Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I rise to support both amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She asked the Minister two excellent questions: first, we have a chair for the animal welfare sentience committee, but when are we going to get the rest of the members? Will it be before Christmas? Her second excellent question was: when are we going to see the environmental principles policy statement, because we still have not got it? When the Secretary of State came before my committee a couple of weeks ago, there was the usual—how should one put it?—open-ended commitment to when it might come.

This is becoming a major issue in this House. It is not just an issue for this Bill, where there is a direct correlation between the duties that Ministers would have to follow if the environmental principles policy statement was in place, but for every other piece of legislation that we are looking at. I see the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his place. We have been debating the issue of the Procurement Bill. Billions of pounds of government money is spent every year on procurement and, as it stands at the moment, there is no obligation on Ministers to take into account the targets that this Government say they want to deliver, because the EPPS is not in its place.

The reason I particularly want to pick up on this, rather than just to have a rant, is to say that it is not just a question of when the EPPS is laid. What is the Government’s thinking about the delay that they then wish to put in place between that and when the Ministers have to have due regard to it? They have said consistently that, once it is laid, the Government will allow a time for Ministers to prepare themselves to undertake these requirements to have regard to the environmental principles. So when are we going to get the draft EPPS? Are we going to get it before Christmas?

Secondly, have the Government come to a fixed view about the delay between once it is laid and when it will be binding on Ministers? If it is going to be more than a year before it is binding on Ministers, it is not just this Bill, the Procurement Bill and others, but a host of other Bills where the Government say they are committed to their environmental principles but there is no binding commitment on Ministers to have to account for that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to follow up very briefly on the two noble Baronesses’ excellent contributions. I have a simple question, which goes back to the earlier amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about what the role of the animal welfare committee might be. At that time, the Minister who replied said, “Well, it could be a new committee or an existing committee”. My question now is: have we decided whether it is going to be the animal sentience committee? All the discussion seems to be around that, but we have no certainty. It could be a completely different committee, so we might be chasing a rabbit here that is going in the wrong direction because the Government have something else in mind. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what committee it will be, and when we will know.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is similar to amendments put forward during Committee and Report in the other place. As the Government explained then, the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act received Royal Assent this April and we are actively working to establish the animal sentience committee. As my noble friend the Minister said, the chair, Michael Seals, has already been appointed and further appointments will be announced shortly. It will be for the committee to agree its workplan and timescales; this will be its priority.

We expect it will be some years before precision-bred animals are brought to market so, de facto, the animal sentience committee will be established more than 12 months prior to the first precision-bred animals coming to market. The Government were also clear during the passage of the sentience legislation that we would not dictate the animal sentience committee’s workplan. It will be for the committee, once established, to decide which policy decisions it wants to scrutinise, and its expert members will be best placed to know where they can add value.

In response to Amendment 79, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman, the Government have a strong record of commitment to the environment and with this Bill we are continuing to uphold that tradition. The provisions in it do not have the effect of weakening or reducing environmental protections; in fact, quite the opposite. Section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 provides that Ministers must

“have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles”.

Defra has already published and laid a draft version of this statement before Parliament for a debate.

We have considered the feedback from parliamentary scrutiny of the draft policy statement that concluded in June. We hope to agree the final policy statement in the coming weeks and to publish it in early 2023. Once the final policy statement is laid before Parliament and published, there will be an implementation period to allow departments to prepare for the duty before it comes into force. As we are making good progress in this regard, the amendment proposed will not be needed by the time that regulations under the Bill come into force.

In line with the requirements in Section 20 of the Environment Act 2021, we have reviewed whether the Bill reduces current environmental protections. As part of this process, we have considered scientific advice provided by independent scientific experts such as ACRE, the Royal Society of Biology and the Roslin Institute. They concluded that plants and animals developed through precision breeding pose no greater threat to the environment compared with those developed through traditional breeding, so long as the traits they possess are in line with those that could arise naturally. This is in line with the key scientific principle that it is the overall genotype and phenotype of an organism that describe risk, not the method by which it was produced. Based on this assessment, we have concluded that the Bill does not reduce current environmental protections. This also aligns the Bill with our non-regression commitment to the EU on environmental protection.

ACRE will be conducting case-by-case assessments of any precision-bred organism before it enters the market to ensure that any genetic changes made could have occurred through natural breeding or natural transformation. Provided the plant or animal passes this assessment, the risk is considered the same as if it were produced using traditional processes. As I have mentioned, in countries that have already taken a more proportionate approach, a wider range of different traits have been developed. Many of these could have positive impacts on the environment.

I emphasise that the EU itself intends to reform its own regulatory system for plants to make it more proportionate, as early as 2023. The initial results are telling, as

“four out of five (1732; 79%) participants in the consultation found that the existing provisions of the GMO legislation are not adequate”.

I hope I have provided some clarity to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 58 and 59, which are also in my name, and very briefly to the others in this group. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman of Ullock, for offering their support for Amendments 57 and 58.

Regarding the other amendments in this group, we have not heard their introductions yet, but I look forward to hearing from all the noble Lords who have tabled them. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has identified the need for the FSA to have adequate resources, which is something we often butt up against in this House as we see the Government failing to deliver on their legal requirements. The Minister’s answer regarding the food and feed register in the probing amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will be very interesting. We also owe a special vote of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who I understand is doing sterling Sherpa work for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

In some ways, my three amendments overlap with the next group, in that they address being able to regulate to ensure that we can trace and identify so-called precision-bred organisms and products from them. This and labelling very much go together.

It is interesting to look at some of the public views on this. The Food Standards Agency study, Consumer perceptions of genome edited food, published in July 2021, found that 77% of those questioned said that it would be “very important” when buying a food item to know that it has been precision bred. It was very important to have this knowledge before purchase. We cannot label such items unless we can trace them. Here, we have the question of giving the public certainty. If those who wish to promote this technology and its release are going to get public acceptance, there has to be traceability. Thinking about what has happened with so many issues in our food system—the horsemeat scandal, for example—if there is not traceability, people do not have the trust. People now expect that traceability.

It is also worth pointing out, as does the Soil Association’s briefing on the Bill, that not mandating traceability or labelling risks creating a major barrier to UK trade. The Government have said that they expect the EU to update accordingly but, of course, we do not know what will happen; the EU may well adopt a more restrictive scientific approach to defining which organisms might not be considered GMOs. This would be disastrous for exports. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said earlier when discussing the internal market and relations between the nations, if there are no mechanisms in place to ensure traceability and separation, organic businesses in particular are likely to suffer severe disruption, or even complete refusal from EU countries and other countries to import products. I am aware that noble Lords may think that, when they walk into a UK supermarket, they do not see that much organic produce. In many continental countries, if they walk into a supermarket they will of course find vastly more organic products. That is an increasingly determined part of the market. This is a really key issue. Some of the farmers who are taking many of the most innovative and exciting agroecological steps are our organic farmers.

We have three amendments here, the first two being part of the perhaps slightly dreaded debate on “may” versus “must”. The first amendment says that there must be regulation; it is clear that there is public desire for that, and also a strong argument if you want only to argue for money. The second refers to “may”, “must” and “is”; there must be marketing authorisation and the securing of traceability. Then, in Amendment 59, we essentially come back to risk assessments. This revives the debates that we have already had, so it is perhaps not worth going back over them at great length, but the issue of risk was raised very clearly and stressed in the first contribution today from the noble Lord, Lord Winston.

Following on to a degree from the previous question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I refer to Amendment 59. Where has the precautionary principle gone? I would very much like the Minister to set out where the Government now place the precautionary principle; it would be interesting to know. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 60 in this group is in my name; I will speak to it relatively briefly.

First, I thank the chair of the FSA, Professor Susan Jebb, for her helpful meeting with Peers about this Bill last week. We covered a number of issues including labelling, safety and enforceability. I listened carefully to her advice, which was extremely helpful.

However, this amendment raises concerns about the resources and capacity of the FSA to take on the additional functions envisaged in the Bill. It is a probing amendment. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister that the FSA is in a good position to meet the demands set out in this Bill in a meticulous and timely fashion. I raise this because we know that, like many public bodies, the FSA is not in a great position financially. At its last meeting, the CEO reported that, although the budget for next year would not be cut, there would be no extra money for inflation; as we know, that is in effect a cut in income. She also reported that staff are feeling overwhelmed by the relentless pace of and increase in different demands.

As a result, the FSA has already identified key areas of its existing work to be reduced, paused or stopped. My own union, UNISON, is already reporting that the FSA is removing many daily meat inspections in abattoirs, for example. The sector is facing huge food safety challenges, for example from the fall in the number of inspections of food businesses and the ongoing delay in establishing proper import controls for high-risk food and feed from the EU. These are all pressures with which the FSA is already grappling. Incidentally, it is also having to divert resources to assess 150 pieces of EU legislation before the retained EU law deadline of December 2023.

My question for the Minister is a genuine one: in the light of all these diverse pressures and the fact that there does not seem to be any more money around, can he assure us that the FSA has sufficient resources and in-house expertise to take on another complex regulatory role when it already faces so many challenges? I look forward to his response.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for allowing me to ask a brief question. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked an important question about resources for the Food Standards Agency. The noble Lord and I are both former chairs, so we know a bit about how it operates. I will add a little twist to the question. If the FSA will not be given additional resources to fulfil these duties which we envisage in relation to this Bill, can the Minister tell us which activities the FSA will have to stop to re-divert resources for precision breeding?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I have something to add to that, very briefly. I hear the Minister when he says that there is a scientific committee overseeing this, but we are talking about the scientists who will do the day-to-day work. Every time a request comes in, it is they who will have to do the graft of research and analysis. There might be people to give an overview but are there the people on the ground to do the work?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

67: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“The Genetic Technology Authority(1) There is to be a body corporate called the Genetic Technology Authority.(2) The Authority is to consist of—(a) a chair and deputy chair, and(b) such number of other members as the Secretary of State appoints.(3) The Schedule deals with the membership of the Authority, etc.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very conscious that I am in the graveyard slot, but I hope that noble Lords who remain here will bear with me, because the amendments I have tabled are fundamental to where the Bill has lost its way and would produce a useful solution. I also welcome the very helpful Amendment 68 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

Amendments 67, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 90 are in my name. All of them, although it is a lot of paperwork, have quite a simple intent: to establish a separate body to oversee the wider ethical and regulatory challenges which the fast pace of genetic, scientific progress is throwing up. This proposal was initially floated by my colleague Daniel Zeichner in the Commons. I have tabled it again because I did not feel it had sufficient attention in the Commons. I continue to believe that it raises an important principle and an important way forward which I hope the Government might consider embracing.

As Daniel explained in the Commons, it is modelled on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which has managed to maintain a hugely respected and authoritative voice in the field of human genetics. Its inclusion in this Bill meets the call from many of the respected scientific bodies which gave evidence to the Commons, calling for a body to oversee the implications of wider trends in research, rather than looking at each case in isolation. It would therefore be able to make recommendations for broader policy changes. Organisations such as the Royal Society and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics made that point.

These amendments also address an important point made by several noble Lords at Second Reading. It is important that the regulators look at outcomes and not processes. What we have here is process driven. We need to look at the end result of all the proposed changes. We believe that an authority with a wider remit, as set out in these amendments, would do just that. Such a body could also provide a forum for a wider review of genetic technology, which could include GMOs, the regulation of which is increasingly out of step with the provisions in this Bill.

I have a fundamental concern about the processes set out in this Bill, because they create an enormous paper trail of notifications between the Secretary of State, the advisory committee and the welfare advisory committee—not to mention the Food Standards Agency and potentially the Home Office, as we have been hearing today—without anybody taking a strategic overview of the risks and impacts taking place. All of these organisations, including Defra itself, are facing real-terms cuts in budgets. I am not convinced they will have the capacity to follow the bureaucracy being created with any real rigour. The Minister in an earlier debate referred to his flow chart; he waved it at us very proudly. I counted 12 touchpoints on that flow of contacts where information was being received and passed on. We are in danger of dropping the ball and missing a hugely risky scientific intervention getting buried in that paper trail.

The inclusion of animals in this Bill has made the case for such a body far more stark because, as we have been debating, public attitudes to animal welfare are changing over time. We are, for example, much more determined to ensure that farmed animals have a good life, as far as that is able to be delivered. Genetic engineering impacts need to be measured against changing public perceptions—not just the welfare issues at the time but future public perceptions of what a good life is for a farmed animal.

We also need to take a long-term view of those impacts, which are sometimes unforeseen, as we were debating earlier; they do not show up immediately. On other occasions, the cumulative effect of mutations might result in welfare or environmental harms that are not easily measured at the time of an individual approval. Under the current arrangements, who is taking the longer view? How can we be sure that our policies continue to match the science?

Our organisation and new authority could also give advice on how research information could be shared to ensure that there is a level playing field in knowledge acquisition among public and private bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 68 (to Amendment 67) withdrawn.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister. I will read his comments in Hansard in detail, but I have to say that he did not address the fundamental concerns that I have flagged up about the process issues. We have created a huge conglomerate of different organisations with different responsibilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, it is not at all clear how they will all ultimately relate to each other, so questions remain about that.

The Minister talked about the wider review. He said there was a recommendation from, I think, the Regulatory Horizons Council and that this was one of the proposals that it had put forward. I would be interested to hear more about that, especially if the Minister can say that this proposal will therefore be dealt with in another forum, not necessarily in the Bill. I would be interested to know—not necessarily today, because I am sure we all want to wrap up, but at some point—whether those recommendations are going to be taken on board.

There is not a meeting of minds here. I feel strongly that the amendment answers a lot of the concerns that we have been debating throughout the consideration of the Bill so far, so I intend to come back to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I thank noble Lords and the Minister. I agree with everyone that we have had a very worthwhile debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.