Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Second sitting)
Deidre Brock ExcerptsTuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 View all Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
Daniel Zeichner
Q
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
“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?
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: It depends. If you are saying it is the same as traditional breeding, then yes, it is probably the same, often, or very similar.
Alessandro Coatti: The case for deregulation—let us put it that way—is that basically, with these technologies, you can achieve changes in the genome that are potentially done already in traditional breeding. You are just doing it in a more energy and resource-efficient way—faster, etc. So there is definitely a policy case for this Bill, because research and innovation in this country can really provide those beneficial traits in plants and animals that we desperately need at the moment.
On the question whether this Bill captures all the potential impacts on the environment, for example, from a release of one of these organisms, you would think that the organisms that are passed through this Bill will not particularly need extra monitoring relative to the traditionally bred counterpart, if you see what I mean.
However, there could be boundaries or grey areas where a change could have arisen traditionally but it is not so common. Therefore, the committee should be able to trigger an additional risk assessment; and in my view, it looks like it can. Now, the question is this. On the environmental risk assessment, there is not much detail in the Bill—that is true—so it will be down to ACRE to provide more detailed guidance and analysis on how it would want the environmental risk assessment to be done.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: That is a hard one. The EU will have to change—that is my view—because it is going to be way behind other countries, too. We are not talking just about the UK and the EU; we are also talking about the US, Canada, Argentina and other countries. If the whole regulation about genetically modified organisms and genome editing is not made more compatible with actually getting on and doing stuff that is useful, the EU will suffer, because it will ultimately—
Deidre Brock
But the impact here, in the UK, on trade? Obviously, it is the UK’s largest trading partner, so if it continues to be—
Professor Lovell-Badge: I can imagine there could be an impact. It is hard for me to tell what that might be. It is not my area of expertise at all.
Alessandro Coatti: Yes, I would not be able to discuss in detail how that might be. You probably need to have experts on it. But I am aware that the Food Standards Agency has produced a report on these changes in regulations and this evolution across the globe, and there is definitely a case for the UK to try—we say we would like the UK to lead the way, as it has done with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The UK could still lead the way by making legislation—regulation—that other countries would copy, but there is already a lot out there, so it has to harmonise with the regulations in other countries, such as Japan and Canada. It seems like the Bill is going one step in that direction. In terms of the relationship with the EU, as the closest economic partner and one of the biggest markets that the UK trades with, it is important for the UK, not necessarily to slow down excessively, but to maintain dialogue with the EU Commission while it reviews. The UK in the past has created legislation that the EU has then taken on. For example, when it comes to animals and research, the UK has led the way on the protections—eventually the EU adopted some of those elements. Even though the EU is not politically obliged to anymore, it could still value that.
Professor Lovell-Badge: You may be about to get to labelling. I think the registry is a good idea, because if someone wants to import something from the UK, at least it is then obvious that it could have been genome edited—otherwise they might not know.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Alessandro Coatti: In our response we commented mainly on plants and animals, while making some reference to other uses. There are already leading labs in the UK looking at genome-edited livestock species, for example, and how doing genome editing in those species could be beneficial on many levels. I am quite sympathetic to the fact that animals are included in the Bill, even though there is less of a history of genome editing, and genetic modification, in animals than there is in plants.
It seems to me that more safeguards are added here for animals than for plants. There is animal health and welfare assessment as part of the Bill. With animals, it seems clear to me—but Robin can correct me—that genome editing can be used quite safely. We are talking about the techniques and the process, not the outcomes and the traits. If you look at the techniques with the animals, with a number of species you can be pretty sure that you are making the right change in the genome that you wanted and that you are not adding unwanted changes anywhere else. We can say that there are not many additional risks when it comes to technique, relative to traditional breeding. However, that still has to be caveated a bit.
Professor Lovell-Badge: Some of the methods of genome editing are now so efficient and precise that I do not think it is a great concern, but you always have to check. There are good ways of checking what you have done and what you have got. I would not be that concerned. You would have to check the original animal that has been modified, but once you get to subsequent generations, you will be pretty certain of exactly what you have, and of anything wrong. The methods are being used in humans for somatic genome editing. We know a lot about them and how accurate and safe they can be.
Alessandro Coatti: We pointed out two things in relation to the methodological aspects. Robin mentioned one aspect before: how the gene relates to the phenotype. You change something and then you have a trait change in the animal. Some genes have functions in different organs and tissues, so you want to ensure that by doing something you are not messing up something else. That can be done and has to be done as part of the Bill—you should make sure that it will be done.
The other question is about the reproductive techniques you sometimes use to work on the embryos. Those can also have health and welfare implications for the animals, but it should all come down to an expert committee reviewing the application for the genome edited animals, which could say, “Okay, it looks like they checked everything they should have on the technique.”
Daniel Zeichner
Q
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
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.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Halford: We have used CRISPR-Cas9 to knock out a gene that makes an amino acid called asparagine, which gets converted to acrylamide. That is our target.
Deidre Brock
You are giving Hansard a few challenges today.
Professor Halford: Acrylamide is a processing contaminant, so it only forms during processing; it is not in the plant. For consumers, it is not an issue—we could talk about that all day—but it is quite a big regulatory compliance issue for the food industry. We are trying to reduce the potential for acrylamide to form during processing by reducing the amount of asparagine in the grain of the wheat. That is where we are at the moment.
Because you do a GM step to put the CRISPR machinery into the plant, some of those components are still in most of the plants we have, so the field trial is running under GM regulations at the moment. The editing has been done, and it has worked. We have very low asparagine wheat grain growing in the glasshouse, at least. We are in the process of crossing away the GM bit, and we do have some plants now—not in the field trial, but under glass—that are now GM-free. They are a qualifying higher plant, and we have registered them as such.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Halford: We have five plant breeders working with us. If it pans out in the field and it all looks good, we could hand our genotypes over to those breeders and they could start incorporating the trait into their breeding lines. That process would take probably five to 10 years. We have five years’ consent to run the field trials. You need several years before you are going to convince a breeder that your trait is stable and it will give them what they need. There is nothing rapid about the process.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Napier: In my opinion, it is regulatory approval that is the barrier.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
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
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.
Deidre Brock
Q
All witnesses indicated assent.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Some witnesses who gave evidence this morning said that it is not the Bill that is at fault. There is a completely separate argument, they said, about whether we want to increase the intensification and industrialisation of animal farming. Where do you sit on that argument? They said that the animal welfare codes deal with some of the concerns. I would say, however, that they are not operating in the right way at the moment, because we already allow a degree of intensification and, to my mind, animal welfare standards are not good.
On the separate issue of increasing yields from animals, cows produce an awful lot more milk than they would have done a few decades ago, and certainly a lot more milk than they need to feed their own calves. Where do you sit on the use of this technology for that purpose? Finally, do you think that the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to refer things to a welfare advisory body is a sufficient safeguard? Sorry, that was an awful lot of questions, and you do not have much time to answer.
Joanna Lewis: You asked whether you can separate the intention of gene editing to solve animal welfare problems from the broader challenge of facilitating the perpetuation of systems that result in very poor animal welfare. I think it is important that we bring these together—as the public brought them together in the Nuffield Council on Bioethics public dialogue. We know that conventional animal breeding trends have been to prioritise greater yield, litter size and fast growth over the welfare of sentient animals, and we know that the argument for gene editing is partly that it speeds things up and is likely, therefore, to accelerate those trends. The public were saying, through that dialogue, that this is where they want to see governance. They want the Government to come in and say, “This is our vision for the future of animal farming. This is how it is going to become a higher welfare system that also delivers for climate, nature and health. This is the role we want to see gene editing play in that context.”
I know that you will be hearing evidence from Compassion in World Farming on Thursday, and I know that amendments will be proposed to try to make sure that there are additional tests—which could be linked to the Secretary of State’s powers, secondary regulation or the role of the welfare advisory body—on whether these traits are going to focus on yield, litter size and fast growth and cause lasting harm to the welfare of the animal. Also, are they going to perpetuate, facilitate or enable a farming system that is very detrimental to the welfare of animals? Those are the amendments that will be coming through from animal welfare bodies.
Roger Kerr: In terms of the disease-resistance issue, we have to be really careful about how we approach this. What we have seen, albeit through the use of antibiotics, is the reduction of disease. Again, unfortunately, I am referring back to the dairy industry. We have seen farmers driven to reduce cell counts in dairy cows to a point where the cow’s immune system has been suppressed to such a degree that the more virulent diseases come in, because there is not the natural, more benign flora around any more. Therefore, you have cows going down with E. coli and other things, which is killing them. We have seen this continual drive to reduce the immune system and reduce the cell count.
What we have found more recently is that allowing the cow to have a more natural immune system actually allows it to live a longer and healthier life. We have to be really careful when we start talking about disease that we do not start messing with something but then find that we end up with a whole lot of unintended consequences in terms of opening the animal up to other disease implications. Ultimately, we will just end up on the same old wheel of trying to continually firefight because the animal is going down with disease.
On the yield aspect, again, we can keep saying, “Oh, well, we can genetically breed them to produce high yield,” but what we find is that the longevity of the animals is massively impacted. These cows that can produce 12,000 or 15,000 litres of milk do not live very long because, unfortunately, cows are just not designed to do that. We have to be really careful about what we consider to be a farm animal and what it is there for. If we continue to drive it, we are effectively supercharging its physiology, and therefore it will ultimately not be able to live as long.
Using cows as an example, if you go into a collecting yard or a cubicle shed, you will see the cows breathing really quickly, even though they are lying down, because their physiology is going so fast. What we are effectively doing at the moment is turning what was a very low-input, low-output animal into a Formula 1 car. Unsurprisingly, they do not cope with it and they fall over. What we are doing now in terms of genetically editing is stepping that up a whole other gear. We have to be really careful about what it is that we are seeking to achieve here, and I think we have to look, in terms of welfare, not only at disease resistance but at longevity, quality of life and ability to withstand other disease impacts.
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: 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.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: That is the process that we have put in for mutation breeding, for instance. For mutation breeding, I irradiate the seed to create mutations in the seed, look for the lines that give a trait that is useful, and then breed that into the conventional lines. That is already happening; it underpins a lot of our food production and we have a regulatory framework to ensure that what we are actually releasing out into the world is safe and effective.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I think it is certainly sufficient for assessing the validity of material produced by methods that are no different from what happens in nature.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Yes.
Deidre Brock
What are your thoughts with regard to, say, Mr Angus’s previous points about the ownership of genes or the licensing of genes, and trying to ensure that that does not become a problem for breeders such as Mr Angus, or indeed for growers. We have discussed that in a few panels, so I just wondered how his point could be addressed.
Dr Harrison: Bill was talking about the breeder’s exemption, which means that once a variety has been protected it is put on the market, and any other breeder can then take that material, cross with it and do onward work.
If I understand it correctly—this is an area that is changing rapidly—there is still uncertainty, as Jonathan Napier said, about what can and cannot be protected. Patenting genes is very difficult, so it is more likely that the technology will be protected than the genes themselves. Even so, there could be some instances where there is some level of protection around a particular trait.
There are schemes now being set up that would allow the breeder’s exemption still to apply in the event of a licensing for a particular gene-edited trait in that variety. So those systems are being set up by industry at the moment, because ultimately there is a win-win there, because the licence holder of the intellectual property will want to see that out there at some level, and the plant breeders will want to use the material. I am not an expert in this area, and I am not a legal expert, but I understand that there are schemes being set up to take account of that. That is only in the instances where stuff is actually protectable; most stuff probably won’t be protectable, so the breeder’s exemption will still apply and people can still cross with it.
The bigger issue—the one raised by Jonathan—is that if you have an overly burdensome regulatory landscape of pre-authorisation to take something to market, for many that will be the thing that kills the technology. It is really important that that proportionality remains. It is only for things that may substantially affect nutrition that you would go down a route whereby the FSA would even class it under novel food regulations. I would expect that the majority of things being developed are agronomic traits, which would—as they do in many jurisdictions, such as Canada—sit outside the purview of food standards and are not classed as novel food in any way. They would progress to the market just as conventionally bred things do at the moment.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Do you mean in terms of additional—
Deidre Brock
If they take over and buy out smaller breeders, for example.
Dr Harrison: You have to look at the situation. The market is one thing, and the Bill is talking about gene-editing technologies and whether they are substantially different. Personally, I do not think that the two are really related.
Deidre Brock
Although it is certainly bound up in the arguments about gene editing and genetic modification.
Dr Harrison: In many ways, among the small and medium-sized enterprises such as Bill’s, in a landscape such as the UK, where there is a lot of innovation happening, there are start-ups starting now that want to do breeding and gene editing, so you may well see the opposite happening: a democratisation of the process and more people entering the market as the barrier to entry is much lower because of the regulation change.
Professor Oldroyd: The food production sector is no different from any other sector in this free market economy. I hear a lot of concerns about a few companies owning most of the seeds, but I do not hear the same about a few companies owning most of the drugs, cars, phones, clothes or any other product. That is a reality of our free market economy. The food production system is just like any other sector; there are major players who have a sizeable part of the market share.
Richard made a very important point. The phenomenal restrictions that are being put on traditional genetic modification have actually meant that only the big players that have deep pockets can use that technology. I feel as though we have ended up in the situation that most people feared, where a few companies have total control of a technology, and that is principally because of the cost of releasing those traits. If we follow the Bill and treat them as equivalent to conventional breeding, we absolutely liberate the technology for SMEs to get in the game. At the moment, they could not afford to do that with GM.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Q
I do not think that is a model that I would want to apply to food. Some of us would like to see something more robust that did not make the mistakes that we have made on pharmaceuticals, for example. Food supply is critical, especially as we move through the 21st century with the climate crisis and a growing population. When I was asking you questions as a BBC journalist a long time ago, I was always struck by your passion for the science and for communicating the science. As currently constructed, does the Bill provide the protections we need? Outside your laboratories, away from the pure science, there are free-market corporations for which the bottom line is the end game and the main driver. Do you feel that this science is beyond abuse and beyond being used in the same way that perhaps big pharma have cornered those markets?
Lastly, I understand the notion that reducing barriers opens up the market to small and medium-sized companies, but the history of any industry shows us that big players begin to hoover up small players over decades, and you end up back in an oligopoly or monopoly situation. That does not necessarily have to happen, but that is what usually happens with new tech. There is a free-for-all when everyone piles in, but ultimately people sell up and move on, and the big companies hoover up. When you get past the science and it reaches the real world, do you feel that there is the opportunity for abuse? Does the Bill protect us from that?
Professor Oldroyd: With the caveat of clause 3, legislating gene editing as equivalent to conventional breeding is the best way to allow small to medium-sized enterprises to become involved in the technology. If you really want to see a break in major corporate ownership, lowering the barriers to how you get a product from that technology is almost certainly going to facilitate that. As I said earlier, the big problem currently with GM is that it is so costly to release a GM variety that only “the big four” can afford to do that. I think that taking this approach will help that ownership of lines.
Certainly from me, as a researcher, the Bill as it currently stands greatly facilitates me to work directly with plant breeders and move products through the conventional plant breeding mechanism into the market and on to the consumer. Some of that plant breeding is in the big four, but quite a bit of it is not. Those are more the medium-sized enterprises, not necessarily BASF or Bayer, although they do have a role in some of that. I think the current Bill will certainly facilitate that broadening of ownership of the technology and a speeding up of the impact to the consumer.
Dr Harrison: If I could add one small point, our public research institutes in the UK have a pivotal role to play here. We do research funded by the Government in this area and we publish that. We can protect it before or we can just publish it so it is free and able to be used by many.
You could really think strategically about how those research organisations are used to direct change in the way that one would want to see, so that varieties come on to the market either nearly complete, so breeders can take them up, which is often what happens, or even release complete varieties, as happens in many other countries, from public funded research organisations. Again, that allows freedom of choice, so varieties come on to the market that have traits that are desirable and do not suffer from the problem you point out, which is that some small companies may become subsumed into larger companies.
Thinking about it more broadly—this is outside the scope of the Bill—there is an absolute opportunity for the UK to lead on bringing those traits to the point at which they can be taken to market, in a variety of different ways that are not just dependent on the big four.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
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
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.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: No, I think the Bill has the potential to open up the technology a lot more. It will naturally open up what traits are available both publicly and privately, but I would imagine especially publicly. The majority of new traits that have come through historically have come through publicly.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: For me, it is all about choice. That is the most important thing. We are not going to get great investment in these new technologies if these commercial business cannot make some money somewhere along the line. We have to be able to protect that IP, which we already do very well in the UK with our current royalty system. We currently protect new varieties and IP on varieties very successfully, which makes us a great area for investment in plant breeding. I would like to see that maintained.
As I mentioned, there are different trait licensing platforms already available. For example, Corteva is one of the big ones, as we may want to describe them, which has already initiated its own platform for accessing its traits. I do not think it should be seen as a concern. There are already breeder exemptions around using new varieties, and I do not see this being any different when we get to using precision technology.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, we will bring this session to a close.
Examination of Witness
Dr Alan Tinch gave evidence.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
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
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.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: Well, if I go back to the example of the gene that was discovered in Scottish populations for disease resistance, it was described in 2008 and was at high levels in commercial populations in 2015-16. Do not quote me exactly on those numbers, but it was that sort of timescale to go from identifying the animals to using them in breeding, going through the multiplication system and coming into production. If we were able to do that, and the technology would allow us to move as quickly as that in some populations by editing the gene, making the change and then breeding from those animals, we could move as quickly as that—a generation and a half to get it to high levels in the population.
The process that breeders go through normally to assess their animals is as you describe: if you discover a mutation, you look at it in the population, look at its effects on a number of different traits, and judge that it is an animal that is capable of performing well in the production environment. If everything is favourable, you then take it forward into production. That was the example relating to infectious pancreatic necrosis in Atlantic salmon. The gene had an effect on disease resistance and it did not have any perceivable effects on any other traits. For the sorts of traits we are talking about in Atlantic salmon, the case would be the same: we would evaluate it within the populations in the breeding programme—typically thousands of animals—and then as that data builds up and everything works out, we would expand that to the commercial populations.
We could go as fast as that. Obviously, with short-generation species with higher rates of reproduction, we could go faster than that. That process of identifying the animal, looking at its performance across a number of traits and judging that is a process that can move at the timescale I have described.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: To go back to that position—
The Chair
Just before you answer that question, may I ask you not to lean too far forward into the mic, because we will miss your face, and we do not want that? Could you stay neatly there for lip readers who need to follow you?
Dr Tinch: No problem. On labelling—going back to the position that says the genetics we are talking about is indistinguishable and identical variation that occurs in the wild and in farm populations—if we say that they are identical, then logically I see no reason to label that. The product is the same, the means by which it was generated is slightly different, but it is identical, to all intents and purposes, to a mutation that would have occurred naturally. I see no need for labelling.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: That is a different question.
Deidre Brock
Given agriculture is a subject of some contention in Scotland at times, what do you think?
Dr Tinch: It has been a hugely successful industry in Scotland. Your public opinion is interesting. To give a broad analogy, the other example of products being very close in terms of their composition and quality but labelled for production-system differences is organic farming. There is a drive there that says, “Okay, people are interested in the production system and they ask the product to be labelled to identify it as premium.” There is that precedent, but I go back to the position that says these are products that have identical composition. They are produced in different ways at the point where the mutation is either discovered or produced by gene editing, but they are identical at point of sale. I see no reason for labelling that, unless, like with organics, there is a premium for that sort of production system.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Similar discussions are going on. A position on describing technologies where the outcome is the same but the technology used to produce it is different has been adopted, as it has been in a number of other countries—Canada and Australia. The principle of recognising that the product that is being farmed is the same as one that would have occurred naturally is being adopted by several countries. The danger is that we might come out of line with that.
The influence that Norway has over the UK and Atlantic farming industry is interesting in that it is a major player in the Scottish industry. Norway’s industry is technology led; Atlantic salmon farming is technology led and it will take the technology forward. I would expect that Norway takes its responsibilities as farmers and guardians of the livestock seriously, and farms according to good practice. The technology can be used as a means of improving performance, health and welfare of our animals. We should bring those sorts of technologies forward and use them. Those are the arguments that have been made in Norway as well.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Dr Tinch: Absolutely. I am a graduate of the University of Edinburgh and studied at the Roslin Institute, and have collaborated on a number of projects with scientists at Roslin in aquaculture, developing genetic solutions to disease resistance and applying those in populations. We are a local leader in terms of our ability to understand these technologies, develop them to the point of application and then deliver them through production systems.
The danger if we do not lead in that area is that the technology will move elsewhere. I now work for an American company working in gene editing in agriculture. I am not saying the reason I am doing that is because there is a lack of investment in the UK, but there is certainly lots of investment outside the UK in the technology and a lot of the technology is going to be applied in breeding programmes outside of the UK in areas where the legislation looks as if it is more permissive.
The UK model, particularly through the BBSRC and identifying projects that will have meaning within industry, is a very good example of how science should be applied and carried out. I have benefited from that on a personal level and a company level, in terms of my career development and the development of companies I have worked for.
The danger is that if we do not allow the application of new technologies, we will become part of the second lane in the use of this technology. I would not like to see that. Our approach as a country towards animal welfare and the way that we set up farming systems is world class. In many cases, we lead the way in the development of technologies. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and we will continue to review that, I understand, in a constructive way. We have very high standards in farming. If we prevent this sort of technology from being employed because of a precautionary principle, which is one of the areas where technology gets held back—“There’s a slight chance that there may be a problem that results from this technology, so we shouldn’t do it”— that is regressive. I do not think that is the way that we should take science forward.
We should understand the risks, evaluate the risks and look at the technologies. Where they are able to be used for good purposes, we should take them forward. That is the case for gene editing. If you look at the way that the research is lining up, and the way that the breeding companies are talking about the traits that they are going to use, these are examples of taking the technology forward to benefit animal welfare and the sustainability of animal production, and we should be one of the early adopters of the technology.
Oral Answers to Questions
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
While the other place’s International Agreements Committee report broadly welcomed the Australia-UK trade deal for sectors such as financial services, it was concerned about the deal’s impact on UK agriculture, highlighting that it will allow the importation of beef from deforested land, crops grown with pesticides not permitted in the UK or the EU, and often no protection from copies for products such as Scottish whisky and Cornish pasties. The Committee fears that that will continue with other trade deals that the Government pursue and criticises their refusal to involve the devolved Governments. How can farms and our food and drink sector remain profitable in the face of such free trade agreements? Does the Secretary of State accept that his failure to achieve protections from untrammelled competition for farmers and food producers will ultimately have an impact on their businesses and livelihoods?
George Eustice
In the context of the free trade agreement with Australia, we secured staging protections for the sensitive sectors of beef and lamb for a decade, and then a very strong special agricultural safeguard thereafter, set against volumes. We judged that that would be sufficient to manage any risks to the market. It is important to recognise that Australia cannot compete with the UK on the vast majority of agricultural products, including dairy. In lamb, New Zealand cannot compete with the UK and does not use the quota it already has. Beef is an issue that we are watching, but we believe that we have the right protections in place.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The commission’s view is that the digital imprints requirement in the Elections Act will increase transparency by helping voters understand who is paying to target them online. It could provide further transparency if the requirement were extended to cover all digital material from unregistered campaigners, regardless of whether they paid to promote it. The commission has said that other changes in the Act relating to non-party campaigners will bring limited additional transparency, while increasing the complexity of the law.
The Online Safety Bill would include new freedom of speech protections for some campaigning content, but does not include any provisions that would directly affect the transparency of political campaign activities.
Deidre Brock
Recently, openDemocracy highlighted research that suggests it is difficult to establish exactly what more than £3.6 million was spent on by the Conservative party before the 2019 general election because of unclear or even unavailable invoices. Without that clarity, it is obviously difficult to establish exactly what political campaigning communications resulted from contracts that included £700,000 and £1.6 million to political consultancy firms, or even from the 200 out of 300 local Conservative branches that apparently submitted returns with no invoices. Yet the commission said it was “not proportionate” to take enforcement action. Under what circumstances would the commission be prepared to take action?
Christian Matheson
The commission reviewed the spending return delivered by the Conservative party following the 2019 parliamentary general election, and is aware that not all the required invoices were provided. Having reviewed the compliance of the return as a whole, it was decided that it was not proportionate to take enforcement action in relation to those missing invoices.
The hon. Member mentioned local associations, and local association campaign spending and accompanying invoices or receipts at a UK parliamentary general election are submitted as part of the spending return from their central party. The commission is required to publish the returns as soon as reasonably possible, whether or not they are complete. When a return is incomplete, the commission will consider what action to take in line with the principles of proportionality, as set out in its enforcement policy.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Deidre Brock ExcerptsWednesday 15th June 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 View all Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The regulation of genetically modified foods is a devolved issue. It is important to emphasise that at the start because, as in a growing number of policy areas, the UK Government pay only lip service at best to the powers exercised in the Scottish Parliament, while at the same time running roughshod over devolution with their post-Brexit deregulatory agenda.
Although the intended scope of the Bill may be England only, it is explicit that it will have significant impacts on devolved areas. The devolved Administrations were, however, only informed of this just one day before the Bill was introduced, in a letter from the Environment Secretary encouraging them to adopt the Bill’s principles. A UK-wide approach can, of course, sometimes be desirable, but this invite creates an illusion of collaboration and choice when in fact DEFRA is acting unilaterally once again. Frankly, it smacks of contempt for our democratically elected Government.
If the Scottish Parliament refused to allow gene-edited crops to be planted in Scotland, we would still be prevented from stopping GMO products from being sold in our shops under the devolution-violating United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. This is exactly the kind of scenario the SNP warned against when the Tories forced that legislation through this place. I understand that DEFRA officials have now suggested that the Department discuss the UK Government’s plans to diverge from the common UK-wide GM regulatory regimes. Well, thanks very much, I am sure, but any discussions of that nature should have taken place prior to the introduction of the Bill so that potential policy divergence could be properly considered. The fact that they have not is deeply regrettable and unacceptable.
The SNP is committed to ensuring that Scotland operates to the highest environmental standards, and that we protect and enhance the strength of Scottish agriculture and food production. If we end up with unwanted gene-edited products in Scotland, diverging standards with the EU could cause further damage to our sales, risking damage to Scotland’s reputation for high-quality food and drink.
Katherine Fletcher
The way the hon. Lady is talking about gene editing implies that one can tell the difference. It brings in variant genes from the same species. It is literally scientifically impossible to identify a gene-edited product if it is done properly.
Deidre Brock
I accept the hon. Lady’s experience in this area, but there are many scientists who would differ from that opinion.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Deidre Brock
I am going to make progress.
As previously, where the EU offers new scientific advice and moves to change legislative frameworks, the Scottish Government consider the implications for Scotland and seek to stay closely aligned with that approach where practicable. Holyrood passed the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 before Brexit, committing the Scottish Government to alignment with EU standards and regulations. In keeping with that, we are closely monitoring the EU, including its public consultation which I believe is continuing at the moment, as it reviews its policy on certain new genomic techniques.
Andrew Bridgen
Does the hon. Lady not appreciate that farmers are also businesspeople and that a farmer will not grow something that the consumer does not want to buy? Does she insult the intelligence of Scottish farmers by suggesting that they will grow crops nobody wants to buy?
Deidre Brock
This is about the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Government and our intention to stay aligned with EU regulations, as we have committed to in the 2021 continuity Act. We are in constant discussions with farmers and will continue to be.
Surely it would be practical for the UK Government to follow the approach of monitoring the EU and its ongoing public consultation as it reviews this policy, ensuring alignment and avoiding divergence that could further threaten trade with our largest trading partner. As the European Commission’s formal policy announcement is expected in the first half of 2023, the wait would not greatly undermine the UK’s competitive edge but would ensure minimal trade disruption. The UK economy suffered a 4% reduction in GDP, according the Office for Budget Responsibility, thanks to a hard Tory Brexit. The last thing Scotland needs is further disruption to EU trade.
It is worth noting, too, that the EU’s 2021 study into gene editing and new genetic technologies highlighted that research into animals and micro-organisms is “still limited or lacking”, especially when it comes to safety. The SNP would advise the UK Government to return to the precautionary principle in the deployment of such new technologies, especially those developing produce for human consumption.
There is no doubt that these issues are complex and emotive, with a variety of views across science, industry and other stakeholders. The SNP does not oppose further research in this area and it acknowledges the work of the James Hutton Institute, the Roslin Institute and other Scottish scientists and researchers. The more empirical data available in this area, the better we can understand exactly the effects in crops and animals, and in genetically modified organisms. However, the SNP will always listen to the concerns of the public and producers and take them into consideration in agricultural matters or in scientific development. Indeed, DEFRA’s own consultation last year found that 88% of individuals and 64% of businesses supported continuing to regulate such organisms as GMOs. The strength and range of opposition to the use of gene editing should give us pause to reflect.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a lot of points about how this is, of course, a devolved area, but does she therefore disagree with the president of NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy, when he says that precision breeding techniques such as gene editing, led by scientific expertise available in Scotland, have considerable potential to deliver benefits for food, nutrition, agriculture, biodiversity and climate change?
Deidre Brock
I thought I had made myself fairly clear. We are waiting for the EU review of this technology to take place, then we will weigh it up carefully and decide whether to continue down that route ourselves. The trouble with farmers and the NFUS at the moment is that they are so desperate to find something in place of the trade they have lost as a result of Brexit that they have seized on this. I think that the precautionary principle should always apply with new technologies of this sort.
Deidre Brock
I will keep going for a bit.
Let me give the view of some of the organisations that have listed their concerns. The view of the umbrella group of individuals and organisations, GM Freeze, is that the proposed new approach would take away scrutiny and transparency, and as these are patented technologies, it is concerned that big business will be handed greater leverage and control over what we eat. The Soil Association warns that in the absence of a proper governance framework, gene editing is likely to be driven by industry interests. The question has to be asked: without rigorous democratic forms of governance in this area, how can we stop monopolies forming and companies acting in the service of profit rather the public interest? I hope very much that we will hear that question answered as the Bill progresses and, as the Minister is nodding, perhaps even this afternoon.
Deregulating GE products also loosens the strict controls that allow modified plants and animals to be traced with ease, making the impact on the general animal and plant population harder to track and assess. There are also fears that deregulated gene editing risks displacing high-welfare agro-ecological farming systems such as organic farming. If there is no tracing or labelling, the future of organic and other non-GM farming is threatened. Citizens deserve to know how their food has been produced; that goes to the very heart of food sovereignty.
Sir Robert Goodwill
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Is she aware that the last generation of new varieties were often produced using induced mutation, gamma radiation or chemicals such as colchicine, which was equivalent to smashing up DNA with a sledgehammer rather than this keyhole surgery? Varieties such as Golden Promise, which can be grown organically in Scotland and go into the majority of Scotch whisky, have been produced in that way and she has not raised any concerns about them.
Deidre Brock
As I say, we are prepared to consider the technology as things progress but we are waiting on the EU, because the EU has the strictest standards in the world—[Interruption.] The EU has some of the strictest standards in the world, and if it is content after it has examined this process and had its consultation, that is certainly something we are prepared to consider.
Ministers insist that no changes should be made to the regulation of animals under the GMO regime until a regulatory system is developed to safeguard animal welfare. However, as has been mentioned, a coalition of 21 of the UK’s leading animal protection organisations has called those safeguards
“poorly defined and largely inadequate”.
Among multiple other concerns, the group cites increased risk of regarding animals as things that can just be modified for human convenience. That, of course, contradicts the central premise of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.
DEFRA cites the potential for gene editing to address concerns over food security. I held a debate recently on the subject and talked about the need to prioritise sustainable domestic food production and build long-term resilience into our farming system. There is a danger, as the Soil Association points out, that gene editing is used as a sticking plaster for industrial farming systems, targeting symptoms and not root causes. The Secretary of State mentioned porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, which, as I understand it, is caused largely by poor living conditions. Why not try to address that rather than using the new technology as, as the Soil Association points out, a sticking plaster? The UK Government appear to be rushing to adopt untested technologies to distract from the real issues in our food system, such as poor soils, lack of crop diversity, intensive industrial farming and falling domestic production.
I will come to a close shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think you are looking at me sternly. It might be easier to take the Government at their word if they were not abandoning other plans that would have a positive impact on food security and inequality. The food strategy for England, which was published on Monday, has been remarkably watered down by rejecting many of the recommendations in the food system review and dropping the commitment to introduce a food Bill.
In Scotland, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which is making progress, will produce plans that will be scrutinised according to various metrics, including social and economic wellbeing, health and the environment. A draft plan has been published on ending the need for food banks. The Scottish Government’s new vision for agriculture outlines how we aim to support farming and food production in Scotland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.
If the UK Government are serious in their intention that the Bill will affect the market in England only, they must amend it to ensure that products covered by it are not included in the mutual recognition and non-discrimination provisions of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and that the devolved Parliaments can reject those products outright if they are not content. The Scottish Government think that the principle of devolution should be respected by the UK Government. The Scottish Parliament should be asked for its consent before actions are taken hastily that could undermine our trade with Europe and compromise the safety of our food.
This is our food system. We must surely ensure that every possible safeguard is in place before we adopt this Bill.
Agriculture Sector: Recruitment Support
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I commend the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this important debate. Things are at a crisis point in some parts of the UK. I was shocked to discover that seasonal worker shortages of up to 75% have been reported in some parts of the UK. Many food producers, farmers and horticulturists have very real fears that there will not be enough labour to pick their crops this year.
The hon. Member for North East Fife outlined very well the various problems experienced with the seasonal agricultural workers visa scheme and spoke movingly about the conversations she is having directly with constituents who are deeply affected by these problems and shortages. The Government often talk of the low employment rate in the UK—as we all know from sitting in the Chamber, they like to mention it frequently—but the consequence is that there are not enough workers to fill the gaps in supply.
The hon. Member spoke of food security and domestic production—I shall return to that soon—as well as about the increased reliance on imported foods, and asked how farming communities will be supported. She also mentioned automation, which I have to say seems like an impossible dream for many farmers. It is simply beyond their ability to afford the sorts of mechanical pickers and diggers that could make the difference and make them less reliant on agricultural workers’ support. It kind of irritates me, to be honest, when it is spoken about as though it is an easy option for your average farmer when it just is not.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did a fine job of speaking up for McDonald’s and its farming support scheme, and he usefully outlined the more general need to attract young entrants to farming. If that is not addressed rapidly with genuine support for younger entrants, the sector will experience problems in the face of an ageing and retiring farming population.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) continued on the importance of doing everything possible to attract new entrants to farming and ensuring that farming continues to be an attractive option. That is such an important point. If young farmers—they might be sons and daughters of farmers—look at the work that their parents go through to make farming a viable career, and think that it will just not be worth it because they do not make enough money to survive, that will clearly affect who becomes a farmer in future. The hon. Gentleman also spent time dwelling on the effects of Brexit, to which I will return, as well as, crucially, the recruitment crisis in rural areas—not simply in farms, but in hospitality and the other organisations around farming that rural communities rely on so heavily.
The SNP has long warned that the obsession of some in this place with Brexit and ending freedom of movement would cause significant problems. The EFRA Committee confirmed in March what we have been saying for years: that although the pandemic certainly exacerbated labour shortages, their cause was ultimately and largely Brexit. We must remember that a disproportionate share of the UK’s agricultural workforce—14%—is employed in Scotland. The labour challenges that our industry faces will be keenly felt, as we have heard, and industry bodies have repeatedly cited the shortage of labour as the biggest challenge they face—and they say that, let us not forget, in the face of rocketing prices for fuel, fertiliser, seed and feed, among many other extra costs.
Scotland’s horticulture industry, for example, has grown significantly since 2013 thanks largely to freedom of movement. Here is another extraordinary statistic: until the last two years, 99% of seasonal workers in the horticultural sector came from outside the UK every season. Since Brexit, the number of full-time staff has been plummeting, which threatens the delivery of home-grown produce and the viability of so many business. That was made clear to the hon. Member for North East Fife and me when we visited, with Scottish Affairs Committee colleagues, horticulturalists and soft fruit providers in Perthshire and near Dundee. Those providers made it clear to us that without support, their businesses could, and in all likelihood would, go under.
That view is supported by the UK Trade and Business Commission, which found that workforce shortages as a result of leaving the EU have crippled businesses across the country. The commission’s annual report identified a “unique set of challenges” for small businesses in Scotland and Wales, which are made worse by
“the UK Government’s general reluctance to seriously consult with the devolved administrations, whether on trade policy or economic support schemes.”
We have made cross-party calls to tailor immigration policy to suit Scotland’s needs, for example, and I am sorry to say that they have been repeatedly ignored. In January, our Holyrood Parliament voted in favour of calls for the UK Government to reform the immigration system and commit, with the Scottish Government, to a joint taskforce on labour market shortages. The Scottish Government then had to make 19 requests before the Minister for Safe and Legal Migration attended a meeting. I hope that the Minister here today will take that up with her Home Office colleagues.
That was extremely disappointing and brought back memories of a predecessor in that role, who insisted that she would not give any extra powers to Scotland that she would not also give to Lincolnshire. That comment enraged not a few in Scotland. The difference between the second largest nation in the Union and a single English county council seems fairly obvious. Of course, that is not to say that there is not a case for differentiation between English regions as well. The Migration Advisory Committee has acknowledged the need for a more bespoke approach, especially for more remote communities. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how the UK Government are evaluating that in detail. What proper consideration has been made of that advice? It would be really helpful if she could tell us that, because of the importance of this issue to remote areas and the people who live in them.
Of course, migration is a key lever to address depopulation. Scotland’s rural communities are suffering from a real decline in the working-age population, and the salary threshold for the UK’s immigration system and the shortage occupation list are not attracting working-age people to them. As a consequence, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands wrote in January to inform UK Ministers that the Scottish Government intended to press ahead, along with local government and business partners, and explore three proposed models for a rural migration pilot—as the Migration Advisory Committee recommended—to help to address rural population decline and the employment problems those areas are experiencing. The proposals were: expanding the skilled worker route, a Scottish visa aimed specifically at designated areas within Scotland, and a remote and rural partnership scheme. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on those.
That was followed up in February with a joint letter from the three devolved Administrations, which was prompted by the UK Government’s failure to work constructively on the respective migration needs of each nation. That letter called on Ministers to revisit urgently their previously proposed 12-month temporary worker route and called on the Home Office to immediately reintroduce regular quadrilateral meetings with the devolved Governments. I do not know how much say the Minister could have on that, but that would be a useful thing to reintroduce and would go a long way to mending relations with the different devolved Governments.
Unfortunately, the UK Government also failed to consult with the devolved Administration on their introduction of narrowly targeted, short-term temporary visas, which many in the industry just feel is too little, too late. The EFRA Committee’s report, which I referred to earlier, identified criticisms of that scheme relating to the number of visas, the timing of their launches, the duration of the visas and the choice of operators to run them. For example, Scottish Land and Estates wrote that the schemes for the poultry sector and HGV drivers
“would appear to be wholly inadequate and unlikely to have a material benefit”.
As we have already heard from other Members, the cap of 30,000 on the seasonal workers pilot falls far short of the 70,000 visas per year that farmers’ unions have asked for. NFU Scotland and many others have warned that if the cap is not increased, we will again see millions of pounds-worth of crops lying rotting in the fields.
The fact that Ukrainians have made up 60% of the seasonal workers scheme since the UK left the EU only adds to the uncertainty. Russia’s appalling war is causing devastation in Ukraine, as we all know, while also threatening the security of food supply chains right across the world. Our farmers have long warned about skyrocketing costs for fertiliser, fuel, energy, seed and feed, and the conflict has unfortunately escalated those concerns.
In that context—as again has been commented on, I think, by every Member who has spoken so far—promoting sustainable and resilient domestic production is even more important, but that is not possible without the workforce. Of course, domestic production is also further undermined by the pursuit of laissez-faire post-Brexit trade deals and the possibility of importing cheaper food with lower environmental and animal welfare standards.
The Scottish National party has repeatedly asked for immigration to be devolved to Scotland, so far to no avail, but at the very least we want to see immigration policy being greatly overhauled and properly targeted, with genuine collaboration between the Home Office, DEFRA and the devolved Governments, to ensure that we attract the seasonal and permanent staff that our industries desperately need. I hope that we can hear from the Minister about the discussions she is having with the Home Office on this really important matter and the progress that DEFRA is making in this area.
Oral Answers to Questions
Deidre Brock Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
I have already had many such meetings with the food industry and the agricultural industry about the current situation and the pressures on those input costs. The next meeting of the UK Agricultural Partnership in Scotland will focus specifically on the issue of food security.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The shadow Secretary of State will be pleased to hear that Cabinet Secretary Mairi Gougeon has called for a four-nation summit, and I believe the UK Government have agreed to that, so I am pleased that that will see some progress.
National Farmers Union of Scotland president Martin Kennedy has said that the UK is on the verge of food security concerns not seen since world war two due to covid, Brexit and the war in Ukraine, with feed, food and fertiliser costs and labour shortages drastically affecting the farming and food production sectors. London School of Economics analysis shows that Brexit alone raised food prices by 6% in the past year or so. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts Brexit losses to be more than £1,250 per person, and 178 times bigger than trade deal gains, which, combined, are worth less than 50p per person. What support packages is the Secretary of State considering for the farming and food production sectors to ensure that their extra costs will not also be passed on to consumers?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady is right: I have spoken to Mairi Gougeon of the Scottish Government, and we are going to have the next meeting of the UK Agricultural Partnership at the James Hutton Institute, which approached me to host that event, and we look forward to it. On her wider points, the truth is that after the 2016 referendum household spending on food actually went down, but food prices have always been governed principally by the price of energy and by exchange rates.
Christian Matheson
The commission recognises that many social media companies have taken welcome steps towards increasing transparency around online campaigning, but it also believes that more can be done to deliver the transparency that voters expect. It has recommended that social media companies should publish information about referendum or election adverts on their platforms with standardised data about costs and targeting. It has welcomed the provisions on digital imprints in the UK Government’s Elections Bill, and it will continue to build on its good working relations with the social media companies to ensure compliance with these measures.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
In Scotland before the Scottish parliamentary elections we saw a number of campaign groups spring up using digital advertising to peddle political messages that used unincorporated association structures to hide the source of their finances. Has the Electoral Commission considered investigating the use of unincorporated associations to evade final transparency in politics?
Christian Matheson
The commission is well aware of this issue, but in the recent Elections Bill the Government did not propose any change in the statutory framework under which the commission operates. There is an issue over people and organisations that are not registered as political actors putting out social media posts, because the current digital imprints provisions seemingly do not apply to them. That is an issue that the commission is aware of.
Food Security
Deidre Brock Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered food security.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for recognising the importance of food security and allowing this debate. A debate on food security was needed before the crisis in Ukraine, and it is even more urgent now. Before I turn to issues of food security in the UK, I want to address the situation in Ukraine, which remains absolutely critical.
Our immediate focus must be on doing everything possible to support the people of Ukraine and address their humanitarian needs. Russia’s brutal war is now into its second month. The United Nations World Food Programme estimates that at least 30% of the Ukrainian population is in dire need of lifesaving food assistance, and early data indicates that 90% of the people remaining in the country could face extreme poverty, should the war deepen even further.
Of course, the humanitarian emergency does not end in Ukraine. We urgently need to get to grips with the real threat of a global food shortage. Russia and Ukraine are ranked among the top three global exporters of wheat, maize, rapeseed, sunflower seeds, sunflower oil and fertiliser. There were already food shortages in parts of north and east Africa, which sourced almost of all of its imported wheat from those two countries.
Ukraine is also the single biggest supplier of food to the World Food Programme, which might be forced to cut distribution in places such as Yemen, Chad and Niger, while taking on the feeding of millions of hungry people in and around Ukraine. According to WFP officials, all of that points to 2022 being a year of catastrophic hunger. Without urgent funding, the programme’s director predicts a hell on earth in some of the most impoverished regions in the world, potentially resulting in famine and destabilisation in parts of Africa and the middle east, as well as mass migration.
The scale of the crisis cannot be understated, so I am eager to hear any indications at all from the Minister of how the UK Government are preparing for such a global security emergency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is another thing that exacerbates the issue. If the Ukrainians are to put the harvest in, they have 10 days from now to do it. That focuses attention on where the problems are.
Deidre Brock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That point very much sharpens our minds.
An immediate reversal of the cut to foreign aid might be an obvious first step to help with all of this, but we need to go even further if we are to prevent the hell on earth that the UN has warned of. At the same time we need to examine how best we safeguard domestic food security by supporting our farmers, producers and consumers while continuing to uphold our commitments to sustainable, nature-friendly food production. Even before the war in Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia, our farmers faced a tidal wave of costs for fertiliser, fuel, energy, seed and feed.
The price of fuel, which continues to play a critical role in UK food production and infrastructure, has risen even further as a result of the war, and farmers who were already warning of increasing fertiliser costs have seen the Russian invasion send prices rocketing even further. Yes, we need to reduce our reliance on artificial fertilisers, pesticides and fuel in food production and agriculture, and tackle the many challenges that, as Nature Friendly Farming reminds us, are the result of
“a global food system that is already in crisis”,
but the transition to sustainable, holistic food systems will not happen overnight.
Ministers recently suggested that there is enough manure and slurry to compensate for the fertiliser price increases, but that suggests a lack of understanding of what is actually happening on the ground. Are the Government considering securing the supply of fertiliser for UK farmers, at least in the short term, by subsidising costs and protecting the ability to produce the 40% of fertiliser produced domestically? I am interested in the Minister’s answer to that.
On top of that, as the National Farmers Union of Scotland and others have highlighted, grain price increases will impact on both the costs of livestock production and shop prices for consumers. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently acknowledged that the price of wheat, which the pig and poultry sectors rely on heavily for feed, had already doubled since Russia’s invasion.
Meanwhile, with Ukrainian workers making up around 60% of seasonal agricultural staff, the war is compounding the existing labour crisis in the industry. The Scottish National party has asked repeatedly for immigration to be devolved to Scotland—so far to no avail—but at the very least we want to see immigration policy greatly overhauled, so that we can set up the humane and practical approach that, among other benefits, would see us attract the seasonal and permanent staff that our industries require. Agriculture was already suffering from post-Brexit shortages of such workers, as well as haulage drivers and processing staff. That was the message that the Scottish Affairs Committee heard loud and clear on our recent visit to horticulturists and soft fruit providers in Perthshire and near Dundee.
This all points to the great likelihood of reduced yields, with a knock-on impact on supply. I am already hearing of Angus farmers deciding not to plant wheat this year because the costs do not make it viable any more, and of others forced to reduce their livestock numbers. If that is repeated across the country, there will be far-reaching implications not just for farmers, but for food processors and manufacturers, and ultimately for prices in supermarkets.
Of course, millions of households across the UK were already struggling with soaring food bills long before the crisis in Ukraine. A 2018 report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation revealed that 2.2 million people in the UK were severely food-insecure—the highest reported rate in Europe—and the situation has worsened since the pandemic. The Food Foundation reports that the percentage of food-insecure households increased from around 7.5% pre covid to almost 11% by January 2022, affecting nearly 6 million adults and 2.5 million children. That is a national scandal and is set to intensify, with the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasting the biggest annual fall in living standards since records began in 1956. The Food and Drink Federation reminds us that February 2022 saw the highest rate of food inflation in a decade, with folk on the lowest incomes, who spend more of their household budget on food and fuel, hit the hardest, as seems to happen so often. Worryingly, the forecasts do not yet account for the possible effects of the conflict in Ukraine on food or other commodity prices. The FDF estimates that cost rises could take seven to 12 months to feed into consumer prices.
These cold, hard statistics reflect a bleak reality in which more and more households are indeed being forced to choose between eating and heating. Unbelievably in 2020s Britain, we are hearing of food bank users declining potatoes and root vegetables because they cannot afford to boil them, so it was disappointing that the Chancellor’s spring statement made what I have to describe as very little effort to grapple with food insecurity and poverty. The increase in cash in the household support fund is of course welcome, but I am afraid that it is nowhere near adequate. The Trussell Trust, the UK’s largest network of food banks, has warned that the failure to bring benefits in line with inflation will drive more people to emergency food parcels. The Chancellor protests that he cannot do everything to help the UK’s poorest households, but uprating benefits is one thing that he could do right now as a lifeline for some of our most vulnerable constituents, and I beg him to do something about it immediately.
Unfortunately, I have to say that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions did not seem to recognise the link between the benefit system and food security. At a Work and Pensions Committee hearing last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) cited a 2018 study showing that the poorest tenth of English households would have to spend 74% of their disposable income if they followed the Government’s guidelines for a healthy diet, compared with just 6% for the wealthiest decile. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions repeatedly opted not to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend, deferring to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on these issues.
I was therefore very pleased that the media reported last night that the Minister responding to us today would be chairing a crisis meeting this morning to discuss food prices and related issues. The Minister looks puzzled, but it was in The Guardian last night—I am sure she will be able to address that when she responds. We look forward to hearing more about that, and we certainly look forward to hearing about the outcomes and the actions that the Government will take to address the shocking reality of food poverty and inequality. Those in DEFRA really must work more closely on this issue with their counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions. According to the Trussell Trust, 47% of people using food banks are indebted to DWP, and yet it has taken until this year to add questions related to food aid to the DWP’s family resources survey. That is a pretty sorry oversight. The response to the pandemic has shown that holistic, cross-departmental action can be mobilised when the moment calls. Given the scale of this crisis and the confluence of threats, we must see a similar approach taken to food security both domestically and internationally.
The Scottish Government issued a position statement on a human rights approach to tackling food insecurity in February 2021. In October, they began a consultation on a national plan to end the need for food banks; they have introduced the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which lays the foundation for Scotland to become a good food nation. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that there are similar levels of commitment to similar actions from the UK Government. I also look forward to hearing when their overdue response to the national food strategy can be expected. A Scottish food security and supply taskforce has been set up jointly; it will meet frequently over the coming weeks to identify and respond to disruption to food security and supply resulting from the war in Ukraine. I am interested to hear from the Minister whether an equivalent is being set up by the UK Government.
We really do need to prioritise self-sufficiency once again and support our farmers to sustainably maintain production levels. NFU Scotland and many others have also warned about the domestic impact of what many see as a laissez-faire approach to post-Brexit trade deals and importing cheap foods with lower environmental and animal welfare standards. We should be building resilience in domestic food production, not threatening it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
That point comes to the heart of the matter. With the rising import costs about which the hon. Lady has already spoken, there comes a danger of reduced productivity. That means that there is a gap in the market, which then stands to be filled by those cheaper imports. For that reason, this really is a moment of existential crisis for the UK’s agriculture industry. How does the hon. Lady think that can be avoided?
Deidre Brock
I am going to make some suggestions shortly, but we are hearing across a number of different organisations in agriculture and the agricultural industry sector that extra support for our farmers must be given—and given very soon.
Mr Carmichael
I promise that this is the last time that I shall intervene. Supermarkets have a crucial role in the setting of farm-gate prices. We have the Groceries Code Adjudicator, but it needs more teeth to do the job that we want it to do.
Deidre Brock
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. NFUs across the UK have been calling for that for some time. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s answer to that point. Another consequence of Brexit is that UK farmers will miss out on access to the EU’s proposed €1.5 billion fund to counter food insecurity. The SNP thinks that food security funds equivalent to what UK farmers would have received as part of the EU should be established immediately; that would certainly go towards helping some of the problems that farmers and agricultural industries are experiencing at the moment. The funds should be appropriately allocated to the different Governments of the four nations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West pointed out yesterday to the Prime Minister, we must also make serious efforts to cut down on our food waste. Over 2 million tonnes of edible food is wasted on farms and in factories every year. There was a scheme introduced in 2019 to help farmers get food to charities and reach those in need; it was successful but its funding has not been renewed. I am hoping that the Government and the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that they are listening to the calls from Feeding Britain, Good Food Scotland and FareShare that those initiatives be continued.
Many of us have been warning about our food security for years, particularly in the face of Brexit. Frankly, it always seemed like we were being ignored. The crisis in Ukraine has dramatically thrust this issue centre stage. However, we have to remember that there were systemic issues both at home and abroad. We need to build resilience into the farming system for the long term, not lurch from one crisis to the next—as the Sustain alliance rightly says. I am fully aware that this is a very difficult balancing act for all Governments, but the thistle must be grasped. The consequences of failing to act are just too terrible to contemplate.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 4.30 pm. There are seven Members seeking to contribute and I want to ensure that everybody gets in, so we will have a six-minute limit. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 3.58 pm and the guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister and then Deidre Brock will have two or three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. So we have a six-minute limit straightaway. I call Neil Parish.
Deidre Brock
I would say this, but I think that was one of the best debates I have ever listened to. It was considered, intelligent and informed. Although I did not necessarily agree with everything that was said, broadly there is a consensus across this place that food security is an incredibly important issue that deserves to be more widely talked about in this place and across the UK.
I congratulate all those who took part in the debate—familiar faces or not. All the contributions were excellent and raised a lot of important points that I hope the Minister will take note of and take to heart when she undertakes further discussions on the subject and makes interventions. From more at-home production to fewer faceless and nameless suppliers, from setting targets for minimum domestic food production and food sovereignty to seeking a balance between rewilding projects and food production, and from the responsibilities that supermarkets must take on to the diversification of food production and the effects on our fishing communities, it really has been a very wide-ranging debate, as the Minister said.
I hear what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said about familiar faces at these debates, although I commend all Members for being here. It is the last day before recess, and I was actually very pleased at the turnout and thank everyone for coming along. However, I feel that the debate has barely scratched the surface. There is a lot more to be said about this issue, and many more people in this place need to be involved in this discussion and to become more aware of it.
I hope it is appropriate to say that I will be seeking to secure another debate on this issue with the Backbench Business Committee, and hopefully we can get it into the main Chamber so that we can open it up for further discussion—hopefully before the Secretary of State comes to talk to us about food security, and perhaps later in the autumn. I thank Members again for coming along today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered food security.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]
Deidre Brock ExcerptsMonday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 March 2022 - large print - (14 Mar 2022)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I rise to speak to new clauses 2 and 3. Many Members will be aware of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which was established by the Scottish Government in 2020. The commission’s evidence-based and expert-driven approach offers a good model for the English Animal Sentience Committee, and I would urge those who have expressed misgivings about how the committee will be constructed to look to Scotland to see that it is working and that recommendations are regularly made to Ministers who then act on them. However, although animal welfare is devolved, some issues still fall under reserved areas, and the SNP new clauses focus on those issues.
Of course we support the Bill, because it will enable the setting up of a committee similar to our own, but it could be strengthened to recognise the rights of sentient animals undergoing scientific testing and military experiments used by the Ministry of Defence. Last month, this House debated a petition calling for legislation to include laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is unacceptable that, in this nation of professed animal lovers, laboratory animals are not protected from unnecessary suffering under that legislation. Instead, the current rules on animals used in research are set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Home Office is responsible for regulating and enforcing that law. However, much of what goes on behind closed doors at animal testing sites in the UK is hidden from view and shrouded in secrecy, as the law blocks access to information about the animals’ treatment during experiments. Section 24 of the 1986 Act makes it a criminal offence for that information to be disclosed.
A requirement for the Animal Sentience Committee to provide assessments to the Government on such tests would help to ensure that the sentience of those animals was equally recognised and accounted for. New clause 2 therefore requires the Animal Sentience Committee to produce a report on the use of sentient animals in scientific experiments and military exercises by the MOD and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Between 2009 and 2020, the MOD carried out over 60,000 experimental procedures on mice, rabbits, primates, pigs and other animals. Similarly, new clause 3 requires the committee to produce a report on the use of sentient animals in tests relating to medicine, cosmetics and weapons in Government policy. As I said on Second Reading, although those specific issues are still reserved to Westminster, polling of Scottish and Welsh residents shows that a majority want to see deadlines for phasing out animal testing. Those surveyed expressed a very strong aversion to testing on dogs, cats and monkeys. Despite these public concerns, the UK remains one of Europe’s top users of primates and dogs in experiments.
We do not believe the general public are aware of the extent and nature of these experiments, or of which animals are used in them. Statistics for 2020 reveal that more than 4,000 procedures were carried out on dogs, almost all of them beagles, which are chosen for experimentation because of their size, docility and submissiveness. Most drug testing sees dogs repeatedly force-fed or forced to inhale substances for between 28 and 90 days to measure the effects of repeat exposure on the liver, kidneys, lungs, heart and nervous system.
There is enough evidence to show there are better, more accurate and more humane methods than resorting to testing on animals. Recent developments in evolutionary biology, developmental biology and genetics have significantly increased our understanding of why animals have no predictive value for human responses to drugs or the pathophysiology of human diseases. Nevertheless, the Home Office says it has no current plans to review the use of animals in science. Meanwhile, the EU is moving away from cruel experiments on animals and towards cutting-edge replacements. The European Parliament recently voted in favour of developing an action plan to phase animals out of EU science and regulation.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made an excellent contribution. Although I support new clause 1, which makes worthwhile, reasonable suggestions on the details of the Animal Sentience Committee and its responsibilities, on which Ministers have been rather sketchy, and I urge the UK Government to take new clause 1 into consideration, the Bill is almost entirely concentrated on setting up an Animal Sentience Committee—largely based on our Scottish Animal Welfare Commission set up in 2020—in England, and therefore we will not be joining Her Majesty’s Opposition in the Lobby.
The hon. Lady expressed considerable concern about amendments 2 and 7, and it is equally tempting to vote against those amendments. Amendment 2 is a Trojan horse to cover up the enthusiastic support of Conservative Back Benchers for continuing what are euphemistically referred to as “country pursuits” exactly as they have been practised for centuries. Amendment 7 is a disgracefully blatant attempt to carve out those who have a very strong interest in the protection of animals from membership of the Animal Sentience Committee. I found it hard to read that amendment, let alone to contemplate the Government accepting it.
The willingness of the Scottish Government to act on the guidance of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s advice demonstrates their commitment to maintaining or exceeding the high EU animal welfare standards before Brexit. However, as long as animals are used in testing and military experiments and are denied full recognition of their sentience, Scotland and the rest of the UK will fail to keep pace. I urge hon. Members to vote to maintain the UK’s proud history of supporting animal welfare by backing new clause 3.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
As a starting point, we all agree not only that the issue of animal welfare and sentience is extremely important in this House, but that it has great resonance across the country. I say very gently, because our debate has been extremely wide-ranging, that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) put it most succinctly: this is a simple six-clause Bill, and all it seeks to do is direct that a committee be set up and that a Minister come forward with a report from across Government. If hon. Members are worried that it will not reach all parts of the Government, I would like to assure them that it will.
I will take the amendments in order and then address other comments from right hon. and hon. Members. New clause 1, which was moved by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), would compel the Government to make an animal sentience strategy. The action plan for animal welfare already sets out the Government’s current and future work on animal welfare and conversation. The Government’s plan is clear, and there is no need to mandate it in statute. I very gently point out that the reason we are here today is to bring forward one of the points in the action plan; as hon. Members have said, sentience has been a while coming, but we are all here tonight to make sure that we deliver on the promises.
New clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 would mandate that the Animal Sentience Committee to produce reports on specific areas. It is important that we do not dictate the committee’s work plan. Its members are the experts, not us, and are best placed to know where they can add value. The very first thing that the committee in Scotland did, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said, was set out its own definition of sentience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) pointed out, the understanding of sentience is always evolving, so we want to leave it to experts from the world of science and so on—I am sure he can name them much better than I could—to define it. We are not saying that sentience should not be defined; we are asking those who have the skills to do that work. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that that is in good faith where we are trying to go.
I would like to clarify the Government’s position on some areas raised during the debate. I say gently to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith that the committee is best placed to decide which topics to focus on.
It is worth noting that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory does not use animals in developing offensive weapons. To go further, let me reassure hon. Members that within that capacity, military working animals play an essential role, often in life-saving operations. They are looked after within the military by military vets and are much-loved members of the team.
I have been clear that we do not want the committee to duplicate work that is already taking place across government. That is why its terms of reference make it clear that it should not go over the same ground as the specialist Animals in Science Committee.
As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, the Environment Act 2021 was passed last year, on 9 November. The Animal Sentience Committee is not there to make value judgments and weigh up policy issues; neither is it there to monitor business activities, which is very much the thrust of what he is asking for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned Ofwat and said that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale might be better placed if he directed his comments elsewhere. In that spirit, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause. Parliament’s scrutiny of trade deals is already informed by the expert input on animal welfare that is provided by the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
Deidre Brock
In reference to the reports that we requested in new clauses 2 and 3, can the Minister describe to me by what mechanism the Scottish Government or other devolved nations could express their concerns about the areas that we have raised here on animal testing, cosmetic testing and the use of animal experimentation in the Ministry of Defence? What mechanism could they use to raise those concerns with the committee and eventually encourage it potentially to produce reports on those issues?
Jo Churchill
I would make two points. First, the hon. Member is presupposing that there will not be members of those devolved authorities on the committee. If people hold the most appropriate expertise, they may be there as a full member, or they may be co-opted in to look at a particular area of reference. There are other mechanisms that we always use in this place to hold the Minister to account. The Minister is bound to report to this place within three months of parliamentary sitting time. All the mechanisms will be in place, as well as those behind the scenes where we talk to devolved Ministers and so on, to make sure that things are raised in the appropriate way.
Amendment 2, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), would require the committee’s recommendations to respect religious rights, cultural traditions and regional heritage. We have heard the strength of feeling on this matter both here and in the other place, and I assure him that we have listened and decided to support the amendment.
Deidre Brock
I thank the many animal welfare organisations that have been in touch with me, and the many constituents—I am sure this has been the experience of Members on both sides of the House—who have also been in touch because they really care. I thank all the House staff; I thank the Clerks for all their efforts, and for their patience with all of us during the relatively short period for which the Bill has been in the House and in Committee.
I wish the new Animal Sentience Committee well in its deliberations, and I look forward to seeing those deliberations bear fruit in the form of real, positive actions from the Government in the years ahead. We are known throughout these islands for having the greatest regard and love for animals. Let us do our level best by them, and show just how much we care through the regard that the Government show for the committee’s actions.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
That, at this day’s sitting, the motion in the name of Mark Spencer relating to Adjournment of the House (Today) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the motion on the Adjournment of the House. This is not the Question that the House do now adjourn—[Interruption.] I must inform the enthusiastic group sitting on my right that this is in fact the motion entitled “Adjournment of the House (Today)”.
Adjournment of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until
(1) any Messages from the Lords relating to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill shall have been received and disposed of; and
(2) he shall have notified the Royal Assent to any Act relating to Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) agreed upon by both Houses.— (Mark Spencer.)
Oral Answers to Questions
Deidre Brock Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
I have had conversations with the Business Secretary on this matter. The disruptions we are seeing, particularly following events in Ukraine, are having some impact on the supply of household heating oil for those who are not on the grid. I know he is well aware of these issues and his Department is working closely on it.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Russia’s appalling invasion of Ukraine clearly drastically affects Ukraine’s ability to produce grain and many other foodstuffs, threatening not only price increases, but global famine and disease spread. Domestically, our farmers are experiencing increased seed, fertiliser and transport costs, and the UK, lacking the leverage it once had as part of the EU, is now a small player on the global market. The Secretary of State mentioned a food security review and summits. Exactly what actions is his Department taking to ensure food security in the UK and stabilise food prices, and what plans are the Government making to assist developing countries to meet their needs?
George Eustice
Tomorrow, I will attend a special session of the G7 where, with other like-minded countries, we will discuss some of those issues and the impact on international commodity prices. It is inevitable that when a country such as Russia under Putin takes such steps, there will be some turbulence in the market. It is essential that the world community shows solidarity in taking tough action on sanctions, which we will do. It is inevitable that there will be some collateral damage to our own interests and prices, but nevertheless we must see that through and impose those sanctions where they are needed in order to bring the regime to its senses.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [ Lords ]
Deidre Brock ExcerptsThursday 10th February 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 February 2022 - (10 Feb 2022)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Thank you, Sir Charles. I appreciate your calling me this early in the debate.
I will just say a few words, because clearly the Bill applies only to England. We have our own measures, as animal welfare is devolved to Scotland, but it might be useful for colleagues to hear a little more about the work of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, on which the English committee is partly modelled. The Scottish Government often act on the scientific and ethical advice provided by the commission, which was established in 2020. Sensible and pragmatic solutions to policy issues, such as beaver reintroduction and management of deer, have been taken forward following the commission’s advice. The commission has welcomed and contributed to legislation on penalties for animal welfare offences and the licensing of activities involving animals, and a review of the trade and importation of exotic pets is also under way. If England’s Animal Sentience Committee is to be similarly effective, there should be mechanisms to ensure that its scrutiny of policy-making processes is taken seriously by the Government.
The Secretary of State was keen to stress that the committee’s reports will not bind the Government to any particular course of action—we have heard the same from the Minister today—and that Ministers will be free to determine the right balance between animal welfare and other considerations. While it could be argued that that is appropriate and, perhaps, understandable, it is important that Ministers fully engage with the committee’s assessments, as the Scottish Government have done by incorporating many of SAWC’s recommendations into legislation.
I would like to highlight the Scottish Government’s plans, following SAWC’s recommendations, to introduce legislation to end the harmful practice of setting glue traps—a particularly revolting form of animal abuse. The Scottish Government intend to ban the sale and use of glue traps. However, implications arising from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 present an obstacle, despite animal welfare being a devolved area.
The UK Government have backed the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which would ban the use of glue traps by the public in England, except by licensed professionals. However, some stakeholders remain concerned that the licensing regime is too weak and would allow continued liberal use of glue traps. The new market access regime whereby goods sold in one part of the UK—
The Chair
You are, but as Chair of the Committee I must say that it has to be relevant to this Bill. We are not here to talk about a market access Bill. We are talking about the Bill in front of us.
Deidre Brock
Okay, Sir Charles. Further to that, the Scottish Government hope to work through those issues, but it demonstrates how that Act can undermine devolution.
In closing, I commend those who have written in with their views, raising distressing issues such as puppy farming and unregulated microchipping and very sad cases of animal abuse. We hope that the Bill will go some way to address those issues. I also commend submissions from organisations such as the RSPCA, which, in particular, impressed me as adopting a very measured but rigorous approach to the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to be able to address the issues in the Bill. I have to say, we have already strayed on to other areas. As I walked into the Committee Room this morning, I saw that the notice on the door has the wrong wording, which rather sums up this Government’s muddled approach to animal welfare. Many people get confused by the various pieces of legislation, with Friday mornings spent discussing each other’s pet animals and so on.
My concern about clause 1 relates to exactly what it says: it sets up a committee. It does not enshrine sentience in law. That is the key point. The Government had the opportunity to put sentience into law when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East and other Members across the House tabled a very sensible amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I hope that the Minister will address that. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster briefly referenced that poor cat. I am not sure what the status of sentience is in our law at the moment. Perhaps the Minister could address that. The hiatus over the past two years has left us in a curious position.
In the sense that it is better than nothing, we welcome the Bill. However, it is pretty close to nothing. As the Minister said, the committee has no power to make value judgments. She might as well have paused in the middle of that sentence—the committee has no power. It is a talking shop.
We will support the Bill in so far as it goes. However, let us be clear: it is a complete betrayal of the Conservatives’ promise to pursue animal welfare issues. We do it; they talk about it.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for moving the amendment, by which she asks the important question of why we are not putting in a fixed definition of “sentience”. I reiterate that this is about the positive and the negative.
Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years—the hon. Lady referred to the LSE report—and will continue to evolve. The Government approach will be led by the science. We therefore decided that we would not include a fixed definition of “sentience” in the Bill because, in the course of time, it will become out of date. As I said, for the Bill to work, it is not necessary to define “sentience” in statute. If we accept that those animals are sentient, we accept the principle supported by the Bill that their welfare needs should be properly considered in Government policy decision making, so there is no need to increase the complexity.
This is the nub of the matter: if the Animal Sentience Committee wishes to adopt a working definition of “sentience”, it will be absolutely free to do so. One of the first acts of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission—a similar body, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith alluded earlier—was to prepare its own working definition of “sentience”. So, should the committee wish to do the same, that would be a discussion for the experts to have, rather than for us in Government. I do not think that any of us would say that we are experts in defining; it is for the committee to choose.
Deidre Brock
I thank the Minister for mentioning the SAWC’s definition of “sentience”. She is correct that that happened in the early days after its formation. Will she require that of the committee? Will that be something to be discussed and required of the committee when it sits in future?
Jo Churchill
I may be wrong, but I do not think that the Scottish Government determined that that should be one of the SAWC’s first acts. I reiterate: it should be for the committee to decide whether it wishes to do the same and to have a working definition. The whole tenor of the Bill is to be future-proofed.
Jo Churchill
I add my voice to that, but I would also like to thank my Bill team and members of my private office, who are nothing but always by my side, for which I thank them.
Deidre Brock
Many thanks to the Clerks and the Doorkeepers, and to Hansard for taking down our words today.
Waste Industry: Criminality and Regulation
Deidre Brock Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. I commend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) for securing this really important debate.
It is clear from everything that has been said by Members across the Chamber that illegally dumped waste is a massive scourge that is blighting communities across the UK, with huge environmental, social and economic cost. Indeed, as our Justice Secretary and chair of Scotland’s serious organised crime taskforce, Keith Brown, said recently, this is not a victimless crime. Waste crime causes pollution and increases public health risks. It places enormous strain on legitimate operators, and serious and organised waste criminals have a considerable impact on the economy of all the nations of the UK.
Every year in Scotland, 250 million easily visible items are dropped as litter, and an estimated 26,000 tonnes of material is fly-tipped. According to research by Zero Waste Scotland, at least £53 million of public money is spent on addressing that.
Mr Kevan Jones
Is the hon. Lady aware that operators get around Scotland’s zero waste strategy by transferring waste over the border, much of it to the north-east? That has been raised with the Scottish Government, but nothing seems to be being done about it.
Deidre Brock
I am going to talk about a co-ordinated approach that all four nations of the UK can take to address those sorts of issues. I will also go on to mention a programme aired by BBC Scotland last night, “Disclosure Scotland”. I highly recommend that all Members look at it, because it focused on waste criminals heading over the border to Scotland, which is the exact opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Of the £53 million I mentioned, I believe that it costs Scottish councils £11 million to remove waste from council-owned land alone.
A high proportion of individuals and organisations involved in illegal waste dumping are also associated with other organised crime, including violence, drugs, weapons and money laundering. Last night’s episode of “Disclosure Scotland”, which can be found on iPlayer—it is entitled, aptly enough, “Dirty Business”—exposed the scale and severity of that waste criminality. It highlighted a wide range of illegal activities, from man with a van fly-tipping and waste being burnt in a drum, to much larger-scale operations such as enormous illegal landfills and, increasingly, abandoned lorry trailers overflowing with waste that is simply left to rot.
The programme showed investigations by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, including on a site where a criminal gang had buried large amounts of waste, which released harmful gases and liquids as the deposit degraded. Some of that waste was brought from outwith Scotland by the gang and is believed to include hazardous clinical waste from hospitals. The programme revealed that threats and intimidation have been made against landowners who refuse to allow waste to be buried on their land; others spoken to by the BBC were too scared to go on the record.
I believe that the majority of viewers—and, indeed, those listening to this debate—will have been shocked by those activities. They show that waste criminality goes far beyond small-scale fly-tipping. That is why Scotland’s serious and organised crime taskforce, chaired by the Scottish Justice Secretary Keith Brown, has made waste crime a top priority. The Scottish Government and their partners on the taskforce will use every means at their disposal to stop such illegal practices and ensure that those who dump waste illegally are held accountable. Although offenders risk criminal convictions, fines of up to £40,000 and/or imprisonment for 12 months, only a fraction of those responsible are prosecuted.
As we have heard today, criminals operate across borders and with similar methods. Collaboration and intelligence sharing across the UK is extremely important. The joint unit for waste crime, established in 2020, already brings together law enforcement and environmental protection agencies from across the UK. The Scottish National party wants to see that built upon via the introduction of mandatory electronic waste tracking and a UK-wide database of registered brokers—another recommendation of the independent review—which will make it easier to find these culprits and ensure they are brought to justice. I am sure the Minister will speak about that shortly.
Viewers of last night’s programme will have been completely shocked by the huge amounts of waste revealed —waste that, for far too many of us, is out of sight, out of mind. Across the UK, particularly since the UK has been prevented from exporting much of its waste by other countries quite rightly tightening their rules on imported waste, we are starting to drown in waste. It is essential that we find means of dealing with it much more effectively.
Scotland has committed to building a circular economy, meaning that we reduce demand for raw materials. We want to support and make the system fairer for those operating legally whose businesses are being drastically undercut by criminals. We support the UK Government’s plans to introduce waste monitoring. The consultation on the proposals to ensure that they work for Scotland will be of great importance to us. We certainly look forward to the outcomes, with our preferred outcome being for mandatory electronic monitoring. It is imperative that we work together to root out waste crime and bring perpetrators to justice.