was speaking, I was thinking about a small, independent baker I happen to know, who is based in Nottingham. She is very innovative and doing amazing, exciting work. I do not know this for a fact because I have not discussed it with her, but I think that I can take a reasonable guess that she will be very keen to ensure that she does not end up with any gene-edited crops in her products. She will want to make sure that that is the case so that she can keep a check on these things. We need the traceability, because if things start to go wrong we need to be able to trace where they are going wrong. Traceability is crucial.

It is rather late, and this is something we will come back to. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is far more expert on the whole issue of skeleton Bills than I am so I will not attempt to respond, except to note that he is of course reacting to a highly respected independent committee of your Lordships’ House.

I suspect, particularly with Amendments 57 and 58, that these are issues we might well come back to, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 57.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I will speak very briefly. I have added my name to Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lady Parminter has spoken to Amendment 61. Both noble Baronesses have made very powerful points.

Both amendments deal with labelling, a critical component of ensuring the acceptance of precision-engineered food by the public. It is the public at the end of the day that will make the decision about this. The Food Standards Agency in its recent briefing felt that labelling was not necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said, as the food produced by natural processes would be completely indistinguishable from that which has been precision engineered, and the labelling would be cumbersome and the labels too cluttered. Obviously, I disagree with that.

The consumer has become used to reading labels to see what the allergen content is, what the calories are and how much salt and fat are contained in the product—so why not whether the product contains precision-bred ingredients? We heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that the FSA is under pressure and underfunded. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, set out her amendment clearly, and it is obvious what the rationale is. At some stage, the Government will carry out a review of how the actions permitted in this Bill are progressing, and what the advantages and disadvantages have been. I hope that it will all be positive. However, if there is no clear labelling, the process of review will be deeply flawed, if not impossible to carry out.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to loose potatoes being labelled and that being very difficult—and I have to say that it will be exactly the same as they are at the moment. In the shops, it will say, perhaps, “Arran Pilot” or “Estima”, and underneath it may say, “Contains genetically modified organisms”. It is not difficult for loose produce to be labelled. All precision-bred organisms and food and feed, and the progeny from those organisms, should be labelled from the start of the process, not at some later date in future.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I know that labelling was raised as a concern at Second Reading, and I would like to address those points and discuss our approach to transparency within the Bill.

As I have said before, the Bill is being led by the science. As the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, highlighted, there is currently no method that can categorically determine whether genetic changes to an organism of the kind covered by this Bill have arisen conventionally, or through the application of a precision-breeding method such as genome editing. Precision breeding is another method in our breeding toolbox. To be clear, products from precision-bred plants or animals will contain only genetic changes that could also occur through traditional breeding or naturally. We do not currently label for other breeding methods such as chemical mutagenesis, and we do not label novel foods as novel. If I went out into the street now and asked people whether they would like food that was created by chemical mutagenesis, as noble Lords have said, they would probably say yes—but we have to be absolutely clear what we are talking about here.

The FSA is establishing a separate authorisation process for food and feed derived from precision-bred plants and animals. Through this process the FSA will ensure that all products placed on the market for consumption will be safe. We are not alone in taking this approach on labelling, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, so eloquently said, we are aligning with many of our partners across the world, such as Canada, Japan, Argentina and others, that do not require precision-bred organisms, or food and feed derived from them, to be labelled as such.

For these reasons, we do not think it would be appropriate to require labelling to indicate the use of precision breeding. We understand the importance of transparency and, as I have mentioned, the Bill enables regulations to establish public registers. This will ensure that information about precision-bred plants and animals, and the food and feed produced from them, which can be marketed in England, is in the public domain and can be accessed freely by consumers and food businesses. The intention is that the development of the register of food and feed from precision-bred organisms, and associated information requirements, will be subject to consultation, so there will be further opportunity for stakeholders to feed into this work.

The industry also recognises the importance of transparency. The British Society of Plant Breeders has recently committed to maintaining a public register of all registered plant varieties that have been developed through precision breeding; the society’s registers provide the basis for traceability of agricultural crops.

The issue of allergens was mentioned earlier and was also raised at Second Reading. I understand that consumers will want to know of any compositional changes that may affect them. I want to reassure your Lordships that regulation on the provision of food information to consumers already adequately covers both nutritional and allergen labelling for food products, thus ensuring that consumers have access to the information they need about these matters.

Existing requirements of food law mean that food business operators must have systems and procedures in place to identify businesses they have supplied. This ensures that food can be traced, and any unsafe products recalled. There are also provisions in the Bill that would enable more specific requirements on traceability to be made in relation to food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms through secondary legislation.

Through the Bill we want to create a more proportionate and science-based regulatory regime to encourage greater innovation and industry investment in precision-breeding technologies. I understand the different opinions that may exist on this, but if we are being honest with the public, we have to listen to what the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, said about what we are saying on any label. It would be impossible to differentiate between two food stuffs—one that was produced by traditional means and one that had been produced as a PBO. I hope this has reassured noble Lords on these points.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Contrary to the implication that I made at Second Reading, I am with the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Cameron, here. If you cannot check it, you cannot label it.

There is a fundamental point here—and I quoted the late Professor Burke. I know from experience the very reason the FSA was set up, and the Minister needs to send an edict round his colleagues: we do not want any Minister to ever claim that gene-edited food is safe, because the public will not believe them. That is the reason the FSA is there. It is a pity, because we have some Members of this House who have personal experience of this. They could destroy the food industry. The public will believe the scientists and the officials from the regulatory authorities; there is abundant evidence for that over the last 20 years.

If the Minister wanted to wreck gene editing and the food industry, he would give the nod to Ministers to say, “We’ve got this new policy—it will go down well with the public, and there are a few votes in it. You get down there and tell your local people”. It is fine for Ministers to do what the Minister is doing now—legislating—but they should have no role whatever in promoting and explaining. Legally they have no role, because legally the responsibility is with the Food Standards Agency, but you have to spell that out to Health Ministers—you had to spell it out even to Labour Health Ministers that they had no role. They do not like it, because there are no levers to pull, but it is just one of those things.

However, in terms of confidence for the food industry, which has been restored in the past 20 years after some rocky incidents, it is fundamental that the Minister gets across to his colleagues that Ministers should not pontificate on safety and the other aspects of food. They are going to have to pay for this, by the way, because resources are needed for both the FSA and the other regulators, including the scientific committees, to explain things to the public and defend the situation in a way that the public will believe. They will not believe Ministers; I can tell you that from my own experience. I kept out of it in the horsemeat scandal. I left it to the officials and the scientists. No one was going to believe a hack politician who was previously a Minister. It is true that it was a very difficult situation, but the public will not believe Ministers. It is as simple as that.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I can assure noble Lords that I always trust experts over politicians. I was in Defra at the time of the horsemeat scandal; I entirely endorse what the noble Lord says. As on so many occasions, if you get people who are real experts in their field, they are often able to convey the opinion much more effectively than Ministers. With due humility, I accept the noble Lord’s advice.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all the noble Lords who have contributed to this absolutely crucial debate—in particular, the noble Lords opposite who put so much into it. Given the hour, I will park the debate about Jabal wheat for the moment; perhaps we can have that debate over the Long Table sometime and continue the discussion.

I want to say something very serious and, I must say, concerning. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, both said that it is impossible to identify whether something has been gene edited. I have no doubt that the Minister is operating on the advice that he has received, but I am afraid that that is simply untrue. It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is not in his place; I will attempt to channel him because he would undoubtedly say this better than I am going to.

As an example, I refer to a 2020 article in Theoretical and Applied Genetics by Biswas, Rong et al. Its title is “Effective identification of CRISPR/Cas9-induced and naturally occurred mutations in rice using a multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification-based method”. Let me translate that into English. This article shows how you can identify both the intended and unintended impacts of the use of CRISPR-Cas9, as well as any other mutations that occur independently of the use of CRISPR—in rice, for example.

That is just one example from 2020. Let us look at another example: a commercial practice called the real-time PCR method. I think we have all become familiar with PCR tests during Covid. I have no reason to disbelieve it so I cite what the commercial company says: that this method detects

“what is probably the most challenging class of gene edits—a modification of just a single letter in the genetic blueprint”.

This is the simplest change possible and it is detectable through a PCR test—something with which we are all highly familiar.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Benyon]

64: Clause 29, page 20, line 6, leave out “relevant” and insert “Part 3”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that the reference to a relevant obligation in Clause 29(4)(a) is to a Part 3 obligation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for introducing these amendments. We fully support these proposals.

I would also like to comment on the amendment to Amendment 67, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. What she has done with her Amendment 68 is to aid our discussion and broaden it out. That is an important thing and we should consider it, but, as my noble friend said in her introduction, her amendments would be pretty fundamental to how we move forward with the Bill if the Minister were to accept them. It also brings forward an important way in which the Bill could be improved, and the implementation of the new technologies managed and overseen.

We know that, as my noble friend said, the genetic technology authority that she proposes is modelled on the legislation introduced to establish the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. We heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Winston how successful that has been, so we should consider this extremely seriously. We know that a number of organisations in this field have either argued for or alluded to the need for the establishment of such a body. They include the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Royal Society of Biology and the Royal Society, as well as Doctor Madeleine Campbell of the British Veterinary Association.

There is no need for me to go into the details of why such a body is important, or how it could be set up and operated, as my noble friend has clearly and persuasively laid that out. I say to the Minister that this really seems to be a sensible, proportionate approach that would genuinely strengthen the Bill. I urge him to give it serious consideration and discuss it with his colleagues in the department as we move towards Report on the Bill.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her considered and detailed proposal. As she says, this was raised by her colleague Daniel Zeichner in the other place. I would like to go over some of the key points on why we do not think that a new independent body should be established in the Bill.

We set out our plans for wider reform of genetic technologies regulation in last year’s public consultation and in the subsequent government response. We are taking a stepwise approach to developing a more proportionate governance framework in this area. As part of this, we intend to review how we regulate a wider range of genetic technologies and applications. This wider review is a more appropriate context for discussions on an overarching body, such as a genetic technologies authority. It is also consistent with a recommendation made by the Regulatory Horizons Council.

The Bill has a narrower but important ambition, which is to address the pressing issue of introducing more proportionate regulations for PBOs, which are currently regulated as GMOs. Science is already at the heart of this policy and the Bill rightly requires the Secretary of State to make decisions based on the advice of expert committees. ACRE, the committee that will advise the Secretary of State on whether they should confirm the status of a PBO, is also the committee that currently advises on genetically modified organisms. ACRE has considerable scientific expertise on precision-breeding technologies; indeed, it first advised on these techniques in 2013. This formed the basis for our intervention in a pivotal European Court of Justice case in 2018, and for the consultation that we held on the regulation of genetic technologies last year.

More recently, ACRE published technical guidance on the distinction between genetic changes that could have occurred naturally, or through the use of traditional breeding methods, and those that could not. This was warmly received by its target audience—that is, those planning to carry out field trials with plants developed using these technologies.

The guidance supported an SI that came into force in April. This was the first step to making regulations in this area more proportionate. This guidance and the scientific rationale behind it will be directly relevant to the advice required by the Secretary of State to confirm the precision-bred status of an organism before it can be marketed in England as laid out in the Bill.

We anticipate that ACRE may need to appoint or co-opt new members to fulfil its additional responsibilities. However, it is already populated by many scientific experts in the relevant fields. The chair of ACRE, Professor Dunwell, works closely with Defra and with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the committee has the necessary expertise to deliver the highest quality advice and guidance. Noble Lords will also see in ACRE’s framework document that many of the criteria listed in the proposed new schedule are included in it. These include publishing annual reports, advice and guidance.

I thank noble Lords for their detailed considerations on this topic, but I hope I have convincingly set out that it is not appropriate to establish a new independent body in the Bill. I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness. I thank noble Lords for their persistence and the calibre of the debate we have had on these two days. I hope I can convince the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I am not going to make a substantive contribution at this point. I echo the Minister and say that this has been a rich debate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, and hand over to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Benyon]

81: Clause 44, page 29, line 2, at end insert “(but see section 11(9))”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a reminder into the definition of “notifier” (which is defined in relation to a marketing notice) that where a different person applies for a precision bred animal marketing authorisation, the meaning can be modified by regulations under Clause 11(9) in relation to the application and the authorisation.