Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Bridgen]

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

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our witnesses. I would like to go straight into a real-world example. One example cited of a possible real benefit is in the sugar beet sector. I come from the east of England; I am sure you are familiar with the issues in that region about neonicotinoids, virus yellows and so on. Could you talk us through the potential there, but also comment on the issues that might arise in trade terms if our friends, our European partners, take a different view and what the risks might be?

David Exwood: Virus yellows in beet is something carried by aphids into the sugar beet crop in the spring and it can have a dramatic effect on yield. We saw two years ago reductions of up to 80% in the beet yield in affected fields. So that is a real-life example of a pest that can dramatically affect the productivity of a crop. We produce about 1 million tonnes of sugar beet in this country each year, and that can be dramatically reduced through virus yellows.

Through precision breeding, we have the ability to breed in genes resistant to virus yellows so that the plant just will not be impacted and all the issues of neonicotinoids and using synthetic insecticides to try to control the aphids and control the impact of virus yellows will disappear. That is a real gain in an industry that clearly needs support and could be really impacted. That is the really clear gain and potential of this technology that the Bill will allow. And there is the point about the sustainability of that business. It is such a concentrated business in a certain area of the country.

To move on to the trade environment, this technology absolutely has to be one that is used widely. I am really clear that the EU is moving on gene editing and precision breeding; it is very clear about that. Actually, my greatest worry is that the UK gets left behind on this technology. The rest of the world is moving, and we need to move with it. We absolutely live, work and trade in a European environment and a world environment, but, given that the EU is moving, my concern is more that we get left behind, rather than us moving ahead of them and nobody coming with us.

Dr Ferrier: Obviously, it is very difficult to predict, but the indications from companies are that, should this legislative change happen, it would be at least five years before products start come on to the market for farmers and growers to use. Clearly, the international trade impacts will depend on the harmonisation across trading partners in terms of the legislation in their jurisdictions. I believe that within the period necessary for those products to come on stream commercially, there will be much more harmonisation. As David said, that will also happen in the EU, which plans a legislative proposal by quarter 2 of 2023. We are not concerned about imminent trade issues, because no products are available for us to use at the moment.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q It starts to answer it, yes. I have the technical guidance from ACRE in front of me, which I will pursue with a subsequent witness. Most of us have understood that the Bill has been brought forward in order to preclude the inclusion of exogenous material. However, I think from what you are telling us that the Bill, as drafted, does not do that.

Professor Henderson: The Bill is designed to exclude the intentional inclusion of exogenous material, or the residual accidental inclusion that has any outcome that matters. That is probably the shortest way of summarising it. If there happens to be a bit of exogenous material in there that is similar to what might happen through the natural breeding process, or entirely naturally, but it has no functional outcome—no phenotypic change on the crop or the livestock—that is not considered an issue. Any intentional or accidental change that leads to a phenotypic outcome—the crop being different in a way that could not have been possible through traditional breeding—is not allowed under the terms of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I think we will probably be coming back to that as we discuss the Bill line by line. Finally, what is your definition of the difference between what you have just described and a GMO?

Professor Henderson: GMO is a broad church of definition. A thing that is clearly outside of the terms of the Bill is the intentional insertion of a transgene—genes from another species—in order to create the effect that you wanted. That would be in order to make the product different in some way by bringing in an—[Inaudible.]

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q It is beginning to sound to me like the difference will come down to whether it is intentional or unintentional.

Professor Henderson: It is to do with intentionality, but it is also to do with the outcome—[Inaudible.]

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are losing you, but I get the drift. I will leave it there.

[The Chair]

Professor Henderson, I do not know if you can hear me, but you are frozen on our screen.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Could you say a little bit more about distinctions between the new nutritional labelling and the other labelling? I think that is important for the Committee to understand.

Professor May: Labelling in the UK is quite a complex system. There are different legislative responsibilities in the different devolved Administrations, for instance. Broadly speaking, there are a whole variety of things, as we know, on a food label. The most obvious that most of us look at are things such as calories, fat content and salt content. There are very tight legal guidelines around what must be present on the label and that it must be accurate. Clearly, if you say that it contains 6 grams of salt and it contains 7 grams, that is not legal.

That holds also for other aspects. There are safety aspects of labelling, such as allergen information, which is critical for many of us, and country of origin. Then there are a raft of labels that may not have a legal framework, but which have recognition under guidelines—Red Tractor and animal welfare standards, those kinds of things. There is quite a lot on the label already. Under the current legislation, any food that is approved as a genetically modified food is labelled as such.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q May I press you on one final example that has been brought to my attention? It is one of a tomato that could be genetically edited to boost vitamin D content, for instance, and then the cases where some people sadly have an issue with vitamin D. Is there a danger that we could end up not alerting those people to those problems if we do not label properly?

Professor May: That is a good example of somewhere where I think we would have a different approach. Just to go back on the approach we are currently proposing—I stress that there is nothing set in stone yet. This is an approach that we are working quite closely on with our advisory committee on novel foods and processes to develop firm guidelines. At the moment, our thinking is around this two-tier process. Tier 1, for instance, would be foods where there is no compositional change in the thing you eat. A strawberry with a different root system, but the strawberry itself is identical, would not need substantial regulation. In contrast, with the vitamin D tomato that you mentioned, the thing you eat is now different; there is vitamin D in there. Those would be risk assessed and under that risk assessment the key issue there would be one of safety.

In an example such as that one, where there may be a subset of the population for whom this is dangerous, absolutely, we would incorporate that into the risk assessment and our guidance to Ministers then would be that it would be entirely right and appropriate to label that food, possibly with a label that says, “Not suitable for certain groups.” You could imagine a scenario where a food is not suitable for pregnant women, for example, and we would certainly stand strong on the fact that the bottom line is that the food needs to be as safe as it is today. Anything that might compromise safety should clearly be labelled as such.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q All that is very interesting and very good, but I do not actually see that this is covered in the Bill as it stands. This is all going to have to follow through secondary legislation, is it not?

Professor May: That is correct. At the moment, part 3 of the Bill encompasses the direction of travel, but not the details. That is something we are working on at the moment.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Food Standards Scotland produced a paper in March of this year that pointed out potential for regulatory divergence between the four nations of the UK and that the Bill could result in Ministers in England taking decisions on the approval of genome-edited food and food products with little or no involvement from Food Standards Scotland or, indeed, Ministers in Scotland. It is an independent authority, as you know. Can you tell us how that relationship will be approached and managed, if the Bill becomes an Act?

Professor May: Happily, I am here as a scientist, so I can say that, scientifically, we have an extremely close working relationship with FSS and other regulators around the world, but the closest is with FSS.

If I give an example, at the moment, risk assessments that we might do in FSA are shared very closely with FSS. All that process is done together. Often we are using the same sets of experts—for example, to provide information. Once the risk assessment is done, it passes to a risk management process. I cannot think of an example where there is a difference in the risk assessment part between nations, because the science is the science.

Where there are sometimes differences is in the risk management area. A current example is raw drinking milk, because the science around the risks of drinking such milk is the same, but England and Scotland have different views on how much risk is acceptable. Under this framework, I would fully intend that we would share all the science around the risk assessments of a precision-bred product. Ultimately, though, the decision on a risk management basis and whether to authorise it would fall to Ministers in each of the individual countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Q To what extent would it be your responsibility to intervene in the event of misinformation? We are particularly concerned now about online misinformation.

Professor May: That depends very much on the type of misinformation. Local authorities usually enforce in that area. When a product is not what it says it is, for instance, it gets seized or withdrawn from retailers at local authority level. We issue alerts, and we have a national food crime unit that is very actively involved in looking at deliberate crime in the food sector, including people selling things that should not be sold or that are misrepresented. We also do quite a lot in the detection and enforcement of large-scale issues, including supply chain problems, incorrect labelling and so on.

In the case of precision breeding, it will clearly depend on what Parliament decides, but if there were a regulation on labelling, we would need to look carefully at how that responsibility goes out to the different regulators. We would undoubtedly have a view, and we would issue information for local authorities to enforce on what should and should not be on a label.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I have two sets of questions. First, I want to go back to labelling, because I have been mulling over your response. Is the objection to labelling the two apples that you cannot, at the moment, have a test to tell them apart? Is that, in principle, the reason for not labelling, or is there another reason?

Professor May: That is exactly right. As the legislation stands, you might introduce what is called a single base pair chain—a tiny, one letter change in the DNA code of that apple. Those single letter changes happen all the time. If you have a field of apple trees, they will all be slightly different, even if you cloned them all initially, so we would not be able to take that apple, sequence the DNA and definitively say, “This one was created by someone using genome editing, and this one just turned up by chance in the field.” As you cannot tell those two apples apart, if there were a label on one saying “Precision bred” and a label on the other saying “Not precision bred”, I could not, as a scientist, say that that was true. That therefore raises questions in my head about why you would have a label if you cannot be sure, in the first place, that what it says is true.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I get that, but if there were a genetic marker that you could identify, would that give you a mechanism for doing that?

Professor May: In principle. There are ways that you might do that. One way that some developers are thinking of—in the context of protecting their intellectual property—is to make that single letter change in a background of lots and lots of other single letter changes that you already know, as a kind of barcode. Then, the concept would be to mount a defence, so that if someone steals my apple, I would be able to say, “But this apple that you are selling has that single letter change, and the other 15, all of which were in my original stock apple, so this is my apple, not yours.”

That is a reasonably good way of protecting intellectual property if you are trying to claim that something is yours. It is very difficult to use that the other way around and say, “That is definitely precision bred.” I could be growing my apples and say that those 15 changes occurred spontaneously. Again, it is not currently possible to say definitively that they cannot have appeared naturally.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Thank you, that is helpful. My second question is about the register established by the Bill, which the Food Standards Agency is required to maintain. The Bill is fairly light on explanation as to the purpose of the register. Could you explain what you think its purpose is and who is likely to use it?

Professor May: The idea behind the register is to have a public awareness of the products that are going through this pathway and are ultimately out on the market, in a similar way to the public registration of foods at the moment. To take a current example, if you applied to us with a novel food, you would apply with a dossier of data that says, “This is the food. This is how I produced it. Here is how I have considered safety risks.” At the point that we say the dossier is complete and sufficient for us to consider, we publish and say, “This company has put its proposal in. We are now considering that product.” In the fullness of time, we will either recommend approval or not for that product. If we recommend approval, that will get registered publicly as well, so people can see what this novel food is and where it came from, and be reassured that there has been a due process behind it.

My view as a scientist is that this should be the same for precision breeding. We should have a register that says, “Here is a product that has been considered. We have looked at it; it hasn’t rocked up without any kind of due diligence around it.” It is there in the public domain for people to see what process it has gone through and be reassured that those products have had some level of scrutiny.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I am slightly sceptical here. I imagine one of my constituents going into a garage and buying a chocolate bar that was produced with some genetically edited sugar grown in eastern England. I am not convinced that they would check the public register to find out whether that product had been produced in this kind of way. Is the register really aimed at consumers?

Professor May: It is aimed at some consumers, and that is true now. On average, most of us spend less than six seconds considering each food item we purchase in the supermarket, which is not enough time to consider the label. Some consumers, depending on their concerns, spend more time looking at labels. If you are an allergen sufferer, you spend a lot of time looking for allergens. If you are a vegetarian, you check that the label says it is vegetarian. We know most consumers are a bit uninterested in some of these issues, so they probably will not stop in that garage and check whether the product is on the register or not, but there will be some consumers who have strong views on this, and they may or may not wish to purchase something accordingly. It is important that the information is available for them, so that they can pause if they want to and find out. Even if most people do not, it is available, should they wish to do so.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q But that is the difference between having it on a label and on a register, isn’t it? A register requires a bigger effort to check, frankly.

Professor May: There is a slight threshold—yes, that is true. That is not unique to precision breeding. People are quite rightly demanding more and more information about their food. The labels are not getting any bigger, and certainly my eyesight is getting worse, so there is already a shift, and we see that. Many of us are doing more and more of our purchasing online. We actually never look at the sticky label on the food item because it is on a webpage instead. People are getting more used to looking elsewhere for information, so it is not the hurdle it used to be. You are quite right: there is a limit on how much we can fit on a physical label, and it is jostling for space with allergen, nutritional and the country of origin information, so there is limited real estate on the back of the label to get this information across.

[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 ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q That is helpful. The problem that I and others have with the Bill is that it was explained to us at the outset as addressing a particular issue—allowing gene editing within one specific species. The assurance given was that it would not open the door to transgenic material being introduced, but I have to say that from hearing the evidence of you and others this morning, and from looking at the Bill, I am not entirely sure that is what it does.

I want to press you a bit further on some of these vexed issues of definition. We have “precision bred organism”, “qualifying higher plant”, and the EU now has “new genetic techniques”. We have three new definitions, which the learned societies have suggested in their evidence do not really mean very much. I may be being slightly unkind, but they are not very precise in their definition. The evidence that your committee, ACRE, produced to give guidance, which unfortunately came after the statutory instrument a few months ago, makes for very interesting reading. I will not read it all out—I assure you, Mr Stringer—but it is a very nuanced account of how you might go about coming to conclusions about what any of these things are, but it lacks precision and certainty. As legislators, we are trying to put into a Bill some fairly precise definitions. Am I wrong about that?

Professor Dunwell: No, it is a nuanced approach. It is nuanced because it takes account of the developing science. That is something that our committee does; part of the responsibility of all committees is horizon scanning. We want to see where techniques that we think of as traditional now are in a few years. There will be even better means of changing not just bits of DNA, but perhaps epigenetic effects, which is where you change not the sequence of the DNA but whether the DNA is expressed in a particular cell. That can also have an advantage.

What you see in these definitions is something that takes account of the advance in science. As I said, it takes account of the background genetic variation that exists. There were a couple of papers recently in Nature, for which something like 50 potato genomes were sequenced, and something like half a million quite big genetic variations were identified, in terms of the position of genes. It is against that background that this definition is pitched. That is where we have to take account of the variation. You cannot say now that one particular fragment of DNA is going to produce any particular risk.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you. I will leave it there for the moment.

[Deidre Brock]

Q The Scottish and Welsh Governments have clearly stated their intention at present for precision bred organisms to be regulated as GMOs. How will ACRE’s advice on releases to the environment take account of the fact that the Welsh and Scottish Governments currently have a different approach from Westminster on this?

Professor Dunwell: Well, we realise that the jurisdiction is different. We have observers at ACRE meetings from the devolved authorities—not at every meeting, but they are clearly invited to attend, and some of them do. They can add their own input into the discussions, even though it will not apply within their jurisdiction. Then of course we have the fact that much of the good science goes on at the James Hutton Institute, the Roslin Institute and elsewhere. Those are world-class centres of science doing this type of research. I am sure that among those scientists there is an intrinsic frustration about the political environment that exists, but I am not going to comment on the policy at that level. ACRE as a committee had sessions in Edinburgh some three or four years ago, and we have spoken to the relevant committees directly. I was part of those discussions.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Second sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Let me press you on that slightly. In terms of some of the animal welfare issues, it is pretty clear that some of the things that could be done could be designed to make animals more resistant to heat or more liable to be able to survive certain conditions. That does not seem to us a good use of this technology. It is not entirely clear to me on what grounds the advisory bodies would make decisions. If it is just left to a market-driven system, you could argue that, provided it produces a better return, that is good enough, but the ethical issues would be wider than that.

Professor Lovell-Badge: This is another point. I was a bit confused because there is quite a lot of emphasis in the Bill on animal welfare and how they would have a role to play in that. If you are doing an experiment with an animal, you have to have Home Office approval. Animal welfare is a top priority. Many of the things that you might want to do would already be weeded out at that stage. If you wanted to make an animal that felt no pain, for example, you might just about be able to get away with justifying that for research purposes, but certainly not for developing any product.

The regulations about welfare are already there. Sure, it is important to have some input into your advisory committee that says, “This has to be looked at. Have they thought about all the consequences of what they are doing?” Exactly how you would achieve that under the Bill, I am not certain.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q There is now a new player in town: the animal sentience committee, which is not established yet. How would you see the interplay with that, given what you have just said?

Professor Lovell-Badge: I know little about that.

Alessandro Coatti: It is an interesting new player, welcomed by many parties across the House. It looks like it will be an expert committee. Mostly the members will be people with relevant expertise in veterinary sciences, potentially neuroscience, so it would not be an arena for a public dialogue, but that is not to say that they cannot commission it and then take recommendations on board. In my view, they could play a role, but it would be hard. The new animal welfare committee that would overlook the authorisations in the Bill would look at a notifier that said, “We want to do this on an animal, but we do not foresee any health or welfare implications for it.” That committee would focus very much on the health and welfare of the single individual animal, but it is not clear to me whether it would consider higher-level questions such as, “What does it mean for the production of that livestock, the density, the husbandry and so on?”

Of course, the existing DEFRA Animal Welfare and Animal Sentience Committees could be brought in. You could say, “We have a new line of pigs that are resistant to this disease. On paper, it looks very good, because we made a very small, tailored change to a part of it, not a rough deletion of an entire gene. The animals under research and development look fine in contained circumstances and they are well. Would you be happy for us to license them to go on to a breeding trial to expand the number of animals from the 20 in the research study to 200, and to map whether there are any health and welfare impacts on a bigger number of animals?” Those committees could advise the new animal welfare committee on that matter.

Following on from that, the bigger question is: “What do we want for UK farming, agriculture and so on?” That is one of those pillar questions that bigger Government policy, not the Bill, will resolve.

Professor Lovell-Badge: My colleague makes a very good point. If you take things out into the field, the conditions are different from lab conditions in which you originally generated the animals. If you introduce another breeding programme, or a different genetic background, the consequences of what you have done could change. It is the same with traditional breeding, but on all those things, there needs to be long-term feedback. As you would have with humans in clinical trials, you get a phase 3 clinical trial in which you get a lot of people feeding back information—much more than in a phase 2 trial—and then there is always post-market reporting whereby any adverse effects are notified over the years.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q That is a really important point. I may be wrong, but I do not see anything in the Bill enabling that.

Professor Lovell-Badge: Nor do I.

Alessandro Coatti: Under clause 11, when a marketing notice is given in relation to a precision bred animal, the Secretary of State reserves the right to get information from the notifier, over a specified period of time, about the health and welfare of the animal, so that is already covered in the Bill.

Professor Lovell-Badge: But how you do that is not clear.

Alessandro Coatti: No, and a lot will depend on very good guidance from DEFRA or ACRE about how to do that. But that power is in the Bill, at least.

Again, the need for post-marketing monitoring comes down to the trade that you are introducing, not whether you use a technique. It will be important for whoever advises the Secretary of State to be able to tell them, “This change warrants longer-term monitoring, but this other one does not, because we have seen it in the species over many years. This is just a better way of doing it, and it will not dramatically alter what we already know about the trait.”

Professor Lovell-Badge: Remember, many genes have effects in multiple tissues, so you may be focused on changing something—modifying CCR5 for HIV resistance, for example—but not realise that it may also be active and play some role in the brain. That is a clear example of where you may have an issue.

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

Q The Regulatory Policy Committee brought out a report just a few days ago that concludes that the Government have not made a convincing business case for the deregulation of precision bred organisms in the food system, and it suggests that more narrative around

“competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts”

should be included in the Bill. Would you agree that there is insufficient detail on that in the Bill currently?

Professor Lovell-Badge: I think I would agree it is insufficient. You have to factor in everything: the environment, farming practice—how whatever you are doing, whether it is with plant or animal, is going to fit in with or change farming practices. I think there needs to be a lot more thought about those issues.

Alessandro Coatti: I am not entirely sure I agree. Could you tell me again—those people said that the Government have not made a case for deregulation of these organisms?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Thank you, Ms McVey. Bill, I was very taken with what you were saying about your concerns about the intellectual property rights associated with some of this issue. I got the sense that you do not feel that the Bill as it stands answers those questions. What would you like to see? What would give the protections that would reassure you on these issues?

William Angus: At the moment, what I would like to see is no change to the status quo. Let us take this as an example: company A produces a variety and he introduces a trait into that variety. In two years’ time, once that variety has been added to the UK national list, another breeder can use that trait. That is the freedom to operate. It is really important that that is sustained and that people are not locked out of new developments. What may happen—this is an area I feel quite uncomfortable with—is that we may start to see larger organisations move the goalposts in terms of trying to stop other breeders from using genetic resources that have been developed.

Now, I am quite happy—here, we develop our own genetic resources and we give those away freely, to anybody. If anybody on the Committee would like some wheat, I will send them some genetics, no problem at all. That is freedom to operate. That is really all that I would look for—that we do not change the current status so that people think that, somehow, a naturally developed product or a GE product is any different, and that there is still that freedom to operate.

Can I make one comment on Johnathan and Nigel’s remarks? I have sat on a number of Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council committees. I chaired the horticulture and potato initiative and so on. I am not saying this because they are here, but the UK is absolutely blessed with the best public research on wheat around the world. They are absolutely right to make the point about the fact that this is not developed as well as it could be, primarily because the promotion system is based on paper publications. It is lovely to hear both of these guys talking about taking stuff to the market. That would be another comment that I would make. It is great to hear.

Going back to your question, let us be careful that there are mechanisms in place to protect this freedom of exchange of germplasm that happens not just in the UK but globally. It is really important that we do that. There have been steps in America to patent genes. We really must not go down that route. In my opinion, it will stifle innovation and it would put the control of our food supplies in the hands of large multinationals, which I would be very concerned about.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q To be clear, this follows on from the notion that these could have occurred naturally. They should be treated in that way, rather than being put in a special category.

William Angus: Yes. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say it occurs naturally and then I am going to change it and now it is different. I agree.

It is very difficult when I come from the environment I do—my views tend to be slightly different from those who come from large multinational companies—but I think it is a really important point, that we protect innovation from big companies and so on, but that we also protect the right of individuals to start up their own businesses. The way I look on it is, you know, Richard Branson started Virgin Atlantic—he was allowed to do that. One man started with one aeroplane, and off he went; brilliant, great, good for him. It would be sad if people like that or companies such as easyJet were excluded from the market because someone said, “This is an aeroplane, and you’re not allowed to fly it.” I would like to reiterate that we need that protection in there.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Thank you, that’s helpful. May I turn to the two professors? On innovation in general, in essence, the argument is that innovation will happen because obstacles are being removed. Is that enough to foster the kind of innovation that you would hope to see, based on your passion and excitement for this technology?

Professor Napier: I think it was mentioned earlier that with innovation, it probably needs to be developed as a public-private partnership, which sort of implies that there needs to be a market pull. Using the term “market” can be slightly perturbing because, in reality, the drivers for what we want to see translated are much bigger than the economics. They are things like global climate change, food security and all the global pandemics associated with malnutrition and overconsumption. Those are the challenges enshrined in sustainable development goals and things like that. Those are the things that we should be occupying ourselves with. We need to use everything we can to try to fix those challenges. Rothamsted and other places like that—in fact, everybody—should be working towards those goals and overcoming those challenges.

Listening to what Bill said about IP, I spend an enormous amount of time thinking about IP because it is an area that I have to think about a lot. The beauty about the UK is that we have a really strong research use exemption, which allows us to operate in a way that is not encumbered, at least at the research level, by IP. We are in a really good place. I think the bigger barrier to innovation is what I have already mentioned: it is not IP but the cost of regulatory approval. That is why I am so worried that in new legislation, if we start building in layers of costs associated with more regulation, we are just replicating what we had previously under the EU regulation. I think that would be an enormous missed opportunity if we go down that road. That is my personal view.

[Deidre Brock]

Q I want to go back to Mr Angus’s comments about ownership or the licensing of genes and his concern about that. How would you address that, as people involved in this area? What measures should be taken? Clearly, people are concerned about the patenting of crops.

Professor Napier: You cannot patent a gene. There was a case in the US that made it quite clear that you cannot hold a patent on a gene. That legal precedent is quite clear, from the famous case of Myriad. I am not too worried about that. In reality, it is analogous to what you see in the pharmaceutical sector and relates exactly to your point about understanding the drivers for innovation. You need to couple it with economics.

All these things are moving parts, which you need to make the whole thing work. To pull it forward, you need to have an economic case and some form of protecting your invention—patents are a good way of doing that. The example I always give is that my mobile phone probably has 2,000 patents-worth of components in. Nobody gets upset about that. It is about understanding how you can best use this technology. I also do not want to sound like some sort of gung-ho free marketeer, because I am absolutely not. I work in a Government-supported institute. I do not work in the private sector. I probably want the best of both worlds.

Professor Halford: As public sector scientists, at times in our careers we have been told we should be patenting everything, and at times in our careers we have said, “Well, it's unethical to be patenting this stuff.” I think we have a pretty robust patents system. You cannot patent discoveries of genes; you have to patent an invention. That seems to have worked for mobile phones and it works with pharmaceuticals, many of which are biologicals. I do not see why it cannot work in crop high technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q How would you achieve that public interest test?

Joanna Lewis: I would really recommend that you look to Norway’s gene technology Act. I have not gone through it line by line, but it feels like a valuable precedent from a country that also sits outside the European Union and is looking at what governance can apply—to make sure we are not just presupposing the benefits. Commercial drivers are not given free rein, and if there is to be a relaxation of regulation, you can do it with the confidence that it is going in the direction of supporting more sustainable farming. I believe the test that it set is that something is of community benefit and supports sustainable development. I do not know whether that is fully adequate, but it is a precedent that is out there and merits some consideration.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Clause 3 sets out the conditions under which a person can release a precision bred organism in England. Do you think the measures within that are sufficient? Probably not. I would be interested to hear where you think they might be strengthened.

Christopher Atkinson: You are right in supposing that we feel the measures are insufficient. We need a high degree of traceability and the ability for organic producers in particular to understand where crops are being grown and the risk of contamination.

Roger Kerr: The other aspect is that, as we have heard from previous speakers, there is not going to be a significant amount of investment in producing this material unless there is sufficient visibility over where it is, because of the likelihood that it will disappear into the food system and the businesses that have developed the technology will not be able to recover the costs. There is an issue in understanding the full and public visibility over where these crops are being grown, who is growing them and where they are going, so that there is the opportunity to see where that product has gone, so that people can recover their investment.

Steven Jacobs: The Bill says that the organism is

“a marketable precision bred organism”

and

“the qualifying progeny of a marketable precision bred organism”.

One of the issues is what will happen if there are—and we are assuming there will be—many precision bred events put into one product, whether that is livestock or crops. In crops, for instance, you can have stacked traits. The issue is around that crop being bred with something else and some of those traits being passed over, perhaps unknowingly.

We have seen incidents where herbicide resistance has gone out into the wilder environment and that has caused problems. For instance, there was a case on the Swiss-Italian border where herbicide-resistant oilseed rape that was not grown in Switzerland was found on the railway. It had leaked out of the railway carriages. That is a problem because they spray herbicide to keep the railway sidings—all the ballast—stabilised. Now, they have a situation where there is a herbicide-resistant weed in a location that would normally be sprayed in order to keep the railway safe. There are incidents where one would need to see some measure of traceability in order to evaluate. It is not just our need; I would suggest that there is a public and commercial need.

Roger Kerr: On livestock, take a genetically edited bull, for argument’s sake—I have picked cows because I like cows. He will have sired innumerable daughters that will go on to be crossed back. They may be crossed back with a non-GE sire. At what point do they become non-GE? Obviously, going back through their parentage, there will be GE material in there. From our point of view—from an organic standpoint—the question is: at what point is it no longer a genetically edited animal, if its forebears were genetically edited? There is a lot of concern around how we manage this issue, how those things are defined and who, ultimately, owns the genetic material within that animal, albeit it is the great-great-great-great-granddaughter of something. There are concerns there.

Joanna Lewis: It also feels that the solution in terms of implementing supply chain transparency, traceability and labelling is eminently achievable. It does not feel like a big barrier to bring that into the scope of the Bill in order to address those concerns and allow the legitimate needs of citizens who reserve the right to choose to reject this technology, and to preserve the integrity of organic systems. We are obviously at a point in time where the industry is buzzing with big data supply chain solutions and wanting a whole new resurgence in food labelling to show the citizen everything about the provenance, origin and production practices of their food. It should not be a big barrier to this Bill’s intent to include that requirement for full supply chain transparency and labelling.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Where do you stand on the labelling issues? What kind of labelling do you think would be appropriate, given the advice from the Food Standards Agency?

Dr Harrison: My personal view is that I do not think there is any scientific rationale to have additional labelling criteria for gene-edited products, because they are fundamentally indistinguishable from nature. There is a sort of logical incoherence in saying, “Well, they are indistinguishable in nature, yet we must discriminate and show that they are different.” I think there is transparency in the system because there is a register. When farmers choose to grow varieties or there is a protected chain of production to discriminate one set of things from another, people are growing varieties—it is not magicked out of thin air. When people are planting, they will know whether it is a gene-edited variety or not. That is the point at which the choice can be made. I do not think there is any scientific rationale for then extending that labelling requirement to the post-marketing of products.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q What do you think the purpose of the registers are, in that case?

Dr Harrison: Everybody has said, and many panels have shown, that there is a need, when you are bringing a new technology into the market, to have an additional level of transparency in order to inspire public confidence. I think the question is what level of balance you need for public confidence. I think that the registers are there in order to say, “This is a product that has been produced with this technology,” and there is therefore then the ability for people to choose it, should they want to. That is what I see them being there for—to give people freedom of choice.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q There seems to be a slight inconsistency to me, though.

Dr Harrison: That is why I was saying that, at the time of planting, people can choose. The supply chain fits around that decision, at that point, much as it does with other production systems. To distinguish a gene-edited product on the basis that it is somehow different from a conventionally bred product is the thing that I am saying is a bit logically incoherent.

Professor Oldroyd: If I may add to that, the Bill itself states that only those that are considered to be equivalent to something that could be achieved by natural transformation are included under the Bill. So by definition we are saying that this product could be achieved by more conventional methods. Therefore, it is illogical to separate it out at some later stage and say, “This product is different”, when intrinsic to the Bill is the fact that it is not different. That is the only way it can be taken forward.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Which begs the question of why you had to register. However, I think we could probably go round in circles on this. Chair, I am quite happy for us to move on to other questioners.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Professor Oldroyd, you mentioned tight restrictions on validating the safety of gene-edited organisms. I just wondered whether it is possible to use field trials to assess sufficiently whether there are major impacts, or even minor impacts, on local ecologies once the crops are grown at a commercial scale. How do you take that into account?

Professor Oldroyd: Let me describe how we get to the point. For instance, I have some gene-edited material out in the field right now and we measure everything we can possibly measure in that material, from its effect. These are affecting plant microbial interactions, so we are particularly looking, for instance, at what is happening in the soil. We have the wild type and we have the gene-edited line, so we can precisely compare, to understand any differences in the local environment caused by the gene-edited type or the wild type. That is intrinsic to the research programme and we have to do those field trials before anything even gets close to commercialisation.

Therefore, intrinsic to working with this material is that we are already putting it out in the field. If I then hand it to breeder, they will then be doing breeding in their lines with that material and also doing extensive field trials, testing many factors, according to their performance relative to other lines. Ultimately, if it gets released as a variety, then NIAB, under the jurisdiction from the Government, tests and compares those lines relative to other lines on their performance in the field.

So there are many points along this track where we are actually testing the performance—as a researcher myself; as a breeding company; and then as NIAB, creating the recommended list. There are multiple factors all along the way that are already intrinsic to the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q You made a powerful case for the development of SMEs, although you are publicly funded, and for allowing that space to develop for the public good—but it is a very Cambridge-y conversation, in the sense that we know that the Cambridge experience is often that small start-ups get bought up and are then used for other purposes. Would it not further the cause that you are promoting to have a public good test somewhere in this process to enable that to be done for the public good, rather than to be potentially lost down the line?

Dr Harrison: Personally, I would say that, and not just for this Bill and gene editing. If one wants a public good test, one should apply it to everything in terms of crop varieties, and not single out gene edited varieties as a unique case. I return to my comments on looking at the listing system and making sure that, again, it is proportionate. Breeders have to spend a lot of money bringing varieties to market, so if there was public good funding coming from Government, it should be to support breeders in developing those varieties that have enhanced public good traits. You should look at it in the round.

Professor Oldroyd: I think it would be very hard to define what is not a public good. Production is for the public good. We have to have production. Production tends to be where the private sector focuses—it is total productivity—but it has raised productivity across the past century. That has certainly given it a competitive edge as individual industries, but it has meant that we have kept our production up with the growing population and the growing demand. That is public good. I would find it very hard to differentiate what is public good from what is not public good when trying to manage such legislation.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think we might find some examples, but that is for another day.

[The Chair]

That draws us neatly to the end of the time allocated for this session. A big thank you to Dr Richard Harrison and Professor Giles Oldroyd.

Examination of Witness

Sam Brooke gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I will follow up on that, in that case. If there is that confidence, why the reluctance to allow consumers to know how their food is being produced? Polling from the Food Standards Agency suggests that consumers want that. Is there not a danger that it looks as if you are trying to hide something?

Sam Brooke: We are absolutely not against full transparency of breeding methods. Most breeders have already taken their own initiative to highlight, on their websites and social media platforms, how varieties are produced. I think it was back in March 2021 that we wrote to the Secretary of State, George Eustice, and said, “No, BSPB is absolutely up for transparency on the breeding process.” It is just that the best way of doing that is through the chain.

We have worked with DEFRA and looked at how we can easily bring that step into the national list process by highlighting what breeding process was used, because we already do, to a certain extent. For example, if it was a hybridised crop, we would have to highlight if it was cytoplasmic male sterility or a chemical-hybridising agent system, so we are already doing that. That, for me, would be another step forward and would support the public register, which is in the Bill and which we absolutely support.

[Deidre Brock]

Q You just spoke of the UK’s considerable reputation for offering protections around the breeding processes and so on, making them very safe. Does that differ markedly from the protections that the EU offers? Is the UK leading in that respect?

Sam Brooke: Naturally, we have been following EU legislation and have been historically aligning, quite rightly, with EU legislation on this, where we have our nearest trading partners and the majority of plant breeders. Because it is such an expensive industry, the majority of plant breeders are breeding at least for Europe if not internationally, because varieties travel quite nicely, especially to our nearest countries in the EU. We align with that. The key difference is probably that we have a lot of expertise in the UK and we want to keep that, because plant breeders are based here and actively breeding here—they have labs and food trials here and we have this fantastic, world-leading research and development in the likes of NIAB, John Innes and Rothamsted.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q To follow up, I was thinking more of it the other way round. If there was a time lag or a different view was taken in Europe, would you have to have two different production systems—one using gene edited animals, and one not? What are the practicalities of that?

Dr Tinch: If the legislation puts in place a system whereby gene edited animals would need to be labelled, you would need to have parallel systems. My argument would be that gene editing is a means of creating genetic variation that is identical to the variation that would occur naturally. As a consequence of that, we are not seeing products that are different.

If I identified a gene for disease resistance in a group of animals in the population that I was farming and bred it into the population for supply into the food chain, or I gene-edited the animal with the same genetic change—the same mutation—those animals would be identical in their genetics and performance, but if we labelled them and identified them differently, we would be creating two levels of animals within the production system that are essentially different. That would cause more problems than required in terms of the science behind the technology and the proportionality of how we are dealing with that lack of genetic difference.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Hello, Dr Tinch. It is good to see you. We have heard from folk who have been dealing with arable crops and so on, and there is a suggestion that the commercial benefits of this Bill would not be realised for anywhere between five and 11 years, but I wonder what the difference would be for aquaculture. Say the Bill becomes law, how quickly could we see commercial benefits for aquaculture farmers?

Dr Tinch: The key difference—let me know if I get too technical, as I do not want to drift away—is in the amount of time it takes to go from generation to generation. Some aquaculture species have a very short generation interval and can grow up and produce eggs quite quickly. For a lot of the warm water species that are farmed, and imported and exported around the world, we could move quite quickly because they have a short generation interval and they produce large numbers of eggs, so we could quickly be in a situation where we are producing animals with gene edits. That would be species like shrimp and tilapia. Shrimp are consumed at high levels in the UK. Tilapia are not, but they are still consumed at high rates around the world.

Atlantic salmon are much slower in terms of their growth and maturation. It takes at least three years—probably four years—to go through that cycle from egg to egg. From a practical point of view, we are not going to do it in one generation—it would be a couple of generations—so for Atlantic salmon we are talking at least four years, probably nearer eight years, until there were significant numbers of Atlantic salmon edited in the populations.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Third sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q But you would agree that, as it stands, the Bill is fairly thin in that area. It sets up a structure, but it does not really talk about what the right body might be.

Professor Henderson: Again, I will divide that into two. I believe there is clarity about the role of ACRE, and ACRE has published guidance about the definition of a PBO, which has been scrutinised and, I think, generally found to be appropriate. As for, “What is a PBO?”, the advisory system is in a good place. On the animal welfare aspects, there is perhaps some more thinking to be done.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Of course, the advice came out after the statutory instrument, but we will not go into that. That was a debate in the past.

I would like to pick up on a point that the Nuffield group has made about the release of precision bred organisms. It said:

“On our reading of the Bill, this means that precision bred animals that are not transgenic organisms may be released without further authorisation, without even a ‘precision bred confirmation’. Such releases could have significant effects on existing ecosystems (for example, if they should have a reproductive advantage over wild organisms of the same species). This may be a matter of significant concern to other UK and wider jurisdictions as such animals may travel freely across jurisdictional boundaries.”

Is that something that you have considered? What would be your response to that concern?

Professor Henderson: There is a notification requirement and the necessity for permission from the Secretary of State before things can be released. There are some appropriate mechanisms to scrutinise things as they pass through the process, but in general, the scientific evidence is that if something is mimicking traditional breeding and therefore is a precision bred organism according to the definition, the risks of release are no greater than those of a traditionally bred organism, and may be lesser.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Okay, thank you. I am conscious of time, Ms McVey, so I will do one more, but I do have some further questions if there is time. Clause 1(6)—this is at the beginning of the Bill, where there is the quite complicated list of definitions—says:

“In determining whether a feature of an organism’s genome could have resulted from natural transformation, no account is to be taken of genetic material which does not result in a functional protein.”

The Nuffield group says:

“The intention of this provision is unclear to us.”

It is unclear to me as well. Could you explain it?

Professor Henderson: I can explain it. Actually, it is related to the questions you asked me last time. During traditional breeding, in nature and during precision breeding, it is commonplace for some transgenic—some exogenous material—to cross into the genome, but most of that has no functional role at all and does not impact on the phenotype. This clause is pointing to the fact that if there is some such material, it does not matter, as long as it does not create any function. This clause is seeking to say that if it creates a function and it is exogenous, then this thing will fall outside the definition of a PBO.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is helpful. I am sure you are aware that there are other views on that. Thank you, Chair.

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

Q You spoke about discussions with the devolved Administrations about this. I heard this morning that the discussions around this did not go through the common framework procedure. Are you able to tell me why that was?

Professor Henderson: I am afraid I am not. As a chief scientific adviser I am here to talk about the science. I spoke to my scientific counterparts and officials in the devolved Administrations who have a scientific interest, but I am not aware of the process you are talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have just under a minute. Do you have a question, Daniel Zeichner?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Hopefully we can get this in in 30 seconds. The precautionary principle in general has been much discussed and Lords Committees are querying the current Government’s current interpretation. What impact does this Bill have in terms of the precautionary principle? Does it abide by the traditional interpretation of the precautionary principle going back to 1992, for instance?

Professor Henderson: I will avoid getting into a discussion about the precautionary principle because that would be long, and there are even multiple definitions of the traditional interpretation of the Bill. I believe that the Bill we are putting forward now is precautionary—it follows the guidelines of the precautionary principle. We are not leaping in with both feet, but we are moving in stepwise motion.

[The Chair]

Order. We have come to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank Professor Henderson on behalf of the Committee.

Examination of Witnesses

Professor John Hammond, Professor Bruce Whitelaw, Dr Craig Lewis and Dr Elena Rice gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I will try to be quick, Ms McVey. First, I think we need some clarity on what is being done where. The purpose of the Bill is to allow research to take place in the UK, and we have just been told the UK is a world leader. There seems to be some contradictions there. If that could be drawn out and explained, that would be helpful.

My second question is for Genus. These opportunities are fantastic. If we can deal with influenza and PRRS, that is a fantastic opportunity, but can you explain to me how the intellectual property rights will work? Who owns this? How does it get transferred from country to country? That is quite a big question, but if you could do it fairly briefly, that would help everybody.

Professor Whitelaw: Good question. I will start off and then pass over to Genus colleagues. The first question was about how we can be world leaders and need the Bill. All the work that goes on at the Roslin Institute is contained use under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It is an experiment that is done in our labs or on our farms. We, the university, are the inventors and we are the owners of that. Our commercialisation organisation at Edinburgh University is Edinburgh Innovations, which negotiates with a third party to get access and a licence to that IP. In this case, we have negotiated a commercialisation licence with Genus to take it forward into the market. All the work at Roslin is done there under ASPA contained use. That is the research base. That is where we lead with the development of intellectual property and develop the projects.

Dr Rice: I had a small problem hearing the question, so maybe Craig can start.

Dr Lewis: I will leave all the IP pieces to Elena, because I am a breeder, not an IP lawyer—full disclosure. In terms of development, I think that one of the things we need to understand here, which Bruce hit on quite effectively, is that there is a big difference between the research stage and what I would call the scaling phase before implementation. It is not a matter of simply saying, “Okay, we have done great work at Roslin and have created a precision bred animal, which is going to impact on commercial animals here in the UK.” There is a different step, because we need to be able to scale it. That comes back down to basic animal breeding and the structure of a breeding pyramid. We need to scale those animals to have enough of a population to be able to serve the commercial producers. That would happen.

I think there are opportunities for the UK. If we try to do the scaling step without a market, basically you will have major farms where 100% of the offspring cannot enter the food chain. That becomes a huge barrier to further innovation. We can do the very early stuff, but we would miss out that scaling step in the UK. A Bill that would allow us to access a marketplace would have the benefit of significantly reducing the cost of the scaling piece.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I suppose my question is to Elena. I get that point, but does this not put enormous power in the hands of one group of people who own the intellectual property around this particular form of the animal?

[The Chair]

Did you hear that question, Dr Rice?

Dr Rice: Yes, I think the question is about IP and how it is placed in the market. As Bruce just said, the university owns IP. It is possible for any company to license that IP and bring the research to commercial production. We did exactly that. We interacted and worked together for many years with the Roslin Institute. We have the ability to bring that research to the hands of producers and farmers. As Craig said, it actually takes a lot of work over many years. To give you an example, as a company, we have devoted around five to seven years now to actually taking it from the research stage from the Roslin Institute to learning and understanding how we can implement that particular edit in our elite breeding germplasm. Why is that important? Farmers and producers around the world want the best genetics that we can offer, but the best genetics need to be combined with the edit.

I want to quickly give you an overview of how it works. We make an edit in an embryo. Then we take the embryo and put it into an animal who carries the edited heritage. We create exactly the same edit in our founder lines. In this example, we have four founder lines that we created and edited. We select them and do thorough analysis for any potential off-target effects. We select only animals that carry no off-target edits. Then we breed those animals in many generations to provide the elite herd that will be distributed to our customers. I want to make sure that the animals that the farmers get are not touched by any instrument—that they are not edited themselves. They are bred from the initial set of animals that we have created. That is why it takes a long time and a lot of effort to bring it to the market.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I understand that point. Thank you.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Professor Whitelaw, I hope to visit you soon at the Roslin Institute, along with your local MP, who has spoken glowingly of you for some time. The Scottish Government want to wait for the EU consultation in this area to be complete before approaching gene editing in the way that the UK Government are. That presents potential problems if the EU decides to stay where it is or just moves marginally, or has a different approach from the UK Government’s approach. If that happens, how do you see that affecting trade with the EU and our export trade there? This is the big concern for the Government. What is your answer to that?

Professor Whitelaw: I am not sure I can comment on export trade. It is not an area that I am knowledgeable about, but maybe I can comment more generally. One of the benefits of the Bill is to give momentum to investment in this area. I do not mean just money, but talent coming into the field, into the universities, and students knocking on my door and saying, “I want to do a PhD on genome-edited animals.” I see that increasing and I see that as a huge benefit for the UK and for Scotland. To me as a researcher, that is one of the major drivers—to see that investment opening up. Yes, it will happen in the commercial world. We have seen how other countries that brought in legislation on genome editing have seen a proliferation of small and medium-sized enterprises and innovative ideas coming through. That is what I want to see come out of the Bill. That is the bit that drives me. I am really not knowledgeable about the impact on exports.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Could you say a little more about that final point—the potential benefits that you would see coming from something like that authority?

Dr Campbell: I am sure you heard in the previous evidence—I was not in the meeting to hear that—that there is still some uncertainty about the effects of genetic editing, in particular the so-called off-target effects. Exactly because of the nature of the techniques, those can be effects not only on one generation of animals, but on many future generations of animals. One could approve something now, but a generation or more down the line, the evidence could become available that would cause you to reconsider that opinion. That is exactly what this independent body would be doing. It would be gathering data about the health and welfare of the animals produced using precision breeding techniques and independently analysing that data, and then making recommendations about whether policy and/or legislation needed to be updated in the light of the developing scientific evidence about health and welfare effects.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Finally, do you see anything in the Bill as it is currently drafted that allows that to happen?

Dr Campbell: No. As I understand the Bill, at the moment there is within the regulations some kind of optional reporting function for that animal welfare advisory body—which, as I say, is not very well specified—but there is no obligatory function. I think it absolutely has to be an obligatory reporting and oversight, data collection and analysis function, and that animal welfare body—whatever it is—needs to be better defined and specified within the Bill, and it needs to be constituted specifically for this purpose, with the relevant expertise within it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Thank you. Dr Mills, I have already said that I have been very influenced in my thinking by your larger reports and the evidence to the Committee. Very briefly, what are the key things that you think could be done to improve the Bill?

Dr Mills: I am very grateful for the recommendation for our report.

I have said already that I think that what is perhaps lacking is a framework that sets out positive purposes for precision breeding—a framework in which a body of the sort that Dr Campbell referred to could elaborate standards that could then be applied independently to precision breeding.

The thing about breeding is that we are talking not about one animal, but about a lot of animals. We are talking not about simply the next animal, but about the potential trajectory that is followed by a practice that results in future conditions in the food and farming system. Some attention should be given to those things.

The other thing that struck me coming off the page of the draft legislation was the fact that there was a focus on the individual traits being modified, but of course welfare is not about one trait. The welfare of the animal is about the interaction of a range of traits at the molecular level and the phenotypic level, and it is about the interaction of that set of characteristics of that animal with the environment. What breeding is doing is trying to develop animals and fit them to particular environments, and consideration needs to be given to that as a more general theme.

I am extremely pleased that the Government have taken note of the fact that welfare is an important ethical issue affecting animal breeding, but it is not the only one. A range of other considerations need to be taken into account when one is directing a breeding programme, and those are a range of considerations that are of public interest, and therefore properly, I think, the subject of public policy.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am conscious of time, Ms McVey, so I will come back to Peter if I have time.

[The Chair]

If we could all be conscious of time, please.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q What would be needed in the Bill to safeguard against the issues that you have just raised?

Penny Hawkins: Well, I was listening to the representations this morning and I can only echo what everybody was saying about the welfare advisory body. At present it is there to report to the Secretary of State on whether the notifier has had regard to the risks to the health and welfare of the animal and their progeny. There does appear to be some provision in clause 15 on the suspension and revocation of marketing authorisation. That provides for the Secretary of State to receive information on the health and welfare of the progeny of those animals, but that is dependent on clause 14 on reporting obligations, which states only that:

“Regulations may make provision for requiring the notifier…to provide the Secretary of State with…information”

about their progeny

“during periods…prescribed by the regulations”.

All those elements that relate to long-term surveillance really need to be tightened up, and they need to be “musts” instead of “mays”. Many of those are subject to the affirmative procedure, which I know is normal for statutory instruments, but that again does not reassure people who are concerned about the long-term welfare effects that an adequate mechanism is in place for picking these up.

Similarly, it is not at all clear what qualifications the inspectors who are going to be active under the Bill need to have, so it would be good to see some reassurance as to how they are going to be qualified and to see it explicitly said that they will have the right to access and inspect animals.

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

Q Thank you for coming along to speak to us this afternoon. The RSPCA has raised concerns about the safety of gene editing, stating:

“There is no history of safe and reliable use”.

What else could that cover? What are your concerns? Can you expand on that, please?

Penny Hawkins: Just to clarify, when we talk about safety we are talking about the safety of animals. There are two kinds of concerns about gene editing: one from the consumer point of view and one from an animal welfare point of view, and we are talking about the animal welfare point of view. I listened particularly to Professor Henderson when he spoke to you, and I noted that he said there will have to be a two to three-year process of gathering and analysing scientific evidence around both on-farm and off-farm welfare

“before the secondary legislation can be enacted.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 17-18, Q24.]

He said that the process for that was laid out in the Bill, but I have looked at the Bill really carefully and I cannot see any such process either in the Bill or the explanatory notes.

This morning Professor Henderson said that more thinking needed to be done regarding animal welfare advisory bodies and advice on the Bill. Coming from the DEFRA chief scientific adviser, I do not think that that is very reassuring. All of the concerns that I expressed previously about the longitudinal reporting and monitoring of health and welfare also apply here. I am particularly thinking about clause 9, which explains what happens from the bureaucratic aspect if an animal is no longer deemed to be precision bred. Presumably if an animal is no longer deemed to be precision bred, it will either be because they have not been characterised or phenotyped properly or because the genome is no longer stable.

As you heard from the Royal Society of Biology, genes can have effects in multiple tissues, so in these cases there must be a much clearer mechanism for identifying and tracing these animals, and that is also lacking in the Bill. From an animal safety and welfare perspective, there really are some issues that need to be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon and welcome. Can I take you back to your opening point about definitions? It is right at the start of the Bill, and we have already had some discussions. A lot of us are struggling, quite frankly, to make the link between what the Bill was promised to be about and what we think the definitions end up being about. The basic question on which I sought an answer from the Government’s chief scientist this morning is: does the Bill as written exclude transgenic material?

Lawrence Woodward: No, the Bill is vague on definitions. Other regulatory authorities have been presented as basing their approach on end-product analysis and ignoring process, but that is not true. It is only Canada that only looks at the end process; all the other regulatory authorities look at the end product and the process. The scope of this Bill captures not just narrow gene editing, as presented by the famous word processing approach—“We alter a letter here and there and everything is okay”. The scope of the Bill is very wide, and it appears to encompass the possibilities of all new developments in biotechnology, such as RNA information sprays. This encompasses a range of things that are on the cards in the future, yet the clarity of that definition and scope are lacking, as are the assessment and consultation processes to deal with those new technologies coming forward. We have the possibility here of enlarging the scope into the future, ill-defined and without the regulatory framework to deal with that expansion.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Thank you. Could I turn to Pat and perhaps explore the wider environmental impacts and the extent to which the Bill provides reassurance and protections?

Pat Thomas: In essence, the Bill does not provide any reassurance about environmental impacts, because the Bill has decided that there are no environmental impacts. You have heard statements from scientists, and I will underscore my colleague’s point that it was a shame that dissenting scientists were not invited to present evidence to the Committee. The Bill itself has made a prejudgment that these technologies present no environmental risk, but it has not, as the Regulatory Policy Committee concluded, presented any evidence to prove that.

Particularly where we are talking about plants, which are the dominant lifeform on this planet, and a very wide scope of which are exempted in this Bill, we need to be very clear about what the environmental impact will be, not just in agricultural nature, but in wider nature. That requires much more comprehensive assessment than is currently being looked at. At the moment, the assessment is really whether it is good for business. That is fine—we all want to see business progress—but these kinds of disruptive technologies that cut across multiple areas of concern need to be assessed on a much broader basis.

One thing that would immeasurably improve the Bill would be to ensure that the assessment board is looking not just at something that is scientifically feasible, but at the impacts across environment and the social scale, from a practical, an ethical and even a vocational level. There are examples of that in the world: the Norwegians have an agricultural biotechnology board, for instance, which assesses genome edited products on all those bases. Science does not outweigh, for instance, ecological or social concerns.

A very interesting example of that was in 2017 when that board rejected a double-stacked maize that was engineered to produce its own insecticide and be resistant to herbicides. While it accepted that the maize was probably safe to eat or to grow, the deciding factor was that there was no social utility. There was no benefit for consumers or for the environment, and those concerns, given equal weight to science, were the concerns on which it was rejected. That is what we need here. We need a much broader consideration of the impacts of these technologies.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Following on from that, do you see anything in the Bill that limits the scope for herbicide-resistant edits in plants, or, for instance, pesticide-resistant bees, which I have been reading about? Those are both possibilities that raise some wider issues.

Pat Thomas: They certainly do raise wider issues. Within the scope of this Bill, as my colleague pointed out, there does not appear to be any type of genetic engineering that is truly exempted. If a plant or animal breeder can make a case—that case is not checked, it is simply made; it is a notification, not an assessment—that their plant is herbicide tolerant and that there somewhere exists a plant that is also herbicide tolerant, that plant becomes exempted under these provisions.

Lawrence Woodward: If I may just add to that, I had rather lazily gone along to some extent with the claim that gene editing technology will reduce the amount of herbicides and pesticides being used. I was therefore somewhat upset and surprised to see that Cibus, one of the major gene editing developers, put out its annual report the other day with a press release praising efforts around the world and in the UK to deregulate genome editing, because it saw the possibility of increasing herbicide-tolerant traits for sale, thereby increasing the use of herbicides in agriculture. It saw a way in which genome editing technology could increase the effectiveness of putting in herbicide-tolerant traits. That is an example of the complex nature of this area. The question of utility, sustainability, reduction of herbicides and so on, which people talk about, is really not a given.

Pat Thomas: I just want to add a brief point: within the scope of the Bill, the concept of risk is being used interchangeably with sustainability. Risk assessment and sustainability assessment are two entirely different things. A sustainability assessment will look more across the board at the sorts of effects that we are talking about here. We should not take for granted that risk or safety can be used as a proxy for sustainability.

[Deidre Brock]

Q May I return you, Ms Thomas, to the points that you were making about Norway? I think the Norwegians introduced a gene technologies Act fairly recently. When I read about the approach that they took to the issue, it seemed to involve a lot more public consultation and discussion. Will you expand a little on the approach they have taken to this issue? What can we learn from it? What would you like to see included in this Bill?

Pat Thomas: I think we can learn the value of citizen views. I have been a little disturbed, in the first session and this one, by the vague disdain for citizens—“Citizens must not understand the science, therefore they must not have a view.” Citizens are major stakeholders in the food system.

What that board does is to have a high percentage of civil society groups in particular, who are used as a proxy for citizens, but it also seeks out citizen views. What we have learned from citizen engagement in our work and in sharing the work of others is that citizens tend to ask a much wider range of questions of the food system. When they are not asking those questions, it is because some aspect of the food system has been hidden from them. For example, until we understood about battery hens, people did not ask questions about that, but they ask them now. When people began to worry about pesticides in their food, they began to ask questions about organic food.

A concern for me about the Bill and citizen engagement is that the term “precision bred” is not well known. It is in fact a way of sneaking genetically engineered foods into the food system. I can envisage a case in which—even if there was a turnaround on labelling—to label something “precision bred”, for example, is not useful information to people who do not understand what that term means.

To circle back to your question, the importance of including citizens in these kinds of assessments is that we get a much more well-rounded assessment, and something that takes into account questions such as, “Why are we doing this?”, “Is there an alternative?” and, “If there is an alternative, why are we doing this?” Those questions are very important.

Lawrence Woodward: May I add to that? The Norwegian law is one thing. People always think, “Okay, it’s in Scandinavia, they don’t do much GM anyway,” but I remind you that in 2015 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee—of which I believe you were a member, Chair—recommended in its inquiry into agricultural technology the establishment of a permanent citizens panel to work alongside ACRE in assessing all these other aspects of gene technology, such as its application, its commercial roll-out and so on. That is embedded in the House of Commons proceedings. It did not get very far, obviously. The other point about that is that although that provision did not go into detail as to what would constitute a permanent citizens’ panel, the Norwegian one does, in terms of balance of citizen representation and stakeholder representation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q You have done work before on public engagement. What would need to be changed to respect the outcomes of the public engagement that has gone on so far?

Professor Hartley: We have known for 20 years some of the issues that the public care about in the space of emerging biotechnology, and that includes labelling, which we know is key. We also know that the public have much more support for technologies that deliver public benefit and are not for profit. Over time, these issues are quite consistent across a lot of emerging technologies, but particularly in biotech.

We could argue that part of the failure of the GM crops was that they did not deliver the public benefit that they promised to start with. They promised to feed the world and contribute to global food security, but in fact the products that were developed ended up serving the farming industry and delivering higher economic profits. We also note it is not reflected in the Bill that animals are much more of a concern to the public than crops. Again, the sensitivities to those issues of concern do not appear to have been addressed in the Bill at this point.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Perhaps I could return to Dr Edenborough now. You may well have heard some of the discussions about the definitions at the start of the Bill, and there clearly are different views as to what they mean. As someone who might be called on to interpret the Bill, how confident are you that that will be straightforward?

Dr Edenborough: Well, I am confident that it would not be straightforward.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Could you elaborate?

Dr Edenborough: The simple point is that clause 1, as drafted, is quite imprecise. For example, if I may refer to the detail, there is the way in which subsection (2)(c) says,

“every feature of its genome could have resulted from…traditional processes…or…natural transformation.”

First, “could have resulted from” is staggeringly imprecise. Is that “likely”? Is that “very possible”? What level of probability is it? Then “traditional processes” is actually defined further in subsection (7), but it is still incredibly wide. However, “natural transformation” is not defined, so that clearly gives scope for further debate.

Even more fundamentally, “modern biotechnology” is, in subsection (3), defined by reference to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002. That is wide. However, subsection (8) says that if those GMO regulations are modified, the knock-on effect, with respect to this Bill, is that the regulations may be modified

“to make corresponding changes (with or without variation)”.

Again, that is incredibly wide.

I hesitate to raise it, but there is also, in essence, a Henry VIII clause tucked away in clause 42, which is incredibly widely drafted. Those clauses always give rise to concern because, basically, you can do what you like, when you like, with very little scrutiny. Does that sufficiently address my concerns?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Well, it highlights the concerns that we have. Going on from that, my next question is on the terms “precision bred organism” and—this is not in the Bill, but it is related to it—“qualifying higher plant”. Will those terms be easy to define if a challenge comes as to what would constitute those categories? It is the same question that I asked before, really. From this legislation, would you be able to discern the answer if someone comes to you and says, “Is this or isn’t this one of those categories?”?

Dr Edenborough: No, it would not be easy, for the simple reason that, because of the breadth of the way in which things have been defined—in a cascading way—you have uncertainty built on uncertainty. If a particular set of facts were presented to me and I was asked the simple question, “Is this within or without this particular Bill?” the answer would be simply, “Maybe.” It will depend on a raft of expert evidence that addresses each and every one of those points of cascade.

As soon as you get to a crunch point, whereby you need expert evidence to say whether it is within or without one of the particular points, you introduce uncertainty. If you have several of those, you introduce more uncertainty. Therefore, it would be dependent on a mass of expert evidence to determine each and every one of those points.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q In your earlier answer to the Minister, you—I think rightly—pointed out that this Bill does not add anything in terms of intellectual property rights. In the absence of the Bill providing certainty, how might the wider gene editing debate develop commercially, and will it further the interests of research and development in the UK?

Dr Edenborough: At the moment, there are no bars within the intellectual property regime to doing this sort of work. So the hesitation comes not from the IP regime but from commercial factors: in essence, whether or not you are going to make money at the end of it. The Bill, though, could introduce greater uncertainty into the commercial field, which would arise because of the unclear way in which “precision bred” is defined. That could lead to people, in some senses, exploiting that uncertainty. Now, there are a number of ways in which that could happen, but one is that you could have a big entity with a lot of muscle, and therefore a lot of money, which might want to push all the boundaries and cause confusion in the marketplace. That could have a dampening effect on other, smaller people who do not have the financial muscle to challenge the legal parameters.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is a very sobering prospect. Thank you; that was helpful.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Thank you to both our witnesses for your evidence so far. I would like to hear your views on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the implications for the future. Scotland and Wales in particular have objected to these measures—until such time that we, in Scotland’s case, have heard from the EU about its consultation on this.

Dr Edenborough: My views will be limited to the legal aspects. The simple consequence is that something may, for example, occur in England that may not be permissible in Scotland. But there is uncertainty with respect to whether, if you grow something in England, you could sell the product in Scotland. That is unclear. I think that is probably as far as I can go legally.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have about 90 seconds, Daniel.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q This will only take a second. I am trying to conclude this long and interesting discussion about liability. I think what you are saying is that in the end it will require something in law—in the Bill—to actually provide that protection. Is that correct?

Dr Edenborough: Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q So you are saying it depends on the FSA’s approvals process. What would need to be in this Bill to give the levels of reassurance that you would be looking for?

Ed Barker: In looking at the Bill, the experience of Canadian authorities has been very intuitive to the process in place, because they take an outcomes-based approach. Another area that we are very interested in is the time taken to reach approval. It would be really positive if we were to have a set time-specific limit on authorisations within that. A big problem that we have at the moment with a number of approvals for plant protection products or GM feed imports from South America is that we have a very indeterminate approval process in terms of time. That has caused a lot of problems in the past eight or nine months, when the market has not known whether or not we should be making purchases of GM goods from South America. That uncertainty over time and time lags is a real challenge for the industry, and I think that would be the case. Some certainty over time or statutory requirements on approvals, even a requirement or expectation of turnaround, would be very helpful. At the moment, that is making a lot of difficulty for the trade on existing GM approvals.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q One final question for the moment: to the lay observer, these flows backwards and forwards between different countries and within the UK are quite staggering. I may be pre-empting the next question, but, given the issues you have just talked about, how much will the different approaches taken in the different parts of the United Kingdom impact on your people?

Ed Barker: It is a concern of ours that we have a difference in approach across the constituent parts of the UK, or certainly within England, Wales and Scotland. That does not necessarily mean that we should stop within the context of this Bill. What we need to know as a trade is exactly what can and cannot happen within, say, Scotland or Wales. There is uncertainty on what a grower can do. I am sure growers or even livestock owners in Wales or Scotland would be interested to know where they stand on purchasing seed, if we presume there is precision bred seed in England.

My understanding of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, having read through the House of Commons Library interpretation and the accompanying notes in the Bill, suggests that, if a precision bred product is placed on the market in England, it can then be sold in Scotland or Wales—obviously not in Northern Ireland, of course—but if I was a grower, or even a maltster or a miller in the supply chain, in Scotland or Wales, my first question would be, “Where does that stand with regard to regulatory compliance?” There are clearly areas within this Bill and within scope of the 2020 Act that, to my reading, potentially come into conflict.

What seed can you use if you are in Scotland? Can you use precision bred seed bought from England, for example? Can you feed your animals on precision bred animal feed purchased in England? Similarly, we have very integrated pig and poultry sectors for genetics, breeding nucleus herds that move around the UK quite significantly.

For clarity, either way, understanding what obligations or requirements are on businesses and farmers in each of those territories is absolutely key, because any ambiguity would create the risk that the industry and supplied businesses would take a risk-averse approach and not undertake to put in place any of the precision bred products that we may have opportunities to use.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q On labelling and transparency, you have probably seen the research from the Food Standards Agency showing that the public would like to know more about where their food comes from. I think that is a growing trend in general. What do you feel about the labelling issues?

Paul Temple: Labelling is really important, but what I would pass back to you for a start is that 30 million tonnes of GM material comes into Europe, and there has never been a requirement for labelling through to the feed process, and that is on modification. This is not modified, and I think that is really important; it is not modified. This could be achieved through conventional breeding, and as such I do not think it needs specific labels. Again, to my mind, you do it from a risk-based perspective. If there is not a risk, there is no need to actually label it as such.

Going back to the global aspect, we are in a global marketplace and what we do not want to do is put ourselves out of kilter with the rest of the world and create double standards or unnecessary work. It needs to be measured and there needs to be awareness, but I do not think it should be stoked by those who seek to feed on the fear factor.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q You may or may not have heard the evidence from our previous witness from the Agricultural Industries Confederation, who expressed concern—pretty much using the language that you have just used—that we are out of kilter with other places, particularly Europe, and that that could have a dampening effect on these developments. Do you share that view?

Paul Temple: I very much share the view that if you are out of kilter, as a net importer, you risk causing yourself problems. Again, it is about following the science. I have been to America a number of times and I have sat with the USDA in Washington. Those guys have huge quantities of experience of managing a rapidly moving area of science. To my mind, they are the people with the most experience in this field. You should speak to them and ask them how they manage something that is actually being put out into fields now. You should go to the people with experience of managing it.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Mr Temple, you said that you do not want farmers to be out of kilter with the rest of the world, but as we have heard today, and as I have read—this is one of the Scottish Government’s concerns—we may be out of kilter with Europe’s approach to GM and gene edited foods. Does that concern you? Some of the farmers that you come into contact with must export their goods to Europe. We have heard that there is the possibility for products to get through on a product-by-product basis, but that sounds kind of costly and would take up a lot of time. Are you not concerned about that?

Paul Temple: I have always been concerned about the approach that Europe has taken. However, there seems to be a more conciliatory approach on the necessity of enabling the technology. We will see, but there does seem to be some element of progress. What I find really interesting is the gene edited wheat that has been put out in Argentina. It is in fields in New Zealand and Australia, and the US pretty much accepts it. That facilitates trade. When countries like Argentina, which are massive net exporters, are willing to adopt this technology and look at its safety, there is a huge amount we can learn from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I can see the potential benefits, but I am slightly worried about the potential risk in the wider natural world, and I do not see anything in the Bill as it stands to either monitor that or check that, or to provide sufficient safeguards. Can you reassure me?

Ross Houston: Could you repeat the question, please?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Basically, I can absolutely see the benefits, but I can also see risks, and it is the risk side that I am worried about. What I am asking you is whether you can see anything in the Bill—I cannot—that provides a structure for monitoring and mitigating those risks.

Ross Houston: I see the risks as very small, but I do not think that I am in aposition to comment on the detail.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q That is fine. I am certainly not laying it on you; it is down to us to come up with the answer to that one.

Ross Houston: Yes, but my practical point would be—this is the way we think about it—that we are aiming to ensure that there would be sterility of the farmed strains, and at least awareness of that potential risk of genetic introgression with wild strains, and essentially to eliminate that.

[Deidre Brock]

Q You will be aware, of course, that the Scottish Government want to wait until the EU’s consultation on gene edited products is complete, because they wish to retain regulatory alignment with the EU and there are concerns about the export of salmon, which is a huge sector for Scotland—and for the UK, for that matter—to Europe, and to France in particular. Given that you are in the sector and close to it, can you tell us about your concerns about that potential impact? If the EU retains its current opposition to gene editing, what would be the impact on UK products trying to get into the EU?

Ross Houston: As I said, it is welcome that we are having this discussion, but of course most of the aquaculture in the UK is salmon farming, and most salmon farming occurs in Scotland. So from our point of view it is disappointing that we are not having similar science-based and open debates about the risks and benefits of these approaches in Scotland. The Scottish Government are also, via the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre, funding research that is looking to use CRISPR precision breeding technologies to tackle some of the sustainability concerns of the industry, such as resistance to sea lice and viral disease. Therefore, I think it would be welcome if we could have a similar discussion in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q But that is not in the Bill as it stands, is it?

Professor Harwood: It is not, but I think that would probably fall under part 3, which looks at food safety. I imagine that it would be—not being an expert—covered there.

Professor Martin: I want to expand a little bit on what Wendy said. What the Bill does is allow you to move forward with presenting examples. I have a real problem with trying to do a risk assessment on a technology and I know that lots of other people have said it should be on the trait, not the technology. It is a bit like 3D printing. Do we stop doing 3D printing or allowing people to do it because somebody could make a gun out of it? Or do we say, “We can make joints”? Okay, you can make joints by traditional methods, but you can do it much faster and better by 3D printing. Why do we not allow the technology and regulate the trait?

I absolutely agree about the pro-vitamin D enriched tomato that has never been considered before. There we have the regulatory system already in place from the FSA to consider it as a novel food. For environmental concerns, you take the specific edit that has happened and ACRE will assess. That is also why we want to do field trials. No person that is trying to produce improved varieties wants to produce something that is defective—it is just not in our DNA.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Not in yours, but possibly in others who are less public spirited.

Nigel Moore: I think the critical answer to the question is that public confidence and reassurance is at the heart of the Bill, in the definition of a precision bred organism as something that could occur in nature or by traditional breeding. There are many genome editing methods that can create additional changes. Absolutely the key step to generating public confidence and reassurance is the recognition that the techniques that can create those sorts of changes do not create additional risk. The ACRE guidance on qualifying higher plants that accompanies the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002 gave an extremely good evidence-based approach to which types of techniques create changes that could occur in nature.

The question is about an imprecise definition. We need the additional information to say, “These are the techniques that we confirm as PBOs—they are fine.” Public reassurance is at the heart of this and we must make sure that we only put into this regulatory regime things that have the same risk profile as traditional breeding. What is clear from listening to the discussion today is how little information is known about what sorts of genetic changes happen in conventional breeding, or about the scale of those genetic changes.

I brought with me the AHDB recommended list. I will not go into it, but if we were to look at it, we would see that there are 38 varieties of wheat on the recommended list for the UK. They have many different characteristics, including resistances, yields, qualities for processing and vastly different protein contents—there is a range of about 30% of different protein contents. You can see null-lox barleys that have a different framing characteristic in beer making. You can see non-GN barleys that do not create carcinogens in whisky distilling. There are many food-safety single issues all in this vast range of genetic resources that have been created by traditional breeding. There is a wide range.

People should have confidence that all the food and all the breeding has delivered not risk, but improvement, safety and better environmental outcomes compared with old varieties. There is a big misunderstanding about the position of precision breeding. The public confidence question is about information, education and transparency. For me, that is at the heart of what we are doing here.

Public confidence should also be triggered by a recent study on the socioeconomic impact of plant breeding, run by HFFA Research, and which studied all of Europe. It showed that over the last 20 years in the UK alone, breeding development has saved 1.8 million hectares from agriculture and delivered about 16 million tonnes fewer CO₂ emissions than the same production at the same level 20 years ago. That is with no more fertiliser, no more crop protection and no more land use, so there is a huge benefit to the public. Can we keep pace with climate change, and with pathogen development on stripe rusts in wheat and so on, without going faster? We must go faster. Without new technology and innovation, I do not feel very safe. The world gets warmer, we get hungrier and we need innovation—and we need to do it fast.

Professor Caccamo: I will be very brief. Labelling the technology would be a mistake. It would undermine the principle of the Bill, because these technologies should be indistinguishable from traditional breeding or something that would happen in nature. But it is also important to stress that these technologies are actually more precise, as the Bill says. Therefore, we are in a position whereby we can advance genetic benefits much faster. Trying to identify the technology through a labelling system would probably achieve the opposite with the public, because it would probably raise concerns about why we need to do that. I will leave it there.

[Deidre Brock]

Q I absolutely agree with you, Mr Moore. Public confidence and transparency around all of this is vital, but we have heard criticisms today that the category of “precision bred organisms” is not recognised anywhere else in the world and is not based on scientific criteria, which could potentially present problems for trade in these goods. Do you know where the term “precision bred” came from?

Nigel Moore: I think we have developed it here, but the concept of things that could occur in nature or traditional breeding is exactly the same concept that is being discussed with the Commission. Health Canada has also come up with a similar concept. Does it have the same three-letter acronym? No, but that concept is the common concept.

Professor Caccamo: I believe we are dealing with an anomaly, because what we are doing here is removing genome edited crops from the definition of genetically modified organisms. Countries that have adopted the technology have done a proactive measurement from scratch, whereby they considered genome editing to be a new technology that could bring new crops. The European ruling brought us into a position whereby we need to make an exception. That is the result we see in the Bill, which I consider, as I said, an anomaly.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 6, page 5, line 31, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 7 stand part.

Clause 8 stand part.

Amendment 31, in clause 9, page 6 line 33, at end insert—

“(iii) safeguarding the health and welfare of those animals that are no longer deemed to be precision bred;”.

This amendment would require regulations conferring power on the Secretary of State to revoke a precision bred confirmation relating to an organism to include provision to safeguard the health and welfare of any animals which would as a consequence of such a revocation no longer be deemed precision bred.

Amendment 12, in clause 9, page 7, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

Clause 9 stand part.

[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 ---

Meaning of “relevant animal”

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 10, page 7, line 12, leave out—

“means an animal which is a vertebrate”

and insert—

“has the meaning given by section 5 of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022”.

This amendment would make the definition of animal from the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 the relevant definition, rather than that from the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 34, in clause 10, page 7, line 13, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4).

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 33, would remove the provision to extend the definition of “animal” to include (further) invertebrates, which would instead be provided by section 5 of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.

[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 ---

[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

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 11, page 8, line 25, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(1A) The welfare advisory body must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of any precision bred trait referred to in the application on the health and welfare of the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny.

(1B) In carrying out an assessment under subsection (2) the welfare advisory body must consider—

(a) scientific expertise on the health and welfare of animals with similar traits (whether or not resulting from the application of modern biotechnology) to those of the animal in respect of which an application for a precision bred animal marketing authorisation has been made;

(b) the animal welfare declaration provided by the notifier under subsection (3) of section 11 and the assessment, explanation and information provided under subsection (4) of section 11; and

(c) any other matter it considers appropriate.”

Amendment 5, in clause 12, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(1A) Where the purpose of a precision bred trait referred to in the application includes achieving fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity, the welfare advisory body must in preparing a report under subsection (2)—

(a) consider whether animals or their progeny with similar traits resulting from selective breeding or traditional processes have experienced pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity, and

(b) assess whether the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny are also likely to experience pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity.”

Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(1A) In preparing a report under subsection (2) the welfare advisory body must consider whether the precision bred traits may facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that may have an adverse effect on animal welfare.”

Amendment 7, in clause 12, page 8, line 30, at end insert—

“(za) the likely impact of the precision bred traits on the health and welfare of the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny,

(zb) whether the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny are likely to experience pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity,

(zc) whether the precision bred traits may facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that are likely to have an adverse effect on animal welfare,”.

Amendment 35, in clause 12, page 8, line 40, at end insert—

“(d) whether the health or welfare of the parents, grandparents or great grandparents of the qualifying progeny of the relevant animal may reasonably be expected to be adversely affected by the precision bred trait.”

This amendment would require the welfare advisory body to report on the likely effects of a precision bred trait on breeding stock.

Amendment 36, in clause 12, page 8, line 40, at end insert—

“(2A) In its report under subsection (2) the welfare advisory body must take into account direct and indirect effects and intended and unintended effects of the precision bred trait on the health and welfare of—

(a) the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny, and

(b) the parents, grandparents or great grandparents of the qualifying progeny.”

This amendment would require the welfare advisory body to take into account direct and indirect, and both intended and unintended, effects of the precision bred trait on the animal and its qualifying progeny and on breeding stock.

Clause 12 stand part.

Amendment 8, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

“(za) that the precision bred traits will not have an adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny,

(zb) that the precision bred traits will not facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that are likely to have an adverse effect on animal welfare,

(zc) that any precision bred trait could not reasonably have been achieved by means that do not involve modification of the genome of the animal,”.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State issuing a precision bred animal marketing authorisation unless satisfied on the health or welfare effects listed and that the precision bred trait could not reasonably have been achieved by means that do not involve modification of the genome of the animal.

Clause 13 stand part.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We have quite a complicated set of amendments and clauses before us, so I will try to take them in turn—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. Can we keep the noise down?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The measures all refer to the animal legislation, which, as we said at the beginning, we are not convinced was sufficiently developed. Nevertheless, we have some detail here so it is worth looking closely at what is proposed. Unfortunately, a lot is, again, left to secondary legislation under the negative procedure; given the likely interest in this topic, which I have mentioned often today, that gives us cause for concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

We have had an excellent discussion of the issues and, as always, I find myself in agreement with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has said, not least because she has agreed with me.

There was a lot in the Minister’s opening remarks, and I will go away and study them closely. Part of the problem is that a lot of the what the Minister said is not in the Bill, and this has been a problem throughout. She said that clauses 11 and 12 were crucial because they set up the new regulatory framework, but that that was not expected to be done quickly, because time would be spent on it. That is good and welcome, but, frankly, in the awful situation where another Minister potentially was in place, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that original assurance would hold good. As far as I can see, that framework could be established rather quickly if we pass the Bill as it is written.

When we discuss matters when considering secondary legislation, it may be that many of the things that we have raised will be covered, but there are no guarantees, which is why we have tabled the amendments. That is the problem, and why it is our responsibility to lay down some thoughts as to what the framework should be. Perhaps we will help to set some of thinking going forward, and if that is the case, even though I do not anticipate that the amendments will be agreed to, they may help to contribute to setting out the type of framework that we would like.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East that the proposed framework still looks rather weak. The Minister spoke of the advisory body being able to request further information, and that is good and proper, but I think it may need to be able to do more than that. If we have the opportunity to discuss the matter further, I suspect this type of question will come up: what are the actual powers available to the body? I do not think I have yet heard anybody talk about the composition of the animal welfare body, but that it is quite important, because it could be quite a narrow group of experts. There is nothing wrong with that but, as I have said before, people drawn from the same set of people almost inevitably tend to end up thinking the same kind of things. I think the public would quite like some other voices involved in the decisions.

I agree that, ultimately, matters must go to the Secretary of State for decision, so that there is a chain of accountability, but we all know that in reality the earlier processes are quite significant. We will come to our suggestions about how matters should be considered when we discuss the new clauses. People have suggested that the other models should be followed, such as that of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. My understanding is that at times the latter has had a wider membership and remit than originally set. Such a possibility would give people confidence about the work of the animal welfare body as we go into a brave new world, because it is just that: we have fantastic opportunities.

The Minister said that some of our comments suggested that we see the Bill as a negative; we do not. We see it as offering huge opportunities, if done in the right way and with the right safeguards, so that people have confidence that any application is made for the right purpose. We are not that far apart, but it is quite hard to work out from the Bill how everything will look a few years down the line. The worry is that if the Bill is approved unamended, there will nothing to stop matters proceeding rather quickly without the appropriate safeguards. The Opposition would be irresponsible were we not to make that point and to challenge, and that is what we will continue to do.

We have quite a complicated set of clauses and amendments ahead of us, and perhaps we will take them one by one, if that is all right with you, Ms McVey.

[The Chair]

Absolutely. To confirm, would you like to withdraw this amendment or to press it to a vote?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Report by welfare advisory body

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[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 ---

Restrictions on importation and acquisition of precision bred organisms in England

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 17, page 11, line 34, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 16, in clause 17, page 12, line 22, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

Clause stand part.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This part of the Bill deals with risk assessments and the restriction of importation and acquisition of precision bred organisms in England. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Given our debate on the very concept of the category and the fact that there are other, similar categories, some interesting questions are raised about who will determine it and how it will work with the other categories established in other jurisdictions. In itself, that is an interesting question.

For the purpose of the amendments, we note that the clause states that regulations “may” make provision to require a person to carry out environmental risk assessments. This is for veterans of the Environment Bill discussions, who will know that we had many “may” or “must” amendments, and long discussion as to whether that was reasonable. The clause, quite reasonably, gives the Government discretion on whether regulations happen at all, sooner or later. I understand why Government might want that discretion, but it poses the question why the provision is here and, if it is important, why it is not being implemented quickly. I will seek the Minister’s guidance on thinking behind it.

We can see why that matters, so one of our amendments is to turn “may” into “must”, and the other—guess what—is on the issue of the negative or the affirmative procedure. We think that is important too. It raises all the questions of what we think is reasonable for people here to do and for people elsewhere to do, and the relationship between them, while not putting our own people at a disadvantage. It is familiar ground in some ways for the wider arguments. We want to see it settled more precisely in the Bill and to have the opportunity to consider it again when the Government feel the time is right to bring a provision forward. I will listen closely to the Minister’s observations.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Deidre Brock]

Having looked at the clause again, I am struggling to see where it specifies that it applies only to the importation of organisms that will be used in scientific research, or are the products of scientific research, and purely that and not for commercial use.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Absolutely. I suspect that the answer will probably come later in secondary legislation, which will clarify the matter. That is the ongoing problem that we have, because it is very hard to discern the answers from the Bill. There seems to be a logical problem in saying that the current situation will continue when we are introducing the notion of a precision bred organism. We can hardly be carrying forward the current framework when we are introducing something new. I understand the intention, as explained by the Minister, but it seems a long way from how the Bill is drafted. I still think that creates a logical problem in terms of who defines a precision bred organism from another jurisdiction, given that those other jurisdictions do not recognise the term and use a different one.

--- Later in debate ---

Precision breeding register

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 17, in Clause 18, page 13, line 16, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause stand part.

[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 ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is interesting to note that suddenly we have a wealth of detail, but it is not entirely clear how that fits with some of previous bodies we have discussed. Is the regulator part of some new organisation that sits next to ACRE? Is it part of the welfare body, or is it something separate, again? We have some difficulty understanding exactly how all this fits together. It is quite interesting to look at the impact assessment of the number of applications that the Department anticipates. The spectrum outlined starts at zero over the next few years, which rather makes this a pointless exercise, frankly. We hope that the applications are not at that end of the spectrum. We believe that they will range from a medium position up to an upper band of, I believe, 18. I anticipate that with the animal aspects coming forward, possibly one would expect to see more applications. I believe that it is more oriented towards animal welfare aspects than to crop protection, but who knows? That is the truth.

It is quite hard to comment on the clauses, other than to say that the monitoring regime is welcome, and that the inspection regime is welcome. It is still a bit of a puzzle to see how it all fits together. We have no amendments tabled and no objection to the clauses, but we would like a better account of how the system fits together, not least because if we did have that, it would be much easier to explain to the public why they should have confidence in it. It is quite hard to explain that as the system emerges through this rather curious process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Advisory bodies

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 22, page 15, line 26, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 23 stand part.

Clause 24 stand part.

Amendment 20, in clause 25, page 16, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Amendment 9, in clause 25, page 16, line 24, at end insert—

“(1A) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consider (among other things) the possible direct or indirect adverse impact of precision breeding traits on the—

(a) respiratory system,

(b) cardiovascular system,

(c) immune system,

(d) bone strength,

(e) mobility, and

(f) ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns

of precision bred animals and their qualifying progeny.”

Clause 25 stand part.

--- 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)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements: Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail]; please switch electronic devices to silent; and tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. As the eagle-eyed among you will have spotted, as a Yorkshireman, I consider the heat to be oppressive, so people can remove their jackets, if they so wish.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. This shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again to sum up. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.

Clause 1

Precision Bred Organism

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 29, clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out

“or a precision bred animal”.

This amendment removes animals from the scope of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 30, clause 1, page 2, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment is consequential on amendment 29.

Amendment 28, title, line 2, leave out from “plants” to “animals” in line 3 and insert

“, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants”.

This amends the long title to remove animals from the scope of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Good morning to you, Mr Davies, and to everybody. I think this will be an interesting and, I hope, fruitful discussion. It is a fascinating subject, and it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies.

At the outset, let me start by repeating Labour’s mantra on this Bill. We are pro science, pro innovation and we want Britain’s scientists to succeed and to be at the very forefront of development. We want the investment, but we argue that investment comes from regulatory certainty and clarity. We are concerned that the Government have sadly failed to provide that. As a consequence, the risk is that, far from getting ahead, the UK gets caught in a paralysis, as investors look to see what others are doing and put developments on hold. This legislation really matters.

I hope that the Government will weigh carefully the superficially attractive benefits of moving quickly in search of what they claim to be a Brexit opportunity against the longer-term benefit of getting it right. The genetically edited tortoise versus the selectively bred hare, or vice versa one could perhaps say.

We are particularly concerned about the place of animals in the Bill, so we are starting with what could be described as a veritable blockbuster group of amendments, which would frankly remove animals from the scope of the Bill. We think that that is appropriate for several reasons. We recognise that the Government may not agree with us on this, and in the unlikely possibility of their winning the votes, we have tabled many further amendments to later clauses that we think will strengthen the framework of the genetic editing of animals, which will be discussed later. We have done this, because as I said on Second Reading, we think that the Government have got it the wrong way round on animals.

All the secondary legislation that has preceded the Bill was really about plants, not animals. Likewise in much of the discussion ahead of the Bill, much of the Government’s language again focused on plants. The consultation that was held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs referenced animals, but I would say in passing that at the time that did not seem to be the main focus of attention. It was a surprise to many in the House, as well as to concerned outside stakeholder and advocacy groups, that the Government chose to include animals in the Bill as they have.

When we look at the Bill, there is some evidence of the lack of really concrete provisions in the vague and non-committal timeframes offered by the Government, and the admission that much of the preparation necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been done. A document that I hope Members have had the opportunity to read is the impact assessment. If we want to know what the Government are really thinking, it is not in the Bill, but in the impact assessment, and I will reference it many times.

A good example of the point that I am making is on page 41 of the impact assessment, right at the top, in paragraph 109:

“Despite the potential benefits accrued by applying changes to the GMO regulations in animals, there is currently high risk of considerable consumer backlash in altering their regulations.”

The Government are well aware of the risks, and we are as well.

The Bill is in effect a framework Bill, with little detail on actual intentions and provisions laid out in law. It delegates a broad set of sweeping powers to Ministers not only to bring in a lot of secondary legislation, but to amend primary legislation with a Henry VIII clause hidden further on, which we will debate later.

The impact assessment lays out some further detail on the powers in the Bill. Again, it explicitly states on the secondary power contained in it that

“an understanding of the impacts of these provisions is not fully developed”—

so, not fully developed—

“A full understanding of the impacts will be developed ahead of any of the provisions being tabled, with impact assessments for each developed for scrutiny.”

That is on page 38, in paragraph 97. In the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill, they are admitting that a huge amount of work still needs to be done.

The Government also know, as we well know from the many discussions we have had in this very room on secondary legislation, that it is slightly disingenuous of them to suggest that we will have further discussion because, with secondary legislation, we know full well that there is no ability to amend and, frankly, fairly limited opportunity to scrutinise. Given that the issues are big, complicated and of public interest, I do not think that that is good enough.

Those who have looked at our procedures and at the way we operate in this House have said before that, if the Government intend to do that kind of thing, they could have drafted statutory instruments in advance, for example, but none of that has happened. The Bill is in essence a framework Bill, and as others have argued elsewhere, that is not the right way to do legislation. That is important not just in principle, but because the Bill is a significant piece of legislation. It could—will—have wide-ranging impacts on our food system, on the health and welfare of animals in this country and, as I have argued before, on the investment climate.

As has been raised numerous times, both on Second Reading and by many of the witnesses in the evidence sessions—those excellent sessions we had—the public have real concerns about the technology, in particular about its application to animals. Again going back to the impact assessment, paragraph 9 on page 11 states:

“Historically, ethical concerns have dominated the GM space, preventing proper consideration of scientific evidence.”

In itself, that is an interesting sentence, although not one I would recommend: to suggest that ethical concerns should not be considered in the broader debate is not a good starting point. It is a clumsy observation.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern about that point. We heard from several witnesses that we should be talking about animal welfare not in this Bill, but in connection with other legislation, such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or the farm animal welfare codes. That is almost, “Put that to one side; this is just about the science.” Does he share my concern that we are not looking at the Bill in the round and considering those ethical issues?

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, my hon. Friend speaks good sense. She is absolutely right. There is huge interest and I think understanding among the public of the potential benefits and of the potential risks. That is why we should have a proper discussion and debate in the round. We will keep coming back to that today and on further days, as we try to discern the Government’s thinking from the Bill. We have to work quite hard to understand the wider framework within which this sits, and the overall impact it will have. We will keep coming back to that, so I very much agree with her.

To go back to the impact assessment, at paragraph 122, again there is recognition that public acceptance remains uncertain, with the document referring to

“public scepticism and non-acceptance of GE products, including those that qualify as PBOs”—

precision bred organisms.

The Government are also clear—as are we—about the potential benefits and the need to weigh them proportionately with the risks. We would argue that to do so, and to ensure public confidence, the Government need to be absolutely transparent and explicit about the changes they are seeking to make. As I have indicated, however, that is not really going on at the moment. It seems that we are being asked to vote for a blank cheque that would give the Government the power to set up any regulatory framework that they desire, without proper discussion about the merits of one particular framework over another.

That was made clear in evidence, particularly that of Professor Gideon Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at DEFRA, who said:

“The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 18, Q26.]

I quite agree. He also said that the process of considering the evidence on animal welfare

“will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 17, Q24.]

We know that the Government’s thinking is that that would take some years—possibly two to three; possibly longer—but no such process or timescale is laid out in the Bill. If more time is needed to get the provisions right, why not focus on doing that rather than asking us, essentially, to allow them to pass and to ask questions only afterwards? I do not think that is how we get good legislation, and even more worryingly, that is not how we maintain public confidence. This is quite a big decision, as these matters are a big part of the Bill, but we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that animals should be excluded for now, until DEFRA and the Government have carried out the very large piece of work that they clearly and self-evidently need to do—as they admit—before they are ready to come back to the House with concrete proposals.

Amendment 29 would remove “or a precision bred animal” from the definition of “precision bred organism” in subsection 1(1). That term will itself be subject to further discussion in a few minutes, but I think that the effect of the amendment is clear.

Amendment 30 would remove paragraph 1(7)(b) and is consequential on amendment 29. Should the amendments be successful, there would need to be many further consequential amendments later in the Bill, but rather than putting the Clerks to the task of considerable further drafting work, we thought it might be sensible to test the water first. Consequently, we will not press amendments 29 and 30 to a vote, but we will test the view of the Committee with amendment 28, which can be found the end of the amendment paper and would amend the Bill’s title to remove references to animals.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Division 1

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 1, clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) But for the purposes of this Act an organism is not ‘precision bred’ if any feature of its genome results from any technique or process which involves transgenesis.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

“; but such changes may not provide for the definition of ‘modern biotechnology’ to include any technique which involves introducing exogenous genetic material.”

This amendment would prevent any technique which involves introducing exogenous genetic material from being included in any future change to the definition of “modern biotechnology” for the purposes of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We now come to the heart of the Bill—I was about to say, the “meat of the Bill”, but whatever the genetically edited alternative to the meat of the Bill would be. This is the discussion of the definitions, which is tricky stuff.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, in the private meetings that the Minister kindly arranged for herself and the Opposition Front Benchers through to Second Reading, it has been fairly clear that the stated intention of the Bill is to deregulate the law on gene editing, or precision bred organisms, as they are considered to be—organisms that could have been created through traditional breeding processes, in contrast to genetically modified organisms, which could not. I suspect that we will have quite a discussion on that point. The distinction originally came from the 2018 European Court judgment, which many at the time considered problematic because it seemed a legalistic judgment rather than one that reflected an understanding of the changes and developments in technologies over the last 30 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher]

I apologise for the inappropriate language, Mr Davies; I am just getting a bit over-excited. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to include a legalistic definition of nature. I have scrutinised the Bill quite carefully, and I believe that it has sufficient protections to replicate the best parts of nature. That is why I was looking the way I was.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hope everyone is still with us, because this is not simple. Part of the problem is that we are learning more all the time. We are trying to set out a regulatory framework and structure that will stand a reasonable test of time. The Minister is slightly unfair with her dramatic language of how we are shackled. Different Administrations across the world take different approaches, of which there is a whole range therefore, which suggests that the choice is not a simple binary one between doing this or that. The reason people do things differently is that people are more or less cautious. Part of the debate—the question—is where we want to be on that spectrum, and where we think we will be best placed to attract investment and to give people confidence and certainty about the approach we are taking.

I am still worried, because two almost-parallel things seem to be going on. On the one hand, there is an appreciation that the newer technologies absolutely involve transgenesis, even though the Government and others have been pretty clear in reassuring people that that is not what is going on. On the other hand, the fall-back is then, “Well, that could have occurred naturally,” which is absolutely right, as has been explained to me—nature does that anyway. However, for the legislation proposed in the Bill, does that mean we should not be explicit about reassuring people that transgenesis is excluded? By stating that as we have proposed in the amendment, people get that absolute confidence.

[Kate Green]

I have listened to the Minister and to the scientific explanation of the hon. Member for South Ribble—which was much appreciated. Does my hon. Friend agree that that transparency should extend, from the public perspective, not just to the end product, as it were, but to what will have happened at every stage of the process?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I rather agree. The problem is that although we are spending time and effort to understand this, that does not always get translated into the wider world. We have seen before how this issue cannot necessarily always be explained as carefully as it might be to the wider world, which is why it is so important that we do not leave uncertainty or doubt in the Bill. That is why this stronger amendment would give us that clarity to reassure people, because that is what they want to hear—people are concerned. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote, because it would give clarity.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[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?

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 4, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

Clause 4 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Amendments 32 and 10 concern the requirements for releasing a precision bred organism. I go back to my mantra—we are pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system, while addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has sometimes created.

In our view, the UK has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others would follow and that provides a clear public good. We recognise that the laws need to be updated to match current scientific understanding, as we talked about earlier. We want our scientists to succeed, and we want them to use their skills for good here in the UK.

To get the legislation right, the Government must balance several risks and benefits. Without consumer and business confidence, we fear we will not see that innovation happening here in the UK and we will not see the subsequent improvements to environmental sustainability and better food security that we all seek.

We want the UK to prioritise innovations that provide public benefit and prosperity. There are so many good examples happening across the country, including in my constituency of Cambridge. The Minister has already referred to the many examples presented to us in the evidence sessions last week. I pay tribute to the passion, expertise and dedication that all those people bring to their work.

I was particularly struck by the evidence given by Bill Angus, in which he noted the motivations behind the work he does as a wheat breeder and as vice-chair of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, and the passions that drive it. Likewise, Professor Giles Oldroyd gave compelling evidence on the work being done at the University of Cambridge, focusing on improving the sustainability of farming systems and, in particular, removing the need for inorganic fertilizers. Those are clearly areas where gene editing could bring significant benefits for environmental sustainability and in reducing food insecurity across the world. Those should be the innovations that are championed.

However—there is always a “however”—we also heard evidence that while gene editing could be used for good, it could be used for ends that to many of us do not seem so desirable. I found the evidence from Peter Stevenson of Compassion in World Farming very persuasive. Here I am thinking of some of the harmful impacts that, sadly, traditional breeding methods have wrought on different animal species, whether that is farm animals that have been bred to produce high yields, which shortens their lifespan, or companion animals such as dogs, which have been bred to have bodies so small that they can barely sustain their internal organs. There is a risk that the Bill could be used to breed animals in a way that meant they would suffer more or be made to tolerate harsher conditions.

There is widespread agreement across the House that we are proud of the animal welfare and environmental standards that we have in the UK, but we know that not all countries around the world share that ethos or those aims, and that they might have different intentions for these new technologies. The question we pose in our amendments is, how can we ensure that the technology is used for good here in the UK, and who decides what that good might be?

The Bill includes some animal welfare tests, which we welcome—we shall discuss them in more detail later—but that is about it. There is a question in my mind: is development of further herbicide-resistant crops allowing more herbicide to be used, not less, what we really want to see? I do not think so. Are there tests in the Bill to stop that? That is where, again, I worry. I am not convinced, although I am happy for the Minister to point those tests out.

Our amendments propose something more explicit. Amendment 32 would create a public benefit test before precision bred organisms could be authorised and released. An organism would have to have been developed for any of the purposes described in the amendment, and I am sure all members of the Committee agree that that is an excellent list. Sharp-eyed Members might think that they have seen the list before. Labour Members are keen recyclers, and Government Members will be delighted to know that those worthy goals have been lifted from the Agriculture Act 2020. The added benefit is that that makes it all much easier for Conservative Members to support all this. What is not to like in the proposal?

The amendment would ensure that we got the most out of the Bill. As Professor Sarah Hartley of the University of Exeter said in evidence:

“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.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 123-24, Q193.]

That is the key point, but there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that will happen. Members might remember the exchange I had with the scientist who is developing the tomato with added vitamin D. I love the enthusiasm of scientists, which is fantastic, but they are great optimists in many ways, and they assume that everyone is, like them, developing positive stuff that will be good for the world. I hate to enlighten them about the fact that there are people out there who do not take exactly the same view.

When making legislation, we have to ensure that, as well as welcoming those who are undoubtedly trying to do good, we guard against those who are not. Amendment 32 would strengthen the Bill, harness the good that can be created through such technologies, and properly encode the Government’s stated aims for the Bill in the text itself.

Amendment 10 concerns the notification requirements for the release of a precision bred organism. The secondary powers in clause 4 are important, as they will specify the information that a notifier is required to disclose before releasing a precision bred organism. That is important not just to ensure that concerned members of the public remain informed, but also for what is termed “co-existence”—the ability of organic growers to maintain the integrity of their product.

We heard evidence from representatives of the organic sector. They made it clear that they cater to a group of people who do not want to see genetically modified or edited organisms in their food. Whatever our wider view of the Bill, I think we can all agree that those people have a right to that choice. With thorough information in release notices, organic farmers can make informed decisions about their crops or animals, take the necessary measures, and track their supply chain. That is an important set of issues, and given the clause’s importance, we believe that any powers created through it should be properly discussed and given proper scrutiny by this House rather than being waved through.

I fear that we will make a number of similar points as we discuss whether legislation should be decided via the negative or the affirmative procedure. It would have been helpful and desirable for the Committee to have had details on the powers, rather than being asked to give the Government a blank cheque to do what they think is best. In the absence of any detail, I think that we should be able to debate and scrutinise the secondary legislation when it is laid before the House. That is what amendment 10 would secure.

Although we will not necessarily press both amendments to a vote, I think amendment 10 is sufficiently significant for us to divide the Committee, but let us see what the Minister says.

[Kerry McCarthy]

In speaking to amendment 32, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge quoted oral evidence. I had a bit of a Twitter conversation with David Rose, professor of sustainable agricultural systems at Cranfield University. He was due to give evidence but could not because of ill health. Professor Rose said that the Government have not considered how the Bill will lead to more sustainable agriculture, and that, although gene editing does have potential, it could, if used badly, make agriculture less sustainable.

Professor Rose posed a number of questions. What is gene editing for? That goes to the very heart of what the Committee is trying to nail. Who benefits? Will it reduce chemical use? Will it facilitate further monoculture? Will it intensify animal protection? The fact that those questions and concerns exist mean that gene editing could be used for good or for bad, so it would be helpful to have a public interest test in the Bill.

The Agriculture Act 2020 contains very clear tests on public money for public good, and establishes quite a clear idea of what is regarded as a public good in food and farming—certainly in how people farm their land, although not so much on the animal side of things. There is concern, however, that the Government are rowing back a little on that agenda as they start to consider how to distribute subsidies to farmers.

As we look at the more technical side of things, it would be good to reiterate that the Government do see that there is a need to promote the public good with regard to this legislation. Sue Pritchard, chief executive of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission—with whom I am sure the Minister is familiar—agreed with Professor Rose, saying that his comments were “consistent” with the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission consultation response; she also agreed that DEFRA must anticipate good and bad consequences. That is our concern: while we have heard lots about the potential, it is just not clear that the safeguards are there against potential misuse of the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.)

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 26, page 16, line 29, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 22, in clause 26, page 16, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Clause stand part.

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is a pleasure to continue under you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and it is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Banbury, who is now the Minister for our proceedings. Obviously, these have been difficult days for Members on the Government Benches, and I extend my sympathies to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I hope that Members will agree that the spirit in which we conducted our proceedings on Tuesday was constructive. We probed the Government’s intentions, and we will continue to do so and seek to improve the legislation this afternoon.

This clause represents a significant aspect of the Bill and we welcome it, although we note that a number of Government Back Benchers expressed concern on Second Reading. I will speak to our two amendments but also more broadly about the principles underlying these clauses as we see them and why we think that they are integral to the overall package.

Much has been said about the strength of the food and public health measures in the Bill and the fact that the Food Standards Agency will have a role to play in ensuring that any precision bred organisms that reach supermarket shelves are adequately regulated. Part 3 of the Bill, which we are discussing now, covers the food and feed produced from precision bred organisms, and clause 26 concerns regulation of food and feed produced from precision bred organisms—an area on which, as I have said, much has been promised.

We have already talked frequently—I am sure that the Minister has read the record of the proceedings from the other day—about the example of tomatoes fortified to contain higher levels of vitamin D, and I think we have agreed that it is important that information for consumers in such cases is managed carefully. But before getting to that point, we must ensure that any foods created with precision bred organisms are safe for human consumption.

As I said on Second Reading, I am particularly proud that a Labour Government established the Food Standards Agency; I think that it does an excellent job. I will say a little more later about its potential role, but I do think that we have high standards here in the UK and we also have trust, and that is in no small part down to the work and reputation of the Food Standards Agency.

However, I am expressing concern about the current wording of subsection (1) precisely because, although it confers on the Government the option to create 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 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. Our amendment 21 would change the subsection’s language from “may” to “must”, so that the Government were mandated to take up the power; that would not be optional.

I do not think this is a minor point. All the subsections conferring delegated powers do so by stating either that the Government “must” take up the power or that they “may”, so a decision clearly has been taken about which powers should be mandatory and which ones optional. In my very helpful meetings with the former Minister, she told me that close attention had been paid to the clauses conferring delegated powers and that the language around these had been chosen very specifically. I feel that this is an area where take-up of the power should be mandatory and that the language should be amended.

We heard evidence in the evidence sessions that backs up this position. Professor Robin May, chief scientific adviser at the Food Standards Agency and a professor of infectious disease at the University of Birmingham, said that

“it is important to be sure that”

precision bred

“products are safe…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.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 19, Q27.]

This amendment is also in line with the public polling and research that the Food Standards Agency has conducted. Professor May said that there is a

“really strong view that the public want some level of regulation and safeguards in this”.––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 19, Q28.]

Therefore I am not convinced that the public will be reassured to know that the Government might create a regulatory system for precision bred food but they also might not. The public want certainty, as do producers who will be embarking on the process of creating and then marketing precision bred products. Our amendment 21 would achieve that.

Subsection (2) lists the sorts of things a regulatory framework for precision bred food would achieve. Again, however, this is a “may” or “might”, instead of a “must’ and “will”. The subsection contains issues as important as traceability and imposing

“requirements for the purpose of securing traceability in relation to food and feed produced from precision bred organisms that is placed on the market in England”.

Without the ability to trace products, how will we be certain that we can remove any that have unexpected health consequences? How will we reassure organic producers and those who do not want to have precision bred inputs in their supply chain? It makes little sense to outline this level of detail in the Bill, which we welcome, without the commitment to take them up. That is all the more so because the Government’s language suggests that there is a firm commitment in the Bill—the Minister is nodding, so I suspect that is what she will tell us—when the actual wording does not really say that. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:

“The Food Standards Agency will”—

—not may—

“also conduct a very thorough and comprehensive assessment of any food safety issues. I think that will give people the reassurance they need.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 376.]

Although we have not tabled further amendments to the clause, because we are debating the clause stand part simultaneously I will also mention that subsection (6) only makes it a possibility, not a certainty, that the FSA will conduct the “thorough and comprehensive assessment” to which the Secretary of State referred. Perhaps what he should have said is that the Bill gives the Government the option to create regulations regarding food, and powers for the FSA to manage them, but that they have yet to make their mind up and that it would be perfectly compatible with the Bill for them to choose not to do it at all. If it is something that will definitely happen, why not make it an actual commitment in the Bill by changing “may” to “must”? I recall that we have had this discussion once or twice before in previous sittings of the Committee.

I suspect the Minister will be reassuring—she is very good at that—but we seek certainty. We welcome the detail that the Food Standards Agency has provided on how it might go about setting up such a system if the powers are used by the Government. It issued a helpful publication earlier this week, which I suspect members of the Committee have seen, although that too will need further discussion, because it has proposed two tiers of checks, with tier 2 checks being engaged when a precision bred organism has been created

“in which there is likely to have been a significant change in the composition of the product that is typically eaten. Such changes that may, for instance, include alterations to the type or level of nutrients or allergens within the product to a level beyond that usually seen in products based on conventionally bred organisms… Here further evidence of safety and a more detailed risk assessment would be required prior to an authorisation decision”.

Although that is reassuring, some people will question who will make the initial judgment about what constitutes “significant change”, and how such a decision will be arrived at. However, it fleshes out the thinking, which is welcome. It is a shame that, because of the “may” and “must” issue, we do not see any guarantee in the Bill that the FSA will even have the opportunity to play a role, or that there will be a regulatory system for food in the first place, so I would welcome reassurances from the Minister.

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I would like to provide the hon. Gentleman with reassurances. He and I have discussed many times the “may” and “must” issue in the context of the Agriculture Act 2020, the Fisheries Act 2020 and, I believe, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.

It is indeed vital that the Bill gives the necessary power for regulations to be made to enable the Food Standards Agency to ensure that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the food we eat is safe for human consumption. My Department has spoken in depth, and many times, to the Food Standards Agency about this matter, and I did so myself this morning in preparation for this afternoon’s sitting. I have been fully reassured that any measures that are proposed will be taken up by the FSA and will be proportionate and appropriate. The FSA is committed to open and transparent policy making, which will be wholly evident as it continues the process of building the new framework. Work is already under way to make sure that the right stakeholders are involved, including officials in Wales and Northern Ireland, and Food Standards Scotland. They will be able to shape the frameworks and how they operate in practice.

There are already existing provisions in general food law for securing traceability of food and feed at all stages of production, processing and distribution. Businesses wishing to market precision bred food and feed will of course need to comply with the existing legal provisions. The Bill includes the option to impose specific requirements for securing traceability, if they are deemed a good idea. That will allow the FSA to consider new methods of traceability as the science develops, future proofing the Bill in the context of further innovation, about which we have not yet thought. I urge members of the Committee to consider the evidence that they heard last week and the vital work that the FSA does to protect our consumers. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendments 21.

On clause 26 stand part, innovation in our food and feed industry is developing at a faster pace than we have ever seen before. New technologies, as the Committee has heard many times, enable us to utilise better and more sustainable production methods. It is vital that appropriate measures are in place to ensure that consumers can trust the food that they eat. The regulatory framework has been inherited from the EU. Now that we are forging our own path, it is vital that the framework provides consumers with food they can trust and also keeps pace with new technologies.

The framework for regulating genetically modified organisms, which, as we all know, precision breeding technologies currently fall within, does not adequately reflect the lower risk profile of PBOs, where such organisms are often indistinguishable from products that could be produced using traditional breeding methods. The clause will allow the FSA to build a framework that responds to the lower risk profile of PBOs. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I welcome the Minister’s reassurances, although I am not sure she really addressed the “may” and “must” issue. On this particular occasion, it would have been straightforward for the Government to say what was going to happen. Although I see the opportunity through secondary legislation to take account of changing technologies, which we all recognise is likely to happen pretty quickly, it is essential that provisions and safeguards are put in place. On that basis, although I do not feel the need to push amendment 22, I would like to test the view of the Committee on amendment 21.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Food and feed marketing authorisations: register

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 27, page 18, line 16, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 24, in clause 27, page 18, line 20, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Amendment 25, in clause 27, page 18, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Clause stand part.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Our amendments to this clause follow a similar line of reasoning as the previous ones. They continue the discussion around whether the provisions must be introduced or simply might be.

Clause 27 is about the food and feed marketing authorisations register. Extensive reference has been made to that register throughout the passage of the Bill and during the evidence sessions. The Bill would confer a delegated power on the Government to make provision to require the Food Standards Agency to establish and maintain a public register containing information regarding information concerning food and feed marketing authorisations. I have already said many times why I think access to information is important, and will help give confidence to consumers and those farming in ways that require separation from those using gene edited organisms.

We also think the register could be helpful in tackling some of the devolution issues that were referred to in the evidence sessions. The central provisions of the Bill apply to England only, but the Welsh and Scottish Governments were consulted at very late stages. Both Governments have raised concerns that the mutual recognition principle of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will mean that it will be possible to legally place precision bred food on the Welsh and Scottish markets even if the Welsh and Scottish Governments choose not to adopt the changes contained in the Bill, which obviously presents a challenge. It is for the Government to resolve that challenge, but I would have certainly liked to have seen them consult the devolved Administrations earlier and in a more constructive manner.

However, in the absence of a solution to that problem, while precision bred products will be able to be legally placed on the market in Scotland and Wales, I imagine that some supermarkets and shops may decide that they want to operate within the spirit of Scottish and Welsh legislation and not stock precision bred products on their shelves, as is their right. The register of foods authorised for sale may help companies address that conundrum—certainly, without it, it is hard to see how they could do so without setting up very expensive parallel production systems, which might simply not be practical in many cases. In other words, a chain of unintended consequences might follow, which I do not think anyone would wish to see.

As I said on Second Reading, in the modern world, consumers increasingly want more information about the products they are buying. We can see that reflected in the market, such as the rise of environmental information on product labels. We will discuss labelling later when we debate one of our new clauses, but as I anticipate that that new clause might not be adopted by the Government, the register will be the only source of information for consumers and businesses looking to gain information on these products. As such, it is a pretty key provision of the Bill.

In our evidence sessions, Professor May of the Food Standards Agency said:

“The idea behind the register is to have a public awareness of the products that are going through this pathway and are ultimately out on the market, in a similar way to the public registration of foods at the moment…My view as a scientist is that this should be the same for precision breeding. We should have a register that says, ‘Here is a product that has been considered. We have looked at it; it hasn’t rocked up without any kind of due diligence around it.’ It is there in the public domain for people to see what process it has gone through and be reassured that those products have had some level of scrutiny.”—[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 24, Q40.]

That is absolutely right. He continued,

“there will be some consumers who have strong views on this, and they may or may not wish to purchase something accordingly. It is important that the information is available for them, so that they can pause if they want to and find out. Even if most people do not, it is available, should they wish to do so.”—[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 24-25, Q41.]

Again, that seems absolutely right to me.

The FSA clearly thinks there is a strong basis for establishing the register, as borne out by the evidence it has seen. Despite that, clause 27 only makes the register a possibility, rather than a certainty; it is a provision that the Government may take up, but not one that they must take up. As we go around this perpetual loop again—I have forgotten how many Bills have given rise to this discussion—perhaps the Minister can explain exactly why she thinks the wording should only be “may”, rather than “must”. With the number of key provisions that are being put not only into secondary legislation, but into secondary legislation that the Government are not even bound to introduce, there is a risk that some people looking at the Bill could say that there is a gap between the safeguards that are being promised and the reality that is being delivered.

I am sure the Minister will be affronted by such a suggestion, but as ever, salvation is at hand. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 would amend each subsection of clause 27 so that the Government must engage the provisions contained therein, rather than may. We think the register is a key element of the Bill, especially considering the Government’s stance on labelling, and so there must be a strong commitment within the Bill itself.

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

This will be a short contribution. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish and Welsh Governments’ views on the situation. He will be aware that clause 27 just talks about the Food Standards Agency and the Secretary of State, and does not cover Food Standards Scotland, Scottish Ministers or indeed Welsh Ministers. With that in mind, I hope he will look carefully at new clause 9 and my amendment 37, which is coming up, because they will neatly address the problems he referred to.

[Victoria Prentis]

I completely agree that it is vital that this Bill should grant the necessary power that will enable regulations to be made to allow the FSA to ensure trust in food, as I said earlier. In addition to a proportionate framework for the regulation of PBOs, it is important that consumer confidence is assured. We feel that a transparent public register for precision bred food and feed will do just that.

On the “may” and “must” point, I apologise; I thought we had been through this so many times that the hon. Member for Cambridge would not want me to say it again. It is rather like the conversations we can have with members of our families, when they say, “Please be quiet. You’ve told us that 3,000 times already!” Perhaps that is only me.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I feel suitably chastised.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am very happy to explain the role, as I am many other things—not fighting with one’s younger sister, for example.

The role of the FSA is enshrined in law. Its purpose is to provide food safety and consumer confidence. In our view, “must” is therefore not necessary. We are working with the FSA on this, and it has a role and a duty to provide consumer confidence, which is why we are completely assured that it will maintain this register, as it maintains other registers and keeps them regularly updated. To that end, members of the Committee may be reassured by the evidence of Professor Robin May, which the hon. Gentleman referred to. The professor spoke at length about the need for transparency within the register and how it will provide consumers with the information they need. We feel that is very important.

The FSA is committed to food safety. It is equally committed, as was explained in evidence, to using these powers in a proportionate way that both supports innovation and protects consumers. We are convinced it will deliver a food and feed register that gives consumers the information they need. We therefore do not feel that the amendments are necessary.

On clause 27, we feel that genetic technologies such as precision breeding present opportunities for innovation. Setting out a clear framework for the regulation of precision bred organisms will help ensure that we maintain that really important public trust. The clause will introduce powers that will provide transparency for consumers, the industry and enforcement bodies through the establishment of the public register. In addition to the register, which will be established under clause 18, the food and feed register will give extra clarity about PBOs are being used in food production.

The international market for PBOs is growing quickly, and countries recognise the need to align their regulatory frameworks. Establishing a register will be seen as a positive step by our international trade partners, who are keen to see that we are open for business and ready to accept imports of precision bred crops in this market. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we rely on a certain amount of agricultural food and feed imports, and we hope the Bill will facilitate trade with large exporters such as Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the US and Australia, which already have established regulatory frameworks.

We will come to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith later when we discuss new clause 9. The register will make clear the nation in which the authorisations apply. Authorisations, including on the register, will be indicated as enforced in England only. However, the UKIM Act 2020 means that market access principles will apply for PBO goods produced in or imported into England that can be lawfully sold here. That will allow those goods to be sold on the Scottish and Welsh markets. This clause will grant the power required to allow the FSA to establish a register that will give the required transparency.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Normally I find myself generally reassured by the Minister, but on this occasion, as a consequence of her comments, I am less so.

[Victoria Prentis]

Oh dear!

[Daniel Zeichner]

Indeed. I am afraid that however many times she tells me about “may” and “must”, I am still not convinced. On a day when trust in politics is pretty central to a public conversation, she will be unsurprised to find that the Opposition are not entirely convinced.

On a separate point about growing trade with some of the countries that the Minister noted, I am not sure I am reassured about the standards of some of those countries or that we want to import more from them—particularly precision bred food or that subject to standards that may be different from our own. That opens up a whole series of issues. The Opposition are clear that we want to grow and produce more here, and we do not want to be moving towards importing more from other countries that are producing to standards different from our own. Far from being reassured, I will go away and look very closely at what has been said, because it rather confirms a direction of travel that the Opposition are not comfortable with.

On that basis and in the spirit of not wanting to take too much time from the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendments 24 and 25, but I will press amendment 23 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

This group covers administrative clauses regarding fees and notices, provisions to allow PBOs not to be treated as GMOs under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and subsequent necessary powers. I reassure the Committee that we do not intend to charge fees initially in order to incentivise innovation and investment in PBOs, but we will keep that under review. If fees are introduced later, they will be set at a cost recovery level. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I would like to speak briefly on clause 42, as it contains one of those notorious Henry VIII clauses, which need to be considered carefully. The clause concerns powers to make consequential provisions. Subsection (2) says,

“Regulations under this section may modify legislation.”

We have had this debate many times before about the procedural and technical elements of the Bill, which are thin and constitute poor legislative practice in general, because many of the key provisions are not properly spelled out in the Bill. As we have said, many of the secondary powers are merely optional.

Clause 42 is problematic because it gives Ministers the power to change and amend primary legislation without having to go through the normal scrutiny processes. This is a familiar argument, but it bears repeating—not least because the Minister today will be well aware of the issue and would, no doubt, berate me if I made such a proposal. These clauses shift power away from Parliament towards the Executive, so they clearly need to be strongly justified.

I understand that some elements of the Bill would amend primary legislation in an administrative way, but I still think it is right that the Minister should justify her use of this subsection, given that it would give her Government wide, sweeping powers, which could also be applied in a non-administrative way. It is a question worth addressing.

It is also a question the Government will have to answer when the Bill comes to the Lords. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will consider whether any of the Bill’s provisions inappropriately delegate legislative power, and the Government will have to provide the Committee a memorandum identifying the purpose of each delegation, providing the justification for leaving the matter to delegated legislation and explaining why the proposed level of parliamentary control is thought to be appropriate.

I am sure the Minister will be pleased to know that I have looked at the memo from the Department to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I suspect the Minister may read out in a moment. I was not entirely convinced by the previous Minister’s arguments on these points. Given that the Lords Committee pays particular attention to any proposal in the Bill that uses a Henry VIII clause, because of the way it shifts power, I hope she will be able to provide me with further justification while we in the Commons have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s feelings about Henry VIII clauses. I think it is right that they are used judiciously and carefully.

To turn to clause 42 specifically, precision bred organisms are currently regulated by many GM legislative instruments that will need amending to reflect the changes made by the Bill. They will in the main be very technical amendments that will merely reflect the changes that we make if the Bill is passed. There are also references to GM organisms in numerous legislative instruments that will need adjusting, for the same reason. Other parts of law are passed, and GM references feature in many different forms of our legislative framework. The power in clause 42 enables the Government to make reasonable, proportionate and technical amendments. In that light, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 40 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Regulations

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—

“(7) Regulations under this Act must be made in accordance with—

(a) the environmental principles set out in section 17(5) of the Environment Act 2021, and

(b) Article 391 (Non-regression from levels of protection) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, done at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 27, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—

“(7) No regulations may be made under this Act unless—

(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before Parliament under section 18(6) of the Environment Act 2021, and

(b) section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 is in force.”

This amendment would prevent the exercise of any powers granted by the Bill until the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Some Members may have found the previous conversations slightly dry.

[Victoria Prentis]

Never!

[Daniel Zeichner]

However, now we are getting to some really interesting points. We have tabled two amendments that would insert additional subsections into clause 43 with regard to the environmental principles of the Environment Act 2021 and the non-regression principle laid out in the 2020 trade and co-operation agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Union. Veterans of the Environment Act proceedings will recall extensive discussion of those issues, and I suspect that one or two Government Members will rise to the defence of the trade and co-operation agreement, particularly the non-regression clauses.

This is quite technical, but it is important because it is about upholding the standards that we have committed to in both domestic legislation and international agreements. It is about upholding the promises that we have made. Arguably, it is one of the reasons why the previous Minister is not here today. These are serious issues and, as she put it, a

“jocular self-serving approach is bound to have its limitations.”

How right she was. Our amendments highlight some of those limitations.

The first of these relates to the Environment Act 2021 and specifically the Government’s obligations under sections 17 to 19. Section 17 states:

“The Secretary of State must prepare a policy statement on environmental principles”

to be interpreted and applied in the making of Government policy. Section 17(5) lays out a definition of “environmental principles”, which include

“the principle that environmental protection should be integrated into the making of policies…the principle of preventative action to avert environmental damage…the precautionary principle, so far as relating to the environment…the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and…the polluter pays principle.”

Some Members will recall extensive discussion in the Environment Act proceedings as to exactly what that meant.

Section 18 details the timeframe for the policy statement, and section 19 details the obligations that Ministers are under once the statement is finalised. Section 19(1) states:

“A Minister of the Crown must, when making policy, have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles currently in effect.”

The problem is that the Government have yet to finalise the statement. A draft was published in May 2022, but we are yet to have a response from the Secretary of State, or the final version of the policy statement. Sadly, the Minister who issued the press release about the statement, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is no longer in her place, either.

The Environment Act was heralded by the Government as “World-leading”—remember that? The Prime Minister hailed it as the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth, neatly timing Royal Assent to the Bill with the COP26 summit hosted in Glasgow. However, a raft of policies in this sphere and specifically in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been brought forward that will have significant impacts on the environment, before the Government have fulfilled their obligations under the Environment Act.

The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot hail the success of their environmental legislation, while failing to follow through on it or deliver on its aims and failing to hold themselves accountable in their creation of policy to the obligations that were set out. Great claims have been made, but they are not being followed through.

Amendment 26 would help the Government out. It would ensure that regulations under the Bill are made in accordance with the environmental principles set out in section 17(5) of the Environment Act. Amendment 27 would ensure that no regulations may be made under the Bill unless the policy statement has been finalised and laid before Parliament, and Ministers are under an obligation to pay due regard to it. I look forward to enthusiastic support from those on the Government Benches to furthering the aims of their own legislation.

Amendment 26 concerns article 391 of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU, which was agreed in December 2020—I am sure the Minister remembers it well. Chapter 7 of the TCA covers environment and climate, and defines environmental levels of protection as

“the levels of protection provided overall in a Party’s law”—

that refers to the parties to the agreement, before anyone gets any ideas—

“which have the purpose of protecting the environment including the prevention of a danger to human life or health from environmental impacts”.

The TCA then lists some specific examples, some of which would concern this Bill. Those include:

“the protection and preservation of the aquatic environment”

and

“the management of impacts on the environment from agricultural or food production”.

Each party in the agreement—the EU and the UK— committed to

“the principle that environmental protection should be integrated into the making of policies”,

as well as to “the precautionary approach” and

“the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source”.

Article 391 of the TCA sets out the rules on non-regression from these levels of environmental protection. It allows

“each Party…to determine the environmental levels of protection and climate level of protection it deems appropriate and to adopt or modify its law and policies in a manner consistent with each Party’s international commitments”.

However, the TCA also aims to prevent either party from weakening environmental legislation below the levels in place at the end of the transition period:

“A Party shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its environmental levels of protection or its climate level of protection below the levels that are in place at the end of the transition period, including by failing to effectively enforce its environmental law or climate level of protection.”

I am not a lawyer, although the Minister is, as I have often pointed out, but it seems to me that the non-regression rules allow the UK to argue that it is allowed to change its regulation on precision breeding to create the new category we are discussing, that it can do so safely and that there is an environmental case for doing so. However, while we may argue that, some may equally argue—we heard this in the evidence sessions—that doing so poses environmental risks. Although the Bill attempts to manage those, and we broadly agree they could be managed, the safeguards should be strengthened. My point is that there are potential grounds for disagreement.

It also seems that the EU could make a determination on how the UK has moved, carry out an assessment itself on the balance of risks and benefits, and make a judgment on whether we have adhered to the non-regression rule. Given that we trade with the EU extensively, and this element of the TCA explicitly references impacts on trade, I hope the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s assessment of how the Bill will interact with the TCA, whether parity is maintained and whether there will be any trade repercussions as a result.

The other day, I quoted the impact assessment on the economic consequences of the EU taking a different view, and I want to go back to that. Although the text was printed in Hansard, I am not sure that I presented those details with quite the force I should have done. Paragraphs 144 to 146 of the impact assessment, on page 48, in the section “Assessment of likely EU response”, are frankly staggering. The Government appear to be prepared to concede that, if there were a disagreement, our markets—our exports to the EU—would in effect be closed. Paragraph 146 states:

“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”—

you’re telling me it would be difficult! It goes on:

“Therefore, there is a possibility for a portion of the £8.56 billion worth of crop-related exports to the EU to decrease”.

But most staggeringly of all, that is followed by an attitude of, “Well, never mind,” as the impact assessment continues:

“Nonetheless, 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.”

I find that absolutely staggering and, on behalf of the food and agriculture sector, I invite the Minister to dissociate herself from that aspect of the impact assessment. The impact assessment has a lot of interesting stuff in it, but I suspect a lot of it was not read as closely as it should have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

It is okay. You have made your points, Minister. If any other Members wish to speak on clause 43, that will come later.

[Daniel Zeichner]

What the Minister said was very interesting, not least because one of the questions we have puzzled over is whether qualifying higher plants fit into this structure. We are beginning to see that it is as a consequence of some of these powers, which are, to put it mildly, obscure. As I commented the other day, it is quite hard to discern the overall structure of this legislation, given how little is in the Bill, so I found her comments quite helpful.

We will not pursue amendment 26, which concerns the trade and co-operation agreement, today. I am sure the matters in that amendment will roll on inexorably—they are complicated. The basic point is that different people can interpret things differently, and that gives the possibility of challenge. That is the problem. I fear we will be locked into these kinds of problems for a long time to come, sadly, and we will need to rely on good will and co-operation with our neighbours, which is important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made a very strong set of points on the question of the environmental principles and the link to the precautionary principle. Of course, this debate has been ongoing for a long time. I do not think it is unfair to point out that the Secretary of State sees this—a diminution of the precautionary principle—as a Brexit opportunity. Labour does not agree with that, and we have sought at every opportunity to tease their position out of the Government, but frankly they are saying one thing and doing another.

However, that is a debate that can be conducted another day. Environmental lawyers are looking closely at all of this. It is a complicated area, to put it mildly. I dare say it will be contested and probably determined elsewhere. In the meantime, we will continue to point out that gap. On that basis, I will not press amendment 26, but I would like to put amendment 27 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 27, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—

“(7) No regulations may be made under this Act unless—

(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before Parliament under section 18(6) of the Environment Act 2021, and

(b) section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 is in force.” —(Daniel Zeichner.)

This amendment would prevent the exercise of any powers granted by the Bill until the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Short title and commencement

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 48, page 30, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) may not appoint a day on which any of sections 11 to 15 is to come into force unless the welfare advisory body has advised the Secretary of State that it is satisfied that regulations made under Part 2 establish a proper process to ensure that the health and welfare of animals, and their qualifying progeny, in respect of which a precision bred animal marketing authorisation is made will not be adversely affected by any precision bred trait.”

This amendment would prevent regulations being made on precision bred animals until the welfare advisory body is satisfied that animal health and welfare will be ensured.

I would like to speak briefly on this amendment, which concerns the extent and application of the sea areas. On Second Reading, I raised the fact that there are legitimately held and differing views within the different Administrations in the UK. It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations were not happy with the way this had been handled so far; I suggested that

“the Government should tread carefully.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 382.]

As I have said today, the regulation of genetically edited organisms is a devolved matter. The central divisions of the Bill apply to England only, but the Welsh and Scottish Governments were consulted at a late stage. Based on evidence I heard in this Committee, it is clear that the frustrations with the Government’s approach to co-operation with the devolved Administrations are ongoing. I am disappointed that the Government did not consult the Welsh and Scottish Governments earlier, as I said before, and that they have not laid out more detail, in either the explanatory notes or the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, as to the precise impact it will have on Wales and Scotland and any proposed mechanisms moving forward.

The Opposition have tabled a new clause on labelling, and we have already raised a point about how some of the information-sharing provisions in the Bill could be strengthened to facilitate supply chain tracking and coexistence. I hope that the Minister will say more about the Government’s discussions with the devolved Administrations and the plans they have.

[Victoria Prentis]

Are we speaking only to amendment 3? I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment. I can assure him that the Government are committed to appointing a welfare advisory body that will provide expert scientific advice to the Secretary of State, as set out in clause 22. We want to ensure that the body will be functionally independent and that it will provide scientific advice. We are committed to appointing a body with the most suitable expertise for the role. We will work closely with existing animal welfare experts, such as the Animal Welfare Committee, to ensure that there is a rigorous and proportionate system to safeguard animal welfare.

[Daniel Zeichner]

In responding to the Minister’s excellent contribution, I should explain that what I said previously relates to clause 47 and so can be ignored—I managed to speak to completely the wrong clause, which of course happens late in the day.

[Victoria Prentis]

I was a bit confused.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am not surprised. I will try to find my way back to the right clause.

Amendment 3 is relatively straightforward. It would prevent regulations being made on precision bred animals until the welfare advisory body is satisfied that animal health and welfare will be ensured. I have previously cited evidence in which DEFRA itself admits that the elements of the Bill relating to animals that are delegated to secondary legislation are not yet fully investigated or prepared. Sadly, we have been unsuccessful in removing the animals from the scope of the Bill. In the absence of that, we have tabled a series of amendments that would provide a check and balance on any secondary legislation, especially given that some of it will be subject to the negative procedure.

The Government have emphasised that the welfare advisory body provided for in the Bill will be composed of experts in their field. The Opposition think that it seems sensible for the body also to play a role in determining the effectiveness of the Government’s proposal on animals, and that is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

I am conscious that I am responding to the Minister. I heard what she said. I do not entirely agree, but given that I have not explained it very well, we will let this one pass. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Deidre Brock]

I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 48, page 30, line 20, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations may not be made under or by virtue of this section unless a common framework agreement relating to the release and marketing of, and risk assessments relating to, precision bred plants and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals, has been agreed between a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.

(5B) “Common framework agreement” has the meaning given by section 10(4) of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.”

This amendment would prevent the operative parts of this Bill coming into force until a common framework agreement on the regulation of precision breeding had been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

The Minister is nodding her head, so I assume that is acceptable. Given that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Labelling

“(1) A person must not—

(a) market a precision bred organism, or

(b) place food and feed produced from precision bred organisms on the market

unless labelled in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section.

(2) Regulations under this section must ensure that the labelling referred to in subsection (1) provides sufficient information to support informed consumer choice, having regard in particular to—

(a) nutritional content,

(b) the potential presence of allergens or other substances which may cause adverse human health impacts, and

(c) the environmental impact of the product.

(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult representatives of—

(i) consumers,

(ii) food producers,

(iii) suppliers,

(iv) retailers,

(v) growers and farmers,

(vi) the organic sector,

(vii) other persons likely to be affected by the regulations, and

(viii) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency on the information to be required to be provided on labelling.

(4) Section 30 (Interpretation of Part 3) has effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of Part 3.” —(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the labelling of precision bred organisms and food and feed products made from them.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred animals—

“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny.

(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.

(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have been referring to new clause 1 throughout the Bill’s passage through Committee. Labour has been clear that we regard labelling as an important part of this new regulatory framework, and it is sadly not really referenced in the Bill, although it is discussed and then dismissed in the impact statement.

The Bill will create a new type of food product on supermarket shelves: the precision bred organism. As I said earlier, it is clear that there is a trend towards consumers wanting more information about their food—what it contains, where it comes from and its environmental impact, which are all important. As I am sure the Minister now knows, and will be tired of hearing, Labour will buy, make and sell more in Britain. How could one do that without knowing how our food is made and where it comes from?

Our new clause 1 would require the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that precision bred food and feed is labelled to provide

“sufficient information to support informed consumer choice, having regard in particular to—

(a) nutritional content,

(b) the potential presence of allergens or other substances which may cause adverse human health impacts, and

(c) the environmental impact of the product.”

It would also require the Secretary of State to consult stakeholder groups before pursuing that and to seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency.

The Government have said time and again that they support nutritional labelling to inform consumers of any allergens or if the nutritional content of a food is changed from its natural state. They must put that in the legislation and make it a commitment in the Bill. We have also heard about the issues of co-existence with other production systems and supply chain tracing, and how the legislation might have an impact on the organic sector. It is important that it is properly consulted, so that whatever labelling regime the Government introduces, it allows for different types of food production to co-exist.

The only information the Government have divulged in writing regarding labelling is their opposition to it, in the impact assessment, based on the costs it could incur for businesses. However in the impact assessment they have not actually calculated the costs and benefits of labelling, so I am unsure how they came to that judgment. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Indeed, in that part of the impact assessment, around pages 40 and 41, it is interesting that, in paragraph 114, the Government notes that

“maintaining a labelling and tracing system could also have wider benefits, most notably, improved consumer confidence in food products potentially adding value across the food supply chain.”

Well, absolutely.

The impact assessment also states:

“Given uncertainties, as set out above, we have not monetised the estimated annual cost of a labelling and tracing system to business.”

That was identified by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which in its report—which, I have to say, categorised the Bill as “not fit for purpose”—stated:

“The traceability and labelling costs, the primary benefit for the preferred option and which differentiates the two regulatory options considered, is not quantified. As this is the main difference between the two regulatory options, the Department needs to provide some quantification of the scale of the potential impact from this change.”

I would be grateful if the Minister commented on what is, frankly, a pretty damning assessment. I appreciate that she is new to this area and that it may not be possible for her to do so today, but a written assurance that those serious issues will be addressed would be welcome at a later stage.

Further to that, in its written evidence to the Committee, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics noted that the Government’s present stance on labelling

“runs contrary to the findings of many public engagement initiatives that have broached this question... in this context, not labelling amounts to the withholding of information about consumer preferences”.

[Katherine Fletcher]

In the oral evidence sessions, we heard about not only the costs of implementation but the practical challenge with labelling precision bred organisms, which is that they are scientifically and practically indistinguishable from traditionally bred organisms—that is, the ones that we have, know and love day-to-day. I note that the hon. Gentleman has not touched on a mechanism for how that labelling could be executed. The only practical way that we could know for certain whether a crop, for example, was precision bred would be to insert exogenous DNA for the purpose of labelling, which clearly goes against the spirit of some of the other debates we have had.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady raises a series of interesting and important points. I do not disagree with what she has said, other than to say that I think it is possible—this came through in some of the evidence as well—to maintain traceability throughout the process if we are careful about how we do it, but we have to set up systems to do so. It is clear from the impact assessment that the Government have thought about this issue, and our view is that to maintain the necessary public confidence it is absolutely right for it to be considered carefully. As such, our new clause would put the structure in place for that discussion to happen. If the hon. Lady looks carefully at what the new clause actually says, she will see that.

I was about to make exactly the same point as the hon. Lady: we understand the challenges that labelling may pose. However, as was said in the impact assessment, the significant benefit it would bring in terms of public trust and supporting consumer choice may well be worth having. Our view is that the Government have not given sufficient thought to the matter nor evaluated it sufficiently, as is admitted in the impact assessment. Our new clause 1 would require them to undertake further consultation on labelling and then introduce an appropriate system.

[Victoria Prentis]

I know that labelling has been raised as a concern by Committee members and others, and I understand that the new clauses intend to provide information to consumers, so I will try to provide some reassurances on that point.

The Bill is based on the science, and the science tells us that precision bred organisms are equivalent to, and pose no greater risk than, their traditionally bred counterparts. We have received advice from independent scientific experts and heard from many witnesses who considered labelling to be unnecessary in the case of precision breeding. Dr Helen Ferrier of the NFU agreed that it would be “misleading” to consumers to require a compulsory label, as there is no scientific difference. Dr Richard Harrison said,

“I do not think there is any scientific rationale to have additional labelling criteria for gene-edited products, because they are fundamentally indistinguishable from nature.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 63, Q103.]

The Bill is consistent with the science, but also with the approach taken by many international partners around the world that have already legislated in this way. We do not think it is necessary to label based on the technology used.

Much of the proposed new clause is already covered by existing food legislation—in particular, regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. We know that there are exciting developments to improve the nutritional content of some food, but consumers will want to know of any nutritional or allergen composition that might affect them.

Regulations on the provision of food information to consumers already adequately cover nutritional and allergen labelling, and that does not change because the product is derived from a precision bred organism. We therefore do not think it is necessary to include additional provisions in the Bill. We will respond to the further information that the RPC requests in an enactment 1A, to be brought forwards towards the end of the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I listened closely to the Minister and am wondering what an enactment 1A means and when it will happen.

[Victoria Prentis]

You are going to find out.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I would rather find out sooner rather than later.

[Victoria Prentis]

Sorry, an enactment IA—impact assessment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am not sure I am totally reassured by that. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to us at some point about how the Government are addressing those criticisms.

[Victoria Prentis]

In the RPC?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Yes. In a way, we are going round in circles. We entirely understand the scientific arguments, but the question is how we maintain consumer confidence. The Food Standards Agency’s work shows that the public want to know. We believe the public have a right to know, and the question is how that might be done. The most recent advice from the FSA, which I cited earlier, shows that it has been thinking hard about that and may be able to draw distinctions between different types of product coming on to the market. That suggests to me that there is the possibility to provide more consumer information.

I suspect there is a wider debate about labelling, because we want to ensure that the information that we offer to consumers is not so overloaded in so many different areas that it is hard to interpret. That is a legitimate debate, and I am sure we will pursue it. We think it is important that this option remains under consideration in the Bill, and for that reason I want to press new clause 1 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 2 is another of our attempts to make the introduction of the Bill’s provisions on animals contingent on DEFRA and the Government undertaking the work that we think they need to do before they are ready to bring forward serious and detailed proposals on this issue. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022—I suspect there are veterans of its passage here—enshrined the recognition of the sentience of animals into law and established an Animal Sentience Committee whose role is to consider

“whether, or to what extent, the government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”

As I understand it, the Animal Sentience Committee is yet to be established. Perhaps the Minister can provide a timeline for that, because we cannot find any commencement information on it.

The 2022 Act was introduced as part of the Government’s action plan for animal welfare, which they made a lot of and said was the “first of a kind”. The Government made big promises and indicated that the Act was a defining piece of legislation to promote the health and welfare of animals. My question to the Minister is: why did the Government not wait for the Animal Sentience Committee to be established and have time to report on the Bill before introducing it? If they really wanted to recognise the sentience of animals, they would prioritise the committee’s establishment before pressing ahead with legislation that will have a real and significant impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

The 2022 Act received Royal Assent in April, and work is now under way to establish the Animal Sentience Committee by the end of this year. Applications to the committee have now closed and we are proceeding with the next steps. We very much hope to have the committee up and running by the end of this year. Given that, as the hon. Gentleman said, it will be some years before precision bred animals are anticipated to be released or brought to market, delaying the provisions for 12 months from the date on which the Animal Sentience Committee is established is unnecessary. We fully expect the committee to be established much more than 12 months prior to the first precision bred animals being released or brought to market.

The Government were clear during the passage of the sentience legislation that we would not dictate the Animal Sentience Committee’s work plan. 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 to the animal welfare debate. It would be contrary to that important principle if this Bill was used to mandate the committee to produce a report before the provisions in the Bill can be commenced. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is nothing in the new clause to mandate the Animal Sentience Committee to do anything; it would give the committee the opportunity to make a report, should it wish. I would be surprised if it did not wish to do so. The problem is the wider question of the framework of protections, which is clearly under discussion and under review in general. It is now quite a complicated web, and we want to make sure that the new element—the Animal Sentience Committee, which we strongly support—fits in an appropriate manner.

This goes back to the points we made at the start of the Bill Committee, when we questioned why the Government are so determined to include animals in this legislation at this stage when there are so many reasons not to, not least the Government’s own reasons, given that they say it will be some years before the process moves forward. It would be better to separate animals out; we stand by that point and the new clause is a further example of why that would be sensible. I hear what the Minister says, but we will have a vote on it anyway.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read a Second time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to consider the following:

New Clause 4—Accounts and audit—

“(1) The Authority must keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts and must prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts.

(2) The annual statement of accounts must comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, as to the information to be contained in the statement, the way in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.

(3) Not later than five months after the end of an accounting year, the Authority must send a copy of the statement of accounts for that year to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify and report on every statement of accounts received under subsection (3) above and must lay a copy of the statement and of the report before each House of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.

(6) In this section “accounting year” means the period beginning with the day when the Authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.”

New Clause 5—Reports to Secretary of State—

“(1) The Authority must prepare and send to the Secretary of State an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of the period of twelve months for which it is prepared.

(2) A report prepared under this section for any period must deal with the activities of the Authority in the period and the activities the Authority proposes to undertake in the succeeding period of twelve months.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every report received under this section.”

New clause 6—General functions of the Authority—

“(1) The Authority must—

(a) keep under review information about the use of genetic technology in plants and animals and any subsequent development of genetic technology and advise the Secretary of State about those matters,

(b) publicise the services provided to the public by the Authority or provided in pursuance of release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act,

(c) provide, to such extent as it considers appropriate, a code of practice, advice and information for persons to whom release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act apply

(d) maintain a statement of the general principles which it considers should be followed—

(i) in the carrying-on of activities governed by this Act, and

(ii) in the carrying-out of its functions in relation to such activities,

(e) promote, in relation to activities governed by this Act, compliance with—

(i) requirements imposed by or under this Act, and

(ii) the Authority’s code of practice

(f) perform such other functions as may be specified in regulations.

(2) The Authority may, if it thinks fit, charge a fee for any advice provided under subsection (1)(c).”

New Clause 7—Duties in relation to carrying out its functions—

“(1) The Authority must carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically.

(2) In carrying out its functions, the Authority must, so far as relevant, have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice (including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed).”

New Clause 8—Power to delegate and establish committees—

“(1) The Authority may delegate a function to a committee, to a member or to staff.

(2) The Authority may establish such committees or sub-committees as it thinks fit (whether to advise the Authority or to exercise a function delegated to it by the Authority).

(3) The members of the committees or sub-committees may include persons who are not members of the Authority.

(4) Subsection (1) has effect subject to any enactment requiring a decision to be taken by members of the Authority or by a committee consisting of members of the Authority.”

New Schedule 1—Genetic Technology Authority: Supplementary Provisions—

“Status and capacity

1 The Authority is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown; and its property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.

2 The Authority has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge, except the power to borrow money.

Expenses

3 The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay the Authority out of money provided by Parliament such sums as he thinks fit towards its expenses.

Appointment of members

4 (1) All the members of the Authority (including the chairman and deputy chairman who must be appointed as such) must be appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) The following persons are disqualified for being appointed as chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority—

(a) any person who is, or has been, concerned with the creation, release or marketing of plant or animal organisms, gametes or embryos created using genetic technology, and

(b) any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving such creation, release or marketing, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.

(3) The Secretary of State must secure that at least one-third but fewer than half of the other members of the Authority fall within sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b), and that at least one member falls within each of paragraphs (a) and (b).

5 (1) A person (“P”) is disqualified for being appointed as chairman, deputy chairman, or as any other member of the Authority if—

(a) P is the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order,

(b) in the last five years P has been convicted in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man of an offence and has had a qualifying sentence passed on P.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), the date of conviction is to be taken to be the ordinary date on which the period allowed for making an appeal or application expires or, if an appeal or application is made, the date on which the appeal or application is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails by reason of its non-prosecution.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), the reference to a qualifying sentence is to a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than three months (whether suspended or not) without the option of a fine.

Tenure of office

6 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 7, a person holds and vacates office as a member of the Authority in accordance with the terms of the person’s appointment.

(2) A person may not be appointed as a member of the Authority for more than three years at a time.

(3) A member may at any time resign their office by giving notice to the Secretary of State.

(4) A person who ceases to be a member of the Authority is eligible for re-appointment (whether or not in the same capacity).

(5) A person holding office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority is to cease to hold that office if the person becomes disqualified for appointment to it.

(6) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member of the Authority—

(a) has been absent from meetings of the Authority for six consecutive months or longer without the permission of the Authority, or

(b) is unable or unfit to discharge the person's functions as chairman, deputy chairman or other member, the Secretary of State may remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member.

(7) The Secretary of State may suspend a member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority if it appears to him that one of the conditions in paragraph (6) is or may be satisfied in relation to the member.

7 (1) This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State decides to suspend a member under paragraph 6(7).

(2) The Secretary of State must give notice to the member of the decision and the suspension takes effect on receipt by the member of the notice.

(3) A notice under subsection (2) is treated as being received by the member—

(a) in a case where it is delivered in person or left at the member's proper address, at the time at which it is delivered or left;

(b) in a case where it is sent by post to the member at that address, on the third day after the day on which it was posted.

(4) The initial period of suspension must not exceed 6 months.

(5) The Secretary of State may review the member's suspension at any time.

(6) The Secretary of State must review the member's suspension if requested in writing by the member to do so, but need not carry out a review less than 3 months after the beginning of the initial period of suspension.

(7) Following a review the Secretary of State may—

(a) revoke the suspension, or

(b) suspend the member for another period of not more than 6 months from the expiry of the current period.

(8) The Secretary of State must revoke the suspension if at any time—

(a) the Secretary of State decides that neither of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 5(5) is satisfied, or

(b) the Secretary of State decides that either of those conditions is satisfied but does not remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority.

Disqualification of members of Authority for House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly

8 In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

“The Genetic Technology Authority”.

Remuneration and pensions of members

9 (1) The Authority may—

(a) pay to the chairman such remuneration, and

(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of the chairman or any other member such pensions, allowances, fees, expenses or gratuities, as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.

(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Authority otherwise than on the expiry of their term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Authority may make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

Staff

10 (1) The Authority may appoint such employees as it thinks fit, upon such terms and conditions as the Authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury, may determine.

(2) The Authority must secure that any employee whose function is, or whose functions include, the inspection of premises is of such character, and is so qualified by training and experience, as to be a suitable person to perform that function.

(3) The Authority must, as regards such of its employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.

(4) If an employee of the Authority—

(a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and

(b) becomes a member of the Authority, that employee may, if the Secretary of State so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if the employee’s service as a member of the Authority were service as employee of the Authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of the employee by virtue of paragraph 7 above.

Proceedings

11 (1) Subject to any provision of this Act, the Authority may regulate its own proceedings, and make such arrangements as it thinks appropriate for the discharge of its functions.

(2) The Authority may pay to the members of any committee or sub-committee such fees and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

12 (1) A member of the Authority who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a release notification or marketing authorisation under this Act shall, as soon as possible after the relevant circumstances have come to the member’s knowledge, disclose the nature of that interest to the Authority.

(2) Any disclosure under sub-paragraph (1) above must be recorded by the Authority.

(3) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be determined by the Authority under paragraph 9(1) above, the member must not participate after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision of the Authority with respect to the release notification or marketing authorisation, and if the member does so the deliberation or decision is of no effect.

13 The validity of any proceedings of the Authority, or of any committee or sub-committee, is not affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of a member.

Instruments

14 The fixing of the seal of the Authority must be authenticated by the signature of the chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority or some other member of the Authority authorised by the Authority to act for that purpose.

15 A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Authority, or to be signed on the Authority’s behalf, may be received in evidence and is deemed to be so executed or signed unless the contrary is proved.

Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner

16 The Authority is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner and accordingly, in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which lists the authorities subject to investigation under that Act), the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

“Genetic Technology Authority”.”

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sure that hon. Members will be happy to know that the finishing line is in sight. However, I am afraid that between now and then there is actually what we think is an extremely important set of suggestions as to how the Bill could be strengthened, because these new clauses and new schedule would establish a genetic technology authority, whose purpose would be as per new clause 6.

Sharp-eyed members of the Committee may recognise the language used in our new clauses, because it is modelled on the legislation introduced to establish the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the body set up to oversee the use of gametes and embryos in fertility treatment and research. In practice, the new clauses consider many of the wider ethical questions that the topic of genetics throws up, and the practical application of the law based on their expert independent judgment. To some extent, this follows on from my previous comments about the broader landscape of how we regulate these issues.

Several of the stakeholders in this field have argued for, and/or alluded to in our evidence sessions, the establishment of a similar body for gene-editing technology. They include the Nuffield Centre on Bioethics, the Royal Society of Biology and the Royal Society.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has raised examples in its report of such ethical dilemmas that the Bill does not address. It says that

“we identified the need for further scrutiny and controls to ensure that animals are not bred in ways that diminish their inherent capacities to enjoy experiences that constitute a good life.”

It also says:

“The case for such a body has only strengthened over time, as a result of developments in breeding practices and the prospect of new breeding technologies such as genome editing. It would ensure that the welfare of founder animals”—

breeding stock—

“would be properly evaluated.”

The report concludes by saying:

“In the current governance architecture in England, there is no existing body with the appropriate powers and relationships to undertake this function”.

That is a really important point. There is no existing body with the appropriate powers and relationships.

Likewise, I was very struck by the evidence from Dr Madeleine Campbell of the British Veterinary Association. She said there 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 needs to be able to look both proactively and retrospectively at data about the health and welfare of animals…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.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 102, Q164.]

She also made the point that the situation needs to be monitored over time, because sometimes things do not show up immediately, which is the way that the Bill is set up to analyse. As it stands, the Bill does not seem to make provision for that kind of long-term monitoring.

The editing of the DNA of living beings clearly raises many ethical and practical questions. Several have been discussed in this Bill Committee, ranging from intellectual property to animal welfare.

On intellectual property, the potential for the patenting of DNA has been raised. I found the evidence from Bill Angus, of Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd, very compelling. He said that he was

“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.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 44, Q74.]

That is exactly the sort of issue a genetic technology authority could look at.

Mr Angus explained the current system for intellectual property with respect to conventionally bred plants, stating that

“company A produces a variety and he introduces a trait into that variety. In two years’ time, once that variety has been added to the UK national list, another breeder can use that trait. That is the freedom to operate. It is really important that this is sustained and that people are not locked out of new developments. What may happen—this is an area I feel quite uncomfortable with—is that we may start to see larger organisations move the goalposts in terms of trying to stop other breeders from using genetic resources that have been developed.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 46, Q77.]

This topic is not covered in the Bill at all. I hope that is because the status quo will be maintained. Will the Minister tell us that today and explain the safeguards in place?

The point serves to highlight the importance of careful deliberation. Based on the evidence I heard from the previous Minister and from DEFRA officials, I am not convinced the requisite time has gone into making the necessary preparations for the Bill. We understand why the Government have moved in haste, but it is for political reasons. That does not make for good legislation or environmental safety.

Labour are pro science and pro innovation. We really want to be able to capitalise on the potential benefits of gene editing here in the UK and see that investment directed here. We need a strong regulatory framework— stronger than what is provided in the Bill—and remain concerned that if we do not get this regulation, companies will decide not to set up their businesses here, to await others and consumers will be nervous. If that happens, far from speeding up the technology, the Bill would have the opposite effect. Doing it right matters; doing it quickly is not the same thing.

The Regulatory Policy Committee has also raised the cost to the system if consumer confidence is not achieved, saying:

“The Department presents the concerns that the public may have with gene edited products, as being driven by misinformation or worse...However, the IA should consider the relationship between public attitudes and public acceptance, with the former typically driving the latter. Consumer sentiment towards gene edited products has real cost implications, even if only as risk to the policy fully realising the benefits”.

I am grateful to organisations such as Beyond GM, who have taught me much about how these technologies are regulated elsewhere in the world, and have highlighted aspects we may learn from.

Australia takes a principles-based approach, with regulations taking into account societal and environmental benefits. In Argentina, gene edited products are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, based on the characteristics of the gene edited products and their potential risks to human health, animals and the environment, as compared to the risks presented by their conventional counterparts. There are other models around the world.

Establishing a proper regulatory body that can look at these issues of consumer confidence, proportionality, environmental safety and the implementation of the legislation could address these issues and make the new system better for everyone. It would be better for the researchers and businesses working in this area, as they can have confidence in the regulatory system and its public acceptance, better for consumers, who will have the confidence to consider buying precision bred products based on informed choices, and better for the country as a whole, with the benefits of the Bill being realised while any potential environmental issues and risks are safeguarded against.

New clause 3 would establish such a body. New clause 4 provides detail of the accounts and auditing of the authority. New clause 5 sets out the annual reporting requirements of the authority. New clause 6 sets out the functions of the authority, which I have already referred to. New clause 7 sets out that the authority must carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically. New clause 8 allows the authority to delegate its functions to a committee or member of staff, and new schedule 1 lays out supplementary administrative provisions for the establishment of the authority. This seems to us to be a sensible, proportionate approach that strengthens the Bill and I commend it to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you for those kind words, which were of course completely out of order. I call Daniel Zeichner.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you, Mr Stringer, and I shall seek to be out of order in a similar way. Before I do so, I will address the points made by the Minister.

There is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee. Our view is that the Government are being far too deregulatory. We understand why they are doing what they are doing, but we think that they would achieve their objectives more effectively by setting out a stronger regulatory framework. That is probably a fundamental difference of political philosophy, not to be resolved at this point.

I noted with interest the Minister’s comments about possibly coming back to this issue of a wider authority if the Government have opportunity in time to look at the broader issue of genetic modification. I suggest that the better thing to do is to establish that wider body sooner rather than later, so that the overall framework can be established to give the kind of public and investor confidence that I believe is essential if we are to reap the benefits of the technology, while ensuring that the public have confidence that the environmental safeguards are in place.

I am disappointed, though not surprised, that the Minister has rejected our suggestion of a new body. One of the striking things about Parliament is that, often, when things are rejected, they reappear a bit further down the line. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that that would be the right thing to do. We will press for a vote on the new clause. I will not detain the Committee by having votes on the whole string of new clauses; we will make do with one on just new clause 3.

Briefly, however, I make my thanks to you, Mr Stringer, and your fellow Chairs. This has been a well-conducted discussion about a complicated set of issues. I have already expressed my commiserations to the previous Minister, who is not present today, and I congratulate the Minister who is, because it is a tough thing to be dropped into something like this at a very late stage.

I thank the Clerks in particular, Huw Yardley and Abi Samuels, who have done an amazing job in translating our sometimes half-formed ideas—perhaps they used CRISPR-Cas9 to edit them, although whether they managed to remove it again, I do not know. They have managed that with huge good humour and good will, often working rather late.

I thank my colleagues in my office, Rob Wakely and Milly Lynch, who do an amazing job. As Conservative Members may discover at some point in the future, it is quite tough being in opposition sometimes—not terribly well resourced—but I hope that we have done justice to a very complicated set of issues.

I thank colleagues across the Committee. Our debates have been constructive and positive. I particularly thank my hon. Friends and my Whip, and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The discussion has been carried out with good humour through difficult times. But I do want to go to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Accounts and audit—

“(1) The Authority must keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts and must prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts.

(2) The annual statement of accounts must comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, as to the information to be contained in the statement, the way in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.

(3) Not later than five months after the end of an accounting year, the Authority must send a copy of the statement of accounts for that year to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify and report on every statement of accounts received by him under subsection (3) above and must lay a copy of the statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.

(6) In this section “accounting year” means the period beginning with the day when the Authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.”

New clause 3—Reports to Secretary of State—

“(1) The Authority must prepare and send to the Secretary of State an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of the period of twelve months for which it is prepared.

(2) A report prepared under this section for any period must deal with the activities of the Authority in the period and the activities the Authority proposes to undertake in the succeeding period of twelve months.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every report received by him under this section.”

New clause 4—General functions of the Authority—

“(1) The Authority must—

(a) keep under review information about the use of genetic technology in plants and animals and any subsequent development of genetic technology and advise the Secretary of State about those matters,

(b) publicise the services provided to the public by the Authority or provided in pursuance of release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act,

(c) provide, to such extent as it considers appropriate, a code of practice, advice and information for persons to whom release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act apply,

(d) maintain a statement of the general principles which it considers should be followed—

(i) in the carrying-on of activities governed by this Act, and

(ii) in the carrying-out of its functions in relation to such activities,

(e) promote, in relation to activities governed by this Act, compliance with—

(i) requirements imposed by or under this Act, and

(ii) the Authority’s code of practice,

(f) perform such other functions as may be specified in regulations.

(2) The Authority may, if it thinks fit, charge a fee for any advice provided under subsection (1)(c).”

New clause 5—Duties in relation to carrying out its functions—

(1) The Authority must carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically.

(2) In carrying out its functions, the Authority must, so far as relevant, have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice (including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed).”

New clause 6—Power to delegate and establish committees—

“(1) The Authority may delegate a function to a committee, to a member or to staff.

(2) The Authority may establish such committees or sub-committees as it thinks fit (whether to advise the Authority or to exercise a function delegated to it by the Authority).

(3) The members of the committees or sub-committees may include persons who are not members of the Authority.

(4) Subsection (1) has effect subject to any enactment requiring a decision to be taken by members of the Authority or by a committee consisting of members of the Authority.”

New clause 7—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred organisms—

“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny.

(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.

(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).

(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult representatives of—

(i) consumers,

(ii) citizens and civil society,

(iii) food producers,

(iv) suppliers,

(v) retailers,

(vi) growers and farmers,

(vii) the organic sector,

(viii) other persons likely to be affected by the regulations, and

(ix) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency on the information to be required to be provided on labelling.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the labelling of precision bred organisms and food and feed products made from them and to consult with named stakeholders before doing so.

New clause 8—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred animals—

“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny.

(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.

(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

New clause 9—Power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms—

“(1) Schedule 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 11 insert—

‘Marketing of precision bred organisms

11A The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any Act of the Scottish Parliament, or any subordinate legislation made under or by virtue of such an Act, relating to the marketing of—

(a) precision bred organisms, or

(b) food or feed produced from precision bred organisms.’.”

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out

“or a precision bred animal”.

This amendment removes animals from the scope of the Bill.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) But for the purposes of this Act an organism is not “precision bred” if any feature of its genome results from any technique or process which involves the insertion of exogenous genetic material, whether or not such material is subsequently removed.”

This amendment would exclude the use of exogenous genetic material in the creation of precision bred organisms.

Amendment 3, 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.

Amendment 4, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

“(za) that the precision bred traits will not have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny,

(zb) that the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny are not likely to experience pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity,

(zc) that the precision bred traits will not facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that are crowded, stressful or otherwise likely to have an adverse effect on animal welfare,

(zd) that the objective of the precision bred traits could not reasonably have been achieved by means that do not involve modification of the genome of the animal.”

The amendment requires a range of factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a precision bred animal marketing authorisation.

Amendment 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

“(za) that the scientific evidence does not indicate that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny, and if so”.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from issuing a precision bred animal marketing authorisation if the scientific evidence indicated that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny.

Amendment 6, in clause 26, page 16, line 29, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to regulate the placing on the market in England of food and feed produced from precision bred organisms.

Amendment 7, page 16, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the marketing of food or feed produced from a precision bred organism on the market in England except in accordance with a marketing authorisation, and imposing requirements for the purpose of securing traceability.

Amendment 8, page 16, line 36, after “traceability”, insert “through supply chain auditing”.

This amendment makes supply chain auditing the method of securing traceability in relation to food or feed produced from precision bred organisms that is placed on the market in England.

Amendment 9, page 17, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment requires the prescribing of requirements that must be satisfied in order for the Secretary of State to issue a food and feed marketing authorisation in relation to a precision bred organism.

Amendment 10, page 17, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment prescribes which requirements must be satisfied in order for the Secretary of State to issue a food and feed marketing authorisation in relation to a precision bred organism.

Amendment 5, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—

“(7) No regulations may be made under this Act unless—

(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before Parliament under section 18(6) of the Environment Act 2021, and

(b) section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 is in force.

(8) Regulations under this Act must be made in accordance with—

(a) the environmental principles set out in section 17(5) of the Environment Act 2021, and

(b) Article 391 (Non-regression from levels of protection) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, done at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”

This amendment would prevent the exercise of any powers granted by the Bill until the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.

Amendment 13, in clause 48, page 30, line 20, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations may not be made under or by virtue of this section unless a common framework agreement relating to the release and marketing of, and risk assessments relating to, precision bred plants and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals, has been agreed between a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.

(5B) “Common framework agreement” has the meaning given by section 10(4) of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.”

This amendment would prevent the operative parts of this Bill coming into force until a common framework agreement on the regulation of precision breeding had been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments.

New schedule 1—The Authority: Supplementary Provisions—

“Status and capacity

1 The Authority is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown; and its property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.

2 The Authority has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge, except the power to borrow money.

Expenses

3 The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay the Authority out of money provided by Parliament such sums as he thinks fit towards its expenses.

Appointment of members

4 (1) All the members of the Authority (including the chairman and deputy chairman who are to be appointed as such) are to be appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) The following persons are disqualified for being appointed as chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority—

(a) any person who is, or has been, concerned with the creation, release or marketing of plant or animal organisms, gametes or embryos created using genetic technology, and

(b) any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving such creation, release or marketing, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.

(3) The Secretary of State must secure that at least one-third but fewer than half of the other members of the Authority fall within sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b), and that at least one member falls within each of paragraphs (a) and (b).

5 (1) A person (“P”) is disqualified for being appointed as chairman, deputy chairman, or as any other member of the Authority if—

(a) P is the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order,

(b) in the last five years P has been convicted in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man of an offence and has had a qualifying sentence passed on P.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), the date of conviction is to be taken to be the ordinary date on which the period allowed for making an appeal or application expires or, if an appeal or application is made, the date on which the appeal or application is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails by reason of its non-prosecution.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), the reference to a qualifying sentence is to a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than three months (whether suspended or not) without the option of a fine.

Tenure of office

6 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 7, a person holds and vacates office as a member of the Authority in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

(2) A person may not be appointed as a member of the Authority for more than three years at a time.

(3) A member may at any time resign his office by giving notice to the Secretary of State.

(4) A person who ceases to be a member of the Authority is eligible for re-appointment (whether or not in the same capacity).

(5) A person holding office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority is to cease to hold that office if the person becomes disqualified for appointment to it.

(6) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member of the Authority—

(a) has been absent from meetings of the Authority for six consecutive months or longer without the permission of the Authority, or

(b) is unable or unfit to discharge the person's functions as chairman, deputy chairman or other member,

the Secretary of State may remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member.

(7) The Secretary of State may suspend a member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority if it appears to him that one of the conditions in paragraph (6) is or may be satisfied in relation to the member.

7 (1) This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State decides to suspend a member under paragraph 6(7).

(2) The Secretary of State must give notice to the member of the decision and the suspension takes effect on receipt by the member of the notice.

(3) A notice under subsection (2) is treated as being received by the member—

(a) in a case where it is delivered in person or left at the member's proper address, at the time at which it is delivered or left;

(b) in a case where it is sent by post to the member at that address, on the third day after the day on which it was posted.

(4) The initial period of suspension must not exceed 6 months.

(5) The Secretary of State may review the member's suspension at any time.

(6) The Secretary of State must review the member's suspension if requested in writing by the member to do so, but need not carry out a review less than 3 months after the beginning of the initial period of suspension.

(7) Following a review the Secretary of State may—

(a) revoke the suspension, or

(b) suspend the member for another period of not more than 6 months from the expiry of the current period.

(8) The Secretary of State must revoke the suspension if at any time—

(a) he decides that neither of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 5(5) is satisfied, or

(b) he decides that either of those conditions is satisfied but does not remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority.

Disqualification of members of Authority for House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly

8 In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

“The Genetic Technology Authority”.

Remuneration and pensions of members

9 (1) The Authority may—

(a) pay to the chairman such remuneration, and

(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of the chairman or any other member such pensions, allowances, fees, expenses or gratuities,

as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.

(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Authority otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for him to receive compensation, the Authority may make to him a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

Staff

10 (1) The Authority may appoint such employees as it thinks fit, upon such terms and conditions as the Authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury, may determine.

(2) The Authority must secure that any employee whose function is, or whose functions include, the inspection of premises is of such character, and is so qualified by training and experience, as to be a suitable person to perform that function.

(3) The Authority must, as regards such of its employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.

(4) If an employee of the Authority—

(a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and

(b) becomes a member of the Authority,

he may, if the Secretary of State so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if his service as a member of the Authority were service as employee of the Authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 7 above.

Proceedings

11 (1) Subject to any provision of this Act, the Authority may regulate its own proceedings, and make such arrangements as it thinks appropriate for the discharge of its functions.

(2) The Authority may pay to the members of any committee or sub-committee such fees and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

12 (1) A member of the Authority who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a release notification or marketing authorisation under this Act must, as soon as possible after the relevant circumstances have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest to the Authority.

(2) Any disclosure under sub-paragraph (1) above must be recorded by the Authority.

(3) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be determined by the Authority under paragraph 9(1) above, the member must not participate after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision of the Authority with respect to the release notification or marketing authorisation, and if he does so the deliberation or decision is of no effect.

13 The validity of any proceedings of the Authority, or of any committee or sub-committee, is not affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of a member.

Instruments

14 The fixing of the seal of the Authority must be authenticated by the signature of the chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority or some other member of the Authority authorised by the Authority to act for that purpose.

15 A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Authority, or to be signed on the Authority’s behalf, may be received in evidence and is deemed to be so executed or signed unless the contrary is proved.

Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner

16 The Authority is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner and accordingly, in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which lists the authorities subject to investigation under that Act), the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

“Genetic Technology Authority”.”

Amendment 2, in title, line 2, leave out

“and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals”

and insert

“, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants”.

This amendment, which is contingent on Amendment 1, would change the long title to reflect the removal of animals from the scope of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This Bill is now on its third Secretary of State, and I think the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), is the fourth Minister to speak to it.

I welcome back the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who took the Environment Act 2021 through Committee. She will be delighted to know that I will never cease to remind her that the Government’s 25-year environment plan was supposed to be for 25 years, not to take 25 years.

On Friday, we once again saw why the Conservatives cannot be trusted on the environment. They are breaking their own law by failing to come up with critical air, water and biodiversity targets on time. On the same day, the Prime Minister gave up on the UK’s leadership role on climate change by ducking COP27.

When the Government bring forward such a vague, thin Bill, asking the country to trust them to get the secondary legislation right, they can hardly be surprised that people are sceptical, and we are. Their failure fails Britain, and we all deserve better. This is an important Bill that, with the right regulatory safeguards, will reassure the public and provide the right environment for the research and investment we all want to see. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that good regulation is the key to both innovation and investor confidence.

This Bill concerns our food. After 12 years of Conservative government, people are fighting to keep their head above water against the rising tide of inflation, which is even higher for essentials such as food. It is no exaggeration to say that people are at breaking point, and the fears for this winter are very real. Despite the possible gains that science and innovation might bring, this Bill does not bring urgent relief to families across the country, but it is an important step in enabling scientific advancements with the potential to deliver huge benefits by helping us to produce our food more efficiently and sustainably.

Labour Members are enthusiasts for science and innovation, which can help to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, safety and security of our food system, while addressing the environmental, health, economic and social harms that the modern system has unfortunately caused. These are the challenges that Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set out to tackle, but the Government have, of course, completely failed to engage with it seriously.

However, alongside the challenges, there are opportunities. The UK has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others would follow. Even though they rejected them in Committee, there is still time for the Government to accept the improvements that we and many stakeholders believe are necessary to achieve that goal.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive, pro-science approach that he is taking—it is not surprising, given the constituency he represents. Do we not also need to learn from the experience of the vaccine taskforce, which demonstrated how we can achieve results at pace without in any way infringing on safety and while still applying proper regulation? Is that not the challenge for the Government tonight?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend, as always, speaks good sense. He is absolutely right; with focus and a proper attempt to meet the challenges we face, it is remarkable what can be done. But this needs leadership and, as ever, it is missing.

Let me turn in detail to the public interest test and our amendment 3. The potential benefits of gene edited crops include creating plants resistant to extreme weather conditions and diseases, which could reduce the need for pesticides and create higher yields to address rising food insecurity driven by climate change and other factors. Genetic editing could also be used to improve the nutritional quality of food. For example, giving farmers the tools to beat virus yellows without recourse to neonicotinoids is a prize worth having.

However, we must recognise that any new technology also carries risks: risks of unintended consequences; risks of technology being misused; and risks of commercial pressure being exerted in ways that might not be for the benefit of the wider public. Those are all risks that must be properly recognised and addressed, because unless public and investor confidence is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be squandered. Unfortunately, the Government’s blind faith in the market means this is a laissez-faire, minimalist Bill, which does not come close to an effective regulatory framework to guide and oversee the work of researchers and developers.

Amendment 3 would therefore require that a gene edited organism has been developed to provide one or more of the public benefit purposes listed, if it is to be released into the environment. The amendment neatly recycles much of the wording in section 1 of the Government’s own Agriculture Act 2020, which lists the public goods that can be funded. We are simply applying the same approach to the development and use of gene editing technologies. We believe they should be used only where that is clearly in the public interest, including, for instance, in protecting a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment; mitigating climate change; improving the health or welfare of animals or plants; and supporting human health and wellbeing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

During the Bill Committee, we heard that one of the potential benefits of these innovations was a possible reduction in the overuse of antibiotics on farms, because we would be able to breed things that are more resistant to disease. Although I welcome that, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the comments on antibiotics made by the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), when she was briefly Health Secretary? Is he concerned about her seemingly relaxed attitude towards these entering the food chain and the impact on public health?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right; people should not be careless about antibiotics and that was not an approach to be encouraged at all. I share her concerns.

Amendment 3 would strengthen the Bill by harnessing the good that can be created through such technologies and ensuring that they are not developed and used for purposes that would not deliver beneficial outcomes—surely that is an objective we can agree on across the House. We believe that would take the Bill much further forward in establishing the kind of regulatory framework that really would place the UK in a leading position. That sits alongside our new clauses, which would establish a single, robustly independent regulator, along the lines of the very successful and genuinely world-leading Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. That regulator does not just approve an application, but tracks, traces and checks over time. That is an important and very different approach, and one discussed in Committee by expert witnesses.

Our new clauses would ensure that Ministers’ decisions on gene editing are properly guided by the environmental principles set out under the Environment Act 2021, and that there is no regression from the environmental standards agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, which is pretty important when it comes to trade issues. Our new clauses would build an environment in which the UK really could attract the worldwide talent and investment in gene editing research and development that we all want to see.

On animal health and welfare, I turn to our amendment 4, which I am delighted to see has been endorsed by Compassion in World Farming and 12 other animal protection organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. The amendment would require a range of animal health and welfare factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a marketing authorisation for a gene edited animal. We appreciate that gene editing can be used in the same way as “traditional” selective breeding to produce fast growth, high yields and large litters, which, sadly, we also know are capable of causing suffering in farmed animals.

Clearly, we have existing legislation to protect animal health and welfare, but the concern is that we should be very clear at the outset that we do not want to see gene editing used in ways that make it more possible for animals to endure harm and suffering. As the Nuffield Council on Bioethics put it,

“animals should not be bred merely to enable them to endure conditions of poor welfare more easily or in a way that would diminish their inherent capacities to live a good life.”

Some researchers aim to use gene editing to improve disease resistance in livestock. Of course, that could be hugely beneficial and could help to reduce the serious harm caused by the overuse of antibiotics, for instance. It would be hugely beneficial if we could find ways to tackle porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs or avian flu. But the public would not want to see gene editing used to allow animals to be kept in poorer, more crowded, stressful conditions by making them resistant to the diseases that would otherwise result.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When it comes to this genetic technology, the farmers I represent are keen to see this happening in a way that does not harm their animals. They are not out to harm them; they want to protect them. I know that the Minister understands that, as my local farmers and I do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the farmers do not want to see anything happening that will harm the animals?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but of course there are always economic pressures and this is about making sure we guard against those. The Minister will be familiar with the chlorine-washed chicken debate, where lower welfare standards are disguised and the Government are always at pains to assure us, “We’re not going to tolerate that.” So they must not allow new scientific developments to be the tech equivalent; there must be no backsliding.

Referring to the power of gene editing to reduce the risk of disease, Nuffield’s 2016 ethical review of genome editing highlighted the problem. It said:

“If this risk were reduced or removed altogether then it might be easier to pack more animals together in crowded spaces.”

That is the concern, so let us guard against it. We believe we can create a regime that can do much better than that, but it requires this Bill to be strengthened to make it happen.

On transparency and labelling, the research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that although consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from genetically modified foods, they overwhelmingly want effective regulation of gene edited products, with transparent information and clear labelling.

The Government are trying to gloss over the issues by inventing the entirely non-scientific term “precision breeding”. I could speak at length about this term; I will not, but there is much dispute about it. It is a term without clear scientific meaning. Frankly, it has been invented by the Government for their convenience and is a misnomer. Telling us in a rather paternalistic tone that we need not worry because there is no difference between gene edited or traditionally bred crops and livestock does not convince. There is a risk that, as worded, the Bill will allow trans-genetic transfer—effectively, GM through the back door. I know the Government deny and dispute that, and we had a lengthy discussion about it in Committee, but I and many others remain unconvinced.

Leaving that matter aside, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want, and to be able to know, how their food has been produced. Clear labelling is the way to deal with another potentially difficult issue: the legitimately held views of different Administrations in the UK. It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way in which the issue has been handled so far. I suggest that the Government tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.

Labour is also concerned at the number of key elements of the Bill left to secondary legislation, with little or no opportunity for scrutiny or amendment. The Government must spell out the detail to boost confidence for businesses and consumers. The organic sector and those developing cultivated meat have expressed concerns over the lack of clarity in the Bill, which once again risks driving investment and research elsewhere.

It should not be forgotten that the Regulatory Policy Committee made a damning impact assessment of the Bill, giving it a red rating because it failed to take into account the impact of creating a new class of genetically modified organism; failed to assess the impact on businesses, especially SMEs; failed to acknowledge and assess competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts; and failed to address the impacts arising from removing labelling and traceability requirements. I hope the Minister will address those points.

In addition to that list of failures, the Bill fails to address the trade implications of the misalignment in regulation of genetically engineered organisms between the UK’s devolved nations and with our EU neighbours. That could have a significant impact on many food businesses that are struggling to rebuild trade with EU countries despite all the self-inflicted red tape, added costs and barriers that the Government have created.

[John Spellar]

Is not the EU in a slightly difficult position because of a perverse judgment from the European Court of Justice against the views of many EU nations, which would have taken the same rational position as my hon. Friend on gene editing? If we take the lead on this issue and do not wrap ourselves up in endless judicial review and litigation, could we not work with our European neighbours and partners to bring an advance not only in this country, but across Europe?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend speaks good sense once again. Of course, that quite legalistic judgment was met with surprise by many. The question is how we go forward. Others in Europe are going forward as well. I suspect that we will end up in similar places at similar times, but it would be sensible to end up in a much more similar place than looks likely if we pursue the Bill as it has been developed so far. The worry is the effects that the changes are already having on sectors such as the organic sector, which used to have exports to the EU worth some £45 million a year, according to Organic Farmers and Growers, which rightly remains concerned about the Bill as it stands.

Much more could be said on a topic that is as fascinating as it is interesting and important, but I will spare the House and direct those Members who are interested to look at the detailed discussion in Committee. Tonight I will end where I started and restate Labour’s commitment: we are pro science and pro innovation. We are in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. Science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon, but to achieve that—to give investors, researchers and the general public confidence—we need a much stronger regulatory framework.

At the moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is simply to leave it to the market. They think that minimalist regulation is the way forward, whereas we say that good regulation is the way forward—a fundamental divide in this Chamber. I would simply say that, given the evidence from the fundamentalist deregulatory experiment carried out on our country over the last few weeks, one hopes that those on the Treasury Bench might just have learned something.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)]

I will address new clause 1 directly. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, “We are very pro science and pro this technology,” and then spent the next 15 minutes explaining why he was not in favour of this technology, so I will address some of his comments.

The objective of the Bill is to achieve proportionate regulation of precision breeding organisms, which are currently regulated as genetically modified organisms. Science is at the heart of this policy, and the Bill rightly requires the Secretary of State to make decisions based on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—which advises on the regulation of genetically modified organisms.

--- Later in debate ---

Professor Napier’s research illustrates the situation that would arise for much of the other great research taking place across the country if the amendment were to stand. Innovation through technology such as precision breeding can help to create new markets, support a sustainable economy and help British businesses to compete globally. If we were to accept the amendment, countries elsewhere in the world with proportionate regulations would be able to use the technology with its huge potential and benefits as it develops whereas we would remain impeded by our current legislation. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friends and hon. Members across the House and that they will not press their amendments so that we can continue to progress this important piece of legislation.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I do not have much to add and do not want to detain the House. All I will say is that I am slightly disappointed that the Minister does not feel able to join us in looking for a stronger regulatory framework. We really think that would help, and some contributions from colleagues on the Government Benches indicated that there are concerns. Ultimately, the Opposition will support the Bill tonight, but we would much prefer it if it came with the amendments that we have proposed, which would much strengthen it. We do not propose to press new clause 1, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms

‘(1) Schedule 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 11 insert—

“Marketing of precision bred organisms

11A The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any Act of the Scottish Parliament, or any subordinate legislation made under or by virtue of such an Act, relating to the marketing of—

(a) precision bred organisms, or

(b) food or feed produced from precision bred organisms.”.’—(Kirsty Blackman.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister, who is, by my accounting, the fourth Minister at the Dispatch Box on this Bill. We had two in two days during the Committee stage, but I am still here, as is his colleague on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I thank her for the inclusive way in which she introduced the Bill at the beginning. It is a complicated Bill and she gave us access to officials, which was very helpful.

I take this opportunity, in case the Minister missed it, to remind him of the mantra that has guided the Opposition’s view on the Bill. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that to secure both public and investor confidence, a strong and robust regulatory framework is required. Disappointingly, that is the part the Government have failed to provide.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman represents a city that is full of science, particularly in its universities, so does he agree that we can bring forward this legislation only because we have left the European Union and that new wheat varieties that are 50% lower in acrylamide, a chemical that can induce cancer, is good news for both farmers and consumers of wheat?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that. We have had this discussion before and I have to disappoint him slightly, in the sense that of course the EU is moving as well on this. I suspect we will probably end up in a similar place at a similar time. However, he is absolutely right to point out the potential advantages.

The amendments before us are all Government amendments, because, despite the excellent learned and erudite arguments put by my colleagues in the other place—I pay tribute to Baroness Hayman, Baroness Jones and Lords Winston, Krebs, Trees and Cameron, among others—not much has changed, and that is genuinely disappointing. However, some improvements have been made. A number of the amendments move regulations to the affirmative procedure, as the Minister explained, and that allows some, if limited, further scrutiny, which is welcome. Amendment 1 to clause 1 is the Government’s further attempt to codify a particular knotty problem that we discussed at length in Committee. So the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing their amendments tonight. We will merely pointing be out how much more improved the Bill could have been had they had the confidence to embrace our positive suggestions.

I say that not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, because if you had the chance to peruse the Sunday newspapers, as I hope you had the time to do and enjoy, you would have seen comment on today’s gathering of international experts on human gene editing. Although the techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 may be similar, this is of course a different issue from those under consideration today. However, I would argue that many of the ethical issues around animals are not dissimilar. That is why the Government’s refusal to adopt our suggestion of an overseeing authority to look at these very complicated and challenging issues is so disappointing. We have a great chance to be genuinely world-leading in this area. We have brilliant people such as those at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, yet the Government are, apparently, not interested. That is a wasted opportunity.

Let us look at these amendments in more detail. As I have said, on a number of issues the Government have bowed to informed argument in the other place and agreed that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure: on the release or marketing of genetically edited organisms; on information that must be included in the register; on the animal welfare declaration that has to be made; and on the body to be designated as the animal welfare advisory body. That is all welcome. But one of the most powerful and consistent criticisms has been the vagueness of the Bill on many issues and the lack of detail, particularly relating to the proposals regarding animals and when regulations might take effect. I am afraid that these amendments do not seem to help us on this, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on it. The promise at the outset was that nothing would be done on animals until the science was further advanced; it has been described as a “step-by-step approach”. Will the Minister reconfirm that commitment today and tell us what timeframe is actually envisaged? As for companion animals or primates, can he give any reassurances on that today? Many people will be keen to hear what he has to say on it.

As I have already indicated, the most significant amendment is to clause 1, as the Government seek once again to explain what they consider to be a natural process. We had an interesting and extensive discussion in Committee on this point, both with those giving evidence and between members, and it was discussed at length in the other place. I fear that the Government have struggled with this, and I am not sure the new wording takes us much further forward. In general, the Government have sought to define a new category, “precision breeding” which many expert witnesses doubt has much meaning. The particular concern is whether the definitions accurately describe gene editing, without allowing gene modification in through the back door, with one of the key issues being whether exogenous material is included.

The amendment before us introduces yet another term—modern biotechnology. This is also ill-defined, and, as argued by Lord Krebs in the other place, may not stand the test of time, or, more importantly, as we heard in expert evidence, legal scrutiny and challenge. I appreciate that this is difficult territory and hard to define, and almost any sentence fails to capture the complexity, but we were promised at the outset that GM is excluded, and it would be helpful to have the Minister confirm that clearly again today.

l am conscious that you do not want lengthy speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me conclude. The learned and lengthy discussions in the other place showed just how complicated this subject is. Sadly, the Government have made only limited changes in the light of those discussions. Those changes are welcome, so we will not oppose them, but we think that this is a missed opportunity to set out the strong regulatory framework that would have reassured the public, and given investors the confidence that the sector needs.

There is significant opportunity for good here, but there are also risks—risks we may not fully understand. It is also worth bearing in mind that one mistake could tarnish the entire technology. As so often, the Government have gone for the short-term quick fix—the sticking plaster. How much better it would have been to have set up the robust long-term framework that could have established the UK as the setter of the standard that others will follow. That is unfinished business, and it is for another day.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise

again in support of this important Bill. I declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon. I am passionate about animal health and welfare, and strongly believe that the Bill will help in that area.

The Bill has been strengthened and improved in the other place. Its definitions are also tighter. I am pleased that the Opposition amendment to remove animals from the Bill was withdrawn and has not been carried forward. It is so important that both animals and plants are included in the Bill. I was also pleased that the amendments that would have phased in animal provisions were not successful. That has strong benefits for animal health and welfare, and it is important that animals are included.

I very much welcome the Government’s allaying of concerns expressed by the Opposition about exogenous DNA, therefore preventing any exogenous DNA that was outside the range of an organism’s existing gene pool from remaining in the organism. Amendments 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been very helpful in that regard. It is important to reaffirm to the public and the world at large that this Bill is to do with gene editing, which is very, very different from genetic modification. That is where genetic material from exogenous or unrelated species can be introduced. That will not happen in this gene editing Bill.

I very much welcome the Government amendments that have removed reference to natural transformation. Some clarity was needed in that regard. I also welcome the fact that the Bill introduces more parliamentary scrutiny to help protect animal health and welfare, which strengthens the safeguards. This increased scrutiny will also allay some of the fears that people had put forward.

The Bill has huge benefits to animals, plants, the environment and people in, for example, helping to develop resistance to diseases such as avian influenza. A lot of work is being done to make birds resistant to this horrific disease. A huge outbreak has gripped this country and others across the world and that is firmly in our minds. This sort of technology will help us in that battle. It will also help us to develop resistance to other diseases, such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs. It will help reduce the need for medicines, help combat antimicrobial resistance and, indirectly and very directly, help public health. It will also help us as a country and as a world in our fight to preserve and strengthen food security by being able to develop more climate-resilient and disease-resistant crops, reducing the need for pesticides and reducing the need for fertiliser as well. That will also benefit the environment.

In summary, I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the Government amendments. I thank the other place for refining and improving the Bill and I wish it well as it completes its passage.