Engineering Biology (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I too was pleased to have been a member of the committee that produced this report on an important issue that was so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. I declare my environmental and higher education interests, as listed in the register.

I shall touch on two issues that may not have been touched on by others. First, our report emphasised the need to scale up, and scale up fast, if we are not to lose our place in world markets. There has been a range of estimates of what size of scale-up is possible, but it is not clear from many of them on what basis that has been calculated. One could say that visionary—but perhaps on occasions rather wild—claims are made about engineering biology replacing, for example, all fossil fuel-based materials, which would be a massive transformation.

We have not yet seen enough examination of what it is that is being engineered. What are the feedstocks? It is clear that our ability to depend on feedstocks grown or produced in this country is to some extent limited, particularly for those feedstocks that rely on production on the land. The Government have just finished consulting on a land use framework for England, which was needed to ensure that wiser choices are made about competing land uses. Engineering biology would be another competing pressure for land on a huge scale, if some of the visionary ways forward were made reality. That is land that is finite on this small island. Of course, major growth in engineering biology could potentially take up the whole harvestable land surface, which will be in competition with food security, timber supplies, biodiversity, housing, the view—practically any other land use that you care to mention, and I name but a few.

Importing feedstocks on a substantial scale would also pose challenges. It could leave us subject to external shocks, as we have seen already in recent years. Alternative sources of feedstocks lie in the materials that we already use being repurposed as part of the circular economy. That may, for some engineering biology activities, be a fairly secure and valuable part of our use of materials at the moment, but we need to see the circular economy strategy so we can judge whether it takes into account the potential of engineering biology and takes it forward as part of the circular economy scene.

Since the Government have not yet commissioned an analysis of feedstocks and their sourcing, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether they will now do so, taking account of those three sources: homegrown, imported and circular economy-based feedstocks. Otherwise, if securing those feedstocks is not part of what they are trying to do, it simply looks as though the Government are not serious about upscaling. Can the Minister tell us when we will see the circular economy strategy? Will it deal with the feedstock issue?

If substantial land-based feedstocks are envisaged, Natural England should be included in the regulatory arrangements to ensure that land use and biodiversity impacts are not forgotten, as they were in the GMO debate, during which I was proud to be on the opposite side of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in his new regulatory role, is listening. Natural England is not currently a member of the Engineering Biology Regulators Network.

My last point, which I have 20 seconds to deal with, concerns the lack of a reliable process internationally for the screening of sequences of concern, and potential misuse of the technology. We have had guidance, but guidance is not enough. The Government said that they would consider putting screening on a statutory footing. What is the timescale of this consideration? What steps are we taking to develop international consensus on the need for screening for sequences of concern?

King’s Speech (4th Day)

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my various environmental interests and as chair of the Royal Veterinary College, which runs the London BioScience Innovation Centre, the first bioscience innovation centre London has ever had.

I decided not to speak in the environment section of the King’s Speech debate because I thought it was more important to say environmental things to Ministers for the economy, for growth and for infrastructure. Climate change, the environment, biodiversity and nature recovery are all central to the UK’s future economic growth.

I have three things to say. First, clean energy technology and other environmental technologies will be vital to the UK’s response to climate change. But that is not all they are: they are also key industries for the future in which we can compete internationally and create jobs and growth. My noble friend Lord Vallance said, quite rightly, that the UK’s science base was world class, but over the past few years we have lagged seriously behind in bringing innovation to market. Investment in green innovation technology and jobs can reverse that and I welcome those elements of the King’s Speech that talk about investment measures.

We need to take seriously, as part of this process, the concerns that have been raised by Universities UK and all our universities about the ongoing financial viability of the important university sector in delivering both science and skills for growth. Our UK growth potential is about technologies not just for carbon reduction and climate change mitigation but for adapting to the impacts of climate change that are so clearly already happening worldwide. Basically, it is getting hotter and wetter. The global insurance industry has been warning about this for a long time, saying that huge costs lie down the road. But huge costs mean huge market opportunities, so the UK should use its science excellence to devise solutions to the impacts of climate change globally, not only helping international communities but developing new UK international businesses and promoting growth.

Secondly, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Government were right to identify that changes are needed to the way we do things if we are to achieve a step change in growth and I welcome the enhancements to the Crown Estate’s powers and the planning and infrastructure Bill—although much will lie in the detail.

Nationally important infrastructure and new housing and energy developments need to happen faster, but they also need to maintain the ecosystems on which a thriving economy depends. They also have to embrace nature-based solutions. Although I hesitate to use any American phraseology when it is clear that US politics cannot currently walk, talk and chew gum simultaneously, we need to learn to be able to do just that, in order to deliver for both growth and the environment at the same time. It is not either/or but both/and.

The third thing I will talk about is the potential for stoking up conflict. Infrastructure and other planning decisions may well need to be made centrally to ensure that they do not get mired in local opposition, but we must not assume that that central decision-making will make the opposition go away. Government needs tools and mechanisms to enable local engagement and dialogue if we are not to feel the flames from umpteen disgruntled local communities. In my experience, that is a very quick way to lose a majority.

This is where my oft-touted land use framework comes in—I have actually got to three minutes and thirty-nine seconds before mentioning it. The heated debate over the location of infrastructure and housing is just one element of a multiply heated debate about wider competing priorities for land use—not just infrastructure and housing but land for food security, flood risk management, carbon reduction, nature-based solutions and protecting our water supplies and rivers for recreation and health. A land use framework, to which I understand the Government are committed—I would like that confirmed—should develop principles that would allow us, as a nation and locally, to optimise the use of the scarce resources that land represents and make more rational decisions about what goes where. Vitally, it would also offer a conflict resolution process, promoting national and local engagement and dialogue around competing land uses and enabling stakeholders and communities to feel “done with” rather than “done to”. That is vital for economic growth.

I will give one example before the wrath of the Chief Whip falls on me. Communities offered starter homes for their kids, community energy schemes with cheaper electricity and local nature-rich areas can see a benefit to themselves of housing developments or solar and wind farms—or even nuclear power stations—but they need to be given that rounded picture of what land is for and where they lie in the beneficiary tree. So “doing with” and not “doing to” is vital for growth.

I will also incur the wrath of the Chief Whip by saying that I want a land use commission to run this process and, ideally, I would like to chair it.