Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements: Hansard colleagues will be grateful if hon. Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk; I ask hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent; and a reminder that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I have also been asked if hon. Members may remove their jackets: you have my permission to do so—it is quite warm in here.

We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private, if we so wish, about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally. I ask the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members via email.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

Informally, I discussed with the Minister and the shadow Minister whether the Committee might wish to sit in private to consider the structure of the questioning, but both agreed that there is no need for that, so I will not put that motion. We can therefore now commence the oral evidence session. If Members have any relevant interests to declare, now is the time to do so. No.

Examination of Witnesses

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

We will now hear evidence from David Exwood, vice-president, and Dr Helen Ferrier, chief science and regulatory affairs adviser, both of the National Farmers Union. Thank you for coming this morning. I can see that you are both there—both our witnesses are appearing via Zoom.

Before calling the Minister to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must also stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. This session will finish at 10.10 am. With all witnesses, I will first call the Minister and then the shadow Minister, before opening up to questions from others in the Committee.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Good morning, David and Helen, and thank you very much for attending this morning. I will start with a broad question, if I may. What are the views of farmers on precision breeding and how the Bill is likely to impact across both the crop and the livestock sectors? Perhaps we will go to David first.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I have other questions, but I would like this process to be collegiate, so perhaps we should go to others, because they may ask the same questions as I will.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Thank you, Mr Stringer. Mr Exwood, the Minister asked you about your members’ views. Have your members been surveyed on the Bill, and if so, what did they say? Is there a difference in views on this matter between, say, organic farmers or small family farms, and larger farmsQ ?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Do you agree that sufficient safeguards can be put in place to protect organic farms from what they might see as a sort of contamination—if I can call it that—from those products?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Earlier, you were asked about our relationship with the EU on this matter, and you mentioned progress in precision breeding across the world. How does that fit together, where is most of the research taking place, and which countries should we look at to make comparisons with the UK?Q

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

I thank the witnesses for their time. I want to turn to animals specifically, which some people are surprised to see included in the Bill so early on. Animal welfare charities are anxious that using gene editing to improve productivity and disease resistance could lead to more intensive farming. What would you say to thatQ ?

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

Mr Exwood, do you want to add anything specifically on gene editing and animal welfare?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

We have already spoken this morning and asked a question about regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU. Your response was that you were not concerned about that so much as you were about the UK being left behind. Some of us are quite concerned about areas of the United Kingdom being left behind, given the Scottish Government’s reluctance thus far to look at doing the same sort of thing that we are doing, so I want to ask our two guests: do you have any concerns about regulatory divergence within the United KingdomQ ?

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Would gene editing give us the ability to grow things in this country that we currently cannot? I am thinking particularly of the situation as we adapt to climate change. Is it the case that there are there crops that, because of weather conditions, soil conditions or whatever, do not flourish in the UK, but where this would mean we might be able to enter those markets in the futureQ ?

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Q Is the UK is geared up for research into that side of things? We do not put an awful lot of money into food research and research on crops. I do not want to put words into your mouth. It is one thing for the opportunity to be there. Do you think that we are actually geared up for making the most of the opportunities?

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

Organic food was mentioned earlier. In shops and supermarkets, organic food tends to attract a higher price than other food. Where would the costings of genetically modified food sit? Would it sit between those two or lower than the current standard food price, if you will?Q

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

When you say any difference, is that from “normal” food or from organic food?Q

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

Q Just to finish off on that point, then, obviously worldwide prices of grain and wheat—whichever staple it may be—have grown considerably with the situation in Ukraine. Would this actually disassociate itself from those prices, or is it still totally reliant on world events, no matter what the sustainability and yield may be in the UK?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

I have three Members indicating that they want to ask questions, and we have nine minutes left, so the time allocation is fairly obvious.

David Duguid (Conservative, Banff and Buchan)

Thank you to the witnesses for the excellent information so far. Obviously, you represent NFU England. This is an England-only Bill, and we welcome the opportunity for devolved Administrations to take part in the process, but I was wondering, from an NFU perspective—this is for Mr Exwood—what engagement have you had with your counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for example? Is there any divergence at all between the different NFUsQ ?

David Duguid (Conservative, Banff and Buchan)

Q I have another question, if I may, for Dr Ferrier. I think you said something earlier in response to Deidre Brock’s question about being able to keep gene edited crops separate from organic crops, for example. Are the quality control measures that are already in place—separating seed barley from feed and malting barley, say, or different varieties of seeds and suchlike—enough to provide the safeguard that people may be looking for?

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

I would like to come back to the labelling, which Dr Ferrier touched on. Why is the NFU opposed to this? I have heard the argument about costs being a key issue, but I would have thought that, with a new technology, you would want to achieve public confidence. Transparency and—dare I say it?—genuine consumer choice would be something that you would want initially, as the public came to terms with something scientifically different from anything else that they may have come across in recent years. Why would you be opposed to that transparencyQ ?

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

Q There is an argument for greater transparency in food production, not less. I am struggling with the NFU’s position of leaving it to the market. Markets can do lots of things, but the reason we are here, as regulators and legislators, is to try to ensure that this has public confidence. I would have thought that the NFU would want public confidence on this. If this were the same as other food production mechanisms, I could just pack up and go home now because I would not need to be here, but clearly there is an issue. I am trying to tease out why you do not think that transparency is needed. You have made your case and your arguments, so nothing more needs to be said, unless you want to add anything in the 15 seconds you have left.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

Thank you, Dr Ferrier and David Exwood, for your time and valuable contribution. We now move on to our next witness.

Examination of Witness

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

We have before us Professor Gideon Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at DEFRA, who is on Zoom. For this session, we have until 10.35 am. Professor Henderson, would you like very briefly to introduce yourself for the record?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

Thank you for giving us your time this morning.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Good morning, Professor Henderson. Are you content that this Bill is based on the best available science? Would you like to explain the input you have had into the Bill?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Q Good morning, professor. It is very good to see you. You will appreciate that one of the big discussions about this Bill is likely to be about definitions. I want to go into some of them, because you will be aware that some of the learned societies—the Royal Society of Biology, for instance—have questioned the very existence of the concept of a precision bred organism. Can a precision bred organism contain exogenous genetic material? If so, can you explain how that is different from a genetically modified organism?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

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

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Perhaps we can ask Professor Henderson to dial off and dial back. Let us see if we can retrieve him.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

You are back, Professor Henderson. We move on to the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q The Scottish Government have stated that they will wait to assess the outcomes of the EU consultation on gene editing and GM. Some feel that the UK Government are rushing ahead with the Bill, potentially to the further detriment of trade with the EU. The UK Government are clearly very confident in the evidence they have received on this, because they are pushing ahead with it. Will you tell us about the peer-reviewed evidence that the Government are relying on that supports the claim that gene editing can make farming sustainable and environmentally friendly? Can you point to that evidence?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q And the potential impact on trade with the EU?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

We are. We missed a little towards the end there, Professor.

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

Q Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Professor Henderson, for your time this morning.

I note in the Bill that the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals; therefore, it follows that it is obviously not just farm animals that we are talking about here. I just wondered what you see the Bill actually covering in terms of applications beyond farm animals—what sort of areas do you see the Bill taking us in?

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

Yes, okay. In the Bill, the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals. Therefore, it follows that if we are not just talking about farm animals, we are talking about animals outside farms. What sort of applications you were thinking of? As you said, you have been involved in the development of this Bill. What sort of areas are we looking at in terms of the application of gene editing here?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

Did you hear that question, Professor Henderson?

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

I am sorry, Chair; I cannot understand the answer.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I understand, Gideon, that you are on a visit. May I suggest, with the Committee’s indulgence, that we slot you in on Thursday, if people are agreeable and you have the time? Your evidence is both welcome and vital, and we would like to hear from you.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Thank you.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

We have 10 minutes left in this session, so let us have one more try. If that is unsuccessful, then, with my co-Chair, we can consider changing the programme motion. We have agreed a programme motion so it would have to be formally changed. Will you ask the question again, Ruth?

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

Did you hear the question, Professor Henderson?

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

Q Just to be clear, did you say this piece of work will take two to three years to take place?

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Q Continuing on the animal front, we know that some animals, such as pets, including some of the brachycephalic dogs, are bred to have traits that are not desirable from a health point of view. There is increasing concern about the popularity of pugs, French bulldogs and creatures like that. On the farm animal side, you have poultry that is bred to an immense size and cows where the milk yields are going up year on year—they are bred to produce more than they would naturally.

What do you see as the parameters of that? How will the Bill protect animal welfare? Because of the popularity of those dogs, breeders may make use of the new technology to breed even more extreme examples. Would that be desirable? How can we prevent that from happening? You may have answered that in response to my colleague and said that it needs more time, but how do you see that in terms of the desire for increased yields and increased production on farms? Is there not an argument for not including animals in the Bill while this further research takes place?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

Thank you, Professor Henderson. We will end the session there. It has been a difficult session because of the technology. I will consult the Front-Bench spokespeople and we will consider whether to change our programme motion and possibly invite you back, if you would be good enough to return. Thank you for the information you have given us and for your time.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

We now come to Professor Robin May. We have until 11 am, so we have gained five minutes. Thank you for giving us your time and expertise this morning. Could you briefly introduce yourself?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Good morning, Professor May. I will start with a broad question. Why is it necessary to create a new regulatory framework for precision bred food and feed products, and how will the FSA balance safety in doing so?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Q Good morning and welcome. You may have heard some of the previous discussion around labelling. Indeed, it is something the Food Standards Agency has looked into. Could you tell us what work the Food Standards Agency has done on assessing the public view on labelling and what conclusions you have come to?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

That is helpful. Thank you.

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

Q Thank you for your time this morning, Professor May. We heard from a previous witness that the EU is likely to develop its work on gene editing along similar timescales. Given the need to share information, how will the FSA and the European Food Safety Authority share information as we go down this path?

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

Q You mentioned alerts. Obviously, nobody wants to leave it until there is an alert situation, but what about developing more formal mechanisms as we go forward, rather than relying on the good will of scientists?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Something occurred to me when I was looking at the Bill again last night. Do you feel that you have sufficient capacity to be able to cope with the extra responsibilities that you are taking on? Have the Ministers given you further guarantees that you will be supported in that?

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Good morning, Professor May. To return to the discussion that we were having a few moments ago about information for the consumer, to what extent does the Food Standards Agency have a role in providing general public information and education? If that is not the role of the FSA, who should be doing it and how important is itQ ?

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Q But as far as you understand it, the purpose of the register is to give that public reassurance. It is a public information issue.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q What learnings have you taken from looking at countries that already have taken this technology forward? I am thinking in particular of Canada, Japan and Argentina—places where we holiday and are very comfortable with eating foods there. What have we learned from looking at other countries across the world, and how have you referenced that learning in the proposal you have put forward?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

That brings us to the end of this session. Thank you for your time, Professor May, and for the contribution that you have made.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

Good morning, Professor Dunwell, and thank you for giving us your time. We will finish this session at 11.25 am. Will you introduce yourself briefly?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Welcome, professor, and thank you for coming this morning. One of the challenges is that people hear that this will be swifter, and that concerns them. However, does the increased speed of the precision breeding method make the technologies less safe?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Have you identified any greater risks involved in precision bred organisms, when compared with traditional organisms?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q I hope the Committee will indulge me as I ask my final question. Is this a good time to be bringing this legislation forward, given that you have highlighted to the Committee that we perhaps needed to look at our regulation a decade ago?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Q Welcome and good morning, Professor Dunwell. I am going to try to pursue some of the vexed issues of definition at the start of the Bill, and I will ask you first the question that I asked Professor Henderson earlier. Can a precision bred organism contain exogenous genetic material, and if so, how is it different from a genetically modified organism?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Is there a counterpart for ACRE in the EU Commission that you have regular dealings with? Obviously, the devolved Governments—certainly, the Scottish Government—are waiting to hear the outcome of the consultation that the EU is undertaking on this area. Can you tell us a little about how that is working currently?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Yes, indeed. I am glad to hear we are not completely cut off. That is great. Getting back to genetically engineered crops, some say that when they are grown on a commercial scale, the risks of escape and contamination are greater. Is that something that you agree with?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q So the fact that these are expanded and grown on a commercial level will not have—

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Okay, thank you. Can you tell me a little bit about the old-style GMOs and whether all of them would be included in the definition of a precision bred organism?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Forgive me, but could you expand a little on what you said about the US and the insertion of seven different—sorry, I am not a scientist.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q So that has developed over that 20-year period.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

Order. May I just say that there are a number of people who wish to speak? If there is time at the end, I will come back to you, Deidre. I call Andrew Bowie.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Q Thank you, Mr Stringer, and thank you, Professor Dunwell, for coming today. To follow Ms Brock’s question, ACRE’s advice is the same across the United Kingdom, no matter which Administration you are speaking to, and your advice is that this is safe and is a sensible way to proceed?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Yes, and there is a political choice. Thank you.

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

Q Professor Dunwell, on gene editing, why, as a scientist, do you believe that the precautionary principle has been resolved and seen through to its conclusion and therefore we can now move forward? I am thinking particularly in reference to some of the information that was provided on the unintended introduction of DNA into various species.

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

But you are obviously happy that it has been resolved.

Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)

Thank you for your time, Professor Dunwell. I am going to cough up that I have a biology undergraduate degree. Listening to some of the questions from Opposition Members, Q it strikes me that you are in quite an invidious position. You have to describe the messy complexity that is biology—how we evolve and how bits of DNA exist almost in their own right, and that it is humans that say that something is a species or a plant, and so on. We have to try to describe that and codify it into law in a way that allows people to have confidence that they are safe, but also allows for opportunities for scientific innovation, using fewer resources and so on.

This might not be a fair question, but has science ever got to the point where it could effectively give us a legal definition that we could use to erase some of the confusion on the Opposition Front Bench, or is biology itself too complicated?

Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)

On what gets switched on and what does not.

Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)

Q But would you say that a lawyer may look at a definition and say it is vague because the very nature of biology is vague? Is that fair? I do not want to put words in your mouth.

Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)

But is entirely natural.

Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)

Q I want to go back to the idea of environmental release, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith talked about. To my mind, that implies something that would not have been there as part of nature. You are releasing something into the environment—a transgenic animal; a plant that has genes from different species in it that would not be there in nature. Is there anything that would come under that definition of “release” that the Bill allows?

Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)

And she—let us make it a she—almost environmentally released it into a field.

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

Q I am interested in the environmental release side. Your advice to DEFRA was that “different parameters” should be applied to the environmental release of gene editing micro-organisms because of the increased risk of gene flow. Can you explain that point about gene flow? Does that mean that micro-organisms are outside the remit of the Bill?

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

Thank you very much; that is very helpful.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

That brings to a conclusion this morning’s session. Professor Dunwell, thank you for your time and evidence.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

The Committee agreed this morning not to meet in private to discuss the lines of questioning but to go straight to the questioning, starting with the Minister, then the shadow Minister and other Members. Are we happy to proceed with that? Okay. We can bring in our panel of witnesses.

Examination of Witnesses

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Q63 We welcome Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, the principal group leader and head of the laboratory of stem cell biology and developmental genetics at the Francis Crick Institute, Royal Society; and Alessandro Coatti, the senior science policy officer at the Royal Society of Biology. Professor Lovell-Badge, would you like to start with a few words?

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Thank you. Alessandro, please introduce yourself to the Committee, and then you will have questions from members of the Committee.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Thank you. We will open questions with the Minister.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Thank you and welcome to Professor Lovell-Badge and Mr Coatti. I believe, Professor, that you are at the Crick for your day job.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I would like to take a little from the narrative that you have given us, and from something that you stated in your returns to the consultation. Thank you for saying that the Bill has been consulted on widely; we are trying to get it right, so any advice would be gratefully received. You stated:

“If appropriately managed, precision breeding offers a route to achieving many potential and much-need benefits to society.”

That rather articulates your argument that it is outcomes-based. With that in mind, you stated that you support the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment that precision breeding poses no greater risk than traditional breeding methods. Can you explain why, and can you refer to whether you think the current regulatory framework has held up? I think that was what you were saying in the narrative about research and development. Where would you go with that regulatory framework in order to optimise the R&D so that we can evolve into being outcomes-based, both in environmental and human health terms?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

There is a lot there, but there was a lot in your opening remarks to try to encapsulate.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

That is sufficient, because everybody will want some time. I think I glean from what you have said that it would take many generations but it is still possible, particularly in plants. It therefore allows you to target derived beneficials, but this is caveated with the regulatory framework being appropriate.Q

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Right—noted.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

I start by thanking you and your colleagues for your excellent evidence, some of it submitted to the consultation. It has certainly informed a lot of our thinking, although it also raised a lot of questions. In your introductions, you restated what was essentially in the evidence, which is that there is a problematic set of definitions and this would not necessarily have been the way that you would have gone.Q

I want to explore something slightly different: the role of advisory bodies. You began to touch on that in your last answer. The Bill at the moment is very thin on what the advisory bodies are there to do. In some of your written evidence, both your organisations suggested that the different bodies should have some kind of remit to look at the wider public good. Could you say a little bit about that? I have been taken by the example of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, or some aspects of the work that it does.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

“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?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Yes, it is insufficient currently. They feel that there is a need for wider discussion of the impacts on the environment—woven throughout the Bill, I think—than currently. I wonder what kind of environmental impacts you would like to see included.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q If I may, I will ask one very quick question—well, it will not be that quick, actually. The answer will probably be quite long. I want to ask about the difference in regulatory regimes, potentially, between the UK and the EU. No matter how long that might be—we do not know; obviously, the EU will come back after its consultation next year. I just wonder what you think the impact might be, and whether in your view that will affect trade and potentially investment in the UK. Is that a tricky one?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

But the impact here, in the UK, on trade? Obviously, it is the UK’s largest trading partner, so if it continues to be—

Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West)

We have already established that the Bill covers plants and animals, but not micro-organisms. Given that there were suggestions from DEFRA that animals would be considered later down the line, I wondered if you had any thoughts on the fact that they are now included in this Bill.Q

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Order. Sorry to interrupt, but that is the end of the time allocated for this panel. I want to thank the panel very much for coming today to give evidence.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

We will now hear oral evidence from William Angus, owner of Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd, who will join us via Zoom, Professor Johnathan Napier, research group leader, and Professor Nigel Halford, who is a crop scientist. Both are from Rothamsted Research and are with us in person. Could you introduce yourselves for the record? I will go first to William Angus.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Good afternoon Bill, Professor Halford and Professor Napier. I would like to declare for the record that Bill is a constituent of mine, but I think we have only met once, in a field—to my memory—looking at wheat. I will ask Bill one question and then move on to the professors.

From the point of view of small and medium-sized enterprises, do you think this Bill will help smaller players to have some access to market, or would you like to see this Bill enable smaller breeders, such as yourself, to have access to these technologies?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Lovely; thank you. Perhaps a question that you could think about is how gene editing, in your view and with your international experience, might help those developing countries.

However, I will direct my next question to both professors, in the hope that you both cover it to a degree. You have both expressed a passion, and have longevity about looking at this issue, and I think it was Professor Halford who said that he was involved in the GM trials in the ’90s. Can you please help us to understand how far we have come and say what benefits we should try to capture through this Bill in order to drive things forward?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q That gives us a very clear picture: to be overly prescriptive might be as difficult, and the regulatory framework needs to be appropriate.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

I remind people that we have until 3.15 pm for this session. A couple of Members have caught my eye. I will start with Daniel Zeichner.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Professor Halford, you mentioned that you have the largest gene edited wheat crop trial in Europe—is that right? Could you talk us through what will happen if this Bill becomes an Act? What steps will you go through to get the product to market, and where will your involvement end? I would find some clarity on this really helpful.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

You are giving Hansard a few challenges today.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q I am thinking about getting it to the commercially available stage.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

That is really helpful, thank you.

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

Q I am just trying to get my head around some of the comments that have been made so that I can apply them to the legislation. I think Mr Angus felt that intellectual property rights were a potential barrier to entry, whereas you felt that an excessive regulatory framework was a barrier to entry. What would the main barrier be?

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

Why? What does that do?

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

Q So a stable regulatory framework is necessary. I am not trying to be some kind of QC; I am just trying to get to the bottom of this. I guess that profit maximisation in one form or another is a motivator for having a regulatory framework that enables you to do that. Whatever we think about the reality of the world we live in, that is probably the one golden rule that dominates markets and businesses in the mainstream. There are others—B Corps and others—that have different approaches.

I am interested in your views, as individuals who operate in the private-public sphere. When it comes to food security and the climate crisis, I would have thought that profit maximisation will probably not be the route map to solving those problems. What is going to be needed is a private-public partnership where we get the best of both, but some things may cost more. It is going to cost us to tackle the climate crisis; it is going to cost us to ensure that we can feed the world with a climate crisis in the 21st century, so it is even more important that we get the regulatory framework right and that it is robust. Freedom from regulations for businesses means freedoms against consumers, the public and those who do not have access to those sciences to be able to utilise them.

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

That is the extreme version, isn’t it?

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

Q That is an extreme example. Do you not think that there is a happier halfway house in terms of a regulatory framework for gene edited and gene modified materials?

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

Q But from our perspective as legislators, the risk is not just the science. History shows us that scientists—Oppenheimer and others—often have brilliant ideas, but it is then about how those ideas are used by corporations, politicians and others. The risk is not just the science, but how those patents and that science are used further on down the line. That is part of the risk, and it is the part of the risk that regulation—

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

Q I think a really good case has been made today that gene editing is something that is found in the natural world, and it is something that we are just utilising. I get that. For myself as a legislator, yes, the risk is scientific—there is some—but it is also about how it is then applied outside of the laboratory, what the political implications of that are in the commercial world, and how other powers for whom profit is the bottom line may utilise those technologies in a way that is harmful to the public good.

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

No—I think there is a discussion that will now take place in Committee about the level and type of regulatory framework that we have for these technologies and what the outcome of that is. There is obviously an argument for a low-regulation framework, and there are those of us who believe that there should be a higher level of regulatory framework. That is the debate, and I am just interested in hearing the points of view.Q

I am sorry, Mr Angus, that I have not brought you into this conversation very well, but that is not my job. If you would like to come back on anything—

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

William Angus, would you like to say a few words on this subject?

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Thank you, William. We have less than a minute left. I know the Minister wants a quick question—it is less than a minute for your question and the answer.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q You want to see this applied and translated. Bill, you stated that you already feel that, with some tweaks, we have a strong regulatory appeal in this country anyway. In one word, is the Bill proportionate?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

This feels like “Britain’s Got Talent”. There we go; we have finished before 3.15 pm.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

That brings this session to an end. I thank all our contributors for a really informative session.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

We will now hear oral evidence from Roger Kerr, chief executive, and Steven Jacobs, business development manager, both of Organic Farmers & Growers, and from Joanna Lewis, policy and strategy director, and Christopher Atkinson, head of standards, both of the Soil Association. All the witnesses are with us in person. We have until 3.50 pm for the session. Will each of you in turn introduce yourself for the record, and then we will come to questions?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Welcome, lady and gentlemen. The organic industry currently keeps supply chains separate between organic and non-organic. I wonder whether you could explain how that system works and what you view as the challenges in carrying on that system, given the current legislation.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q With respect, we are not talking about GM products but about gene edited products and precision breeding. Therefore, I suppose I would like to tease out why it does not work for precision-bred crops that arguably are akin to traditional breeding. In the animal world, we already have scientists at Roslin and so on working on avian flu in our bird population, and we have porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome devastating our pig population. Looking some 10 years hence, are you saying that advances to combat such diseases would not be compatible in your current system, given that those are arguably beneficial in stopping an animal dying in distress? I am trying to understand your world, if you see what I mean. It will be quite difficult to undo the potential benefits.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Right, okay. I am not sure that I entirely understand why you feel it would be any different with GE, which is a completely different technique—with all due respect—from GM. If I could tease out that animal welfare point, you are predicating your argument on the idea that everything is detrimental on a welfare front. Surely the eradication of avian flu—particularly as we have had the challenge in the last year—would be beneficial to free-range birds as well. I am keen that the rest of the Committee has its chance to contribute, though.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Q Good afternoon and welcome. I am glad that you raised the impact assessment because there is a lot of interesting stuff there. Some of it is a touch surprising, which we will probably explore in more detail when we go through the Bill line by line. You already touched on some of this, but what are the threats from these developments for your sector? What would you like to see in the Bill to deal with those challenges, as you see them?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Q How would you achieve that public interest test?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q So a real commitment to transparency and some effort to address the possibilities of unintended consequences on the back of this need to be tightened up in the Bill?

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Going back to what was being said about animals, particularly what Joanna was saying, I want to try to unpick this. It has been mooted that one of the benefits of the Bill is that it could result in the breeding of more disease-resistant animals and in less use of antibiotics in livestock management. The downside is that that could pave the way for more intensive farming, because disease obviously spreads when lots of animals are herded together. That does not necessarily mean that making animals more disease resistant and not having to use antibiotics on them is a bad thingQ .

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.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Q Is one of the concerns when it comes to the hormones of an animal—I am talking about animals that are being killed for meat; I know that this came up in the discussion about slaughterhouses —that if the animal is stressed throughout its life, that could affect the meat from a human health point of view?

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Order. I just point out that we only have just over two minutes.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Q I was more asking whether stress—you were talking about being able to increase yields, and about cows being put under stress—would affect the animal’s meat in the same way that—

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Order. I am afraid that I am going to have to bring the session to an end. Our allocated time is over. I thank you all for another interesting session.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Q We will now hear evidence from Dr Richard Harrison, director of Cambridge Crop Research and member of the BBSRC agrifood strategic advisory panel, from NIAB, and Professor Giles Oldroyd, professor of crop science at the Cambridge Crop Science Centre. Both witnesses are with us in person, and we have until 4.30 pm for this session. If you could both introduce yourselves, and then we will begin questioning.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome. I will go for a broad-brush question. What impact do you think the Bill could have in terms of the benefits from translating research and freeing up research and development? Given your experience in particular, Professor Oldroyd, how will it help to address challenges such as food security, climate change and so on?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q When you are doing this research, you are bound by regulatory frameworks and have to keep the safety of the product. How do you, as leaders in science, challenge yourselves to make sure that the products that end up on our shelves—albeit that they have to go through FSA approval and so on—are bred for safety, and how we and the consumers assure ourselves of that?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Q Good afternoon and a warm welcome to you. May I say how much I enjoyed visiting your splendid new offices a few months ago to meet your new director?

My questions are about public confidence. We know that this has been a vexed debate over many years. There is fantastic science being done in Cambridge, but it often strikes me that the wider public have very little idea about it; that is hardly a unique issue there. Do you think there are sufficient measures in the Bill to secure the public confidence that is needed? If not, what extra could be put in to secure that?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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 (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q All of that would provide sufficient protection before any of these were grown commercially, at such a scale that it would be, I would imagine, quite difficult to prevent impacts, if they were happening.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q And you think that the regulatory framework contained within the Bill is sufficient?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Thank you. Finally, you mentioned that your funding was a mix of public and private, Dr Harrison.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q I suppose I am thinking back to the Soil Association representative’s point about 60% of seed grown in the US—or it may have been worldwide—being held by four companies. Is that a route that we would rather not go down, or is it not something that you are concerned about?

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

If they take over and buy out smaller breeders, for example.

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Although it is certainly bound up in the arguments about gene editing and genetic modification.

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

It is good to see you again, Professor Oldroyd and Dr Harrison. Your last comments have thrown my question in many Q ways. You said that not much is said about pharmaceuticals and other products in the free market, but that is quite a low bar. I have been involved with the trade-related aspects of intellectual property waiver campaign. A big part of the global south is campaigning to have access to the understanding of how to make anti-covid drugs, and they are struggling.

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?

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Q You have said that you are funded by the Government for some of your work. To what extent is that related to potentially boosting economic growth by making these crops more profitable for farmers, or to what extent is it about achieving public policy objectives? I am thinking particularly about the drive towards net zero. Is that ever put to you? I am thinking about measures to improve soil quality and, in that way, carbon sequestration. Let us take a potato, which takes an awful lot out of the soil in nutrients and so on. Are you looking at that sort of thing in the broader sense?

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Q The Government have been criticised for not having a net zero strategy for agriculture but you would say that there is a clear direction coming to you that it should be there.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Q When it comes to the new subsidy regime—public money for public goods—is that something that could be quantifiable? If a farmer switched to a gene edited product—this is getting a bit techy—could they be rewarded for looking after soil health under the public money for public goods approach? Do you see a situation where a farmer could make the switch because they know they would rewarded for that? Or is that outside your remit?

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Q I suppose I am asking whether it is traceable. Could a product be badged as “This is better for the soil”, and therefore ticks the box when it comes to environmental land management schemes?

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Minister, you have another point.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Just a quick question in conclusion: could you articulate whether, in your view, this will lead to more investment in R&D in this country, including philanthropically—you mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—for the benefit of others across the world? We know that the majority of the world tends to farm on less than a hectare, so enabling them to have disease-resistant crops or crops that do not need expensive inputs could arguably have a beneficial effect. What is the quality of our research? I think Dr Harrison said that we have the absolute chance to lead. Any comments? I am slightly hesitant, knowing where you are going to be shortly. How do we optimise that?

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

May I jump in here? We have about four and a half minutes left, and Daniel Zeichner wants to ask a question as well.

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

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

Examination of Witness

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

We will now hear oral evidence from Sam Brooke, chief executive of the British Society of Plant Breeders, who will be giving evidence in person. We have until 4.50 pm for this session. Before we open the questions with the Minister, could you please introduce yourself?

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Having such a depth of commercial experience within your organisation, and looking—as you have said—from the SME through to the international plant breeder, what impact do you think this legislation might have on the seed production industry? In particular, could you talk a little about how we ensure fairness and equity, from SMEs through to the internationals? I saw you nodding when Professor Oldroyd was giving his evidence, but I would like to hear it from you.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q One final question from me before I hand over: what would you not want to see in this Bill?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Q Good afternoon and welcome. I will follow on from some of the previous questions and ask a similar question, really. In the end, it seems that one of the big challenges here is in maintaining public trust. While scientists may give a whole a series of assurances, if the public and perhaps some of the major retailers are not convinced, then there is a problem.

The key issue is getting the balance right between reassuring the public and following the science. However, to many of us, this Bill looks very thin on the “reassuring the public” side—so much so that, despite the FSA and its polling showing that the public would really like more information, as the Bill stands, that is not the way it will be. How convinced are you that the issue of public confidence will be resolved in favour of the science?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We had a plant breeder in before—Mr Angus—who talked about his concern about ownership and the licensing of genes and, I suppose, the potential concentration of ownership into larger companies. What are your thoughts on that? Do you share that concern?Q

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Is that is something you would like to see continue?Q

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Okay, that’s interesting.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

If there are no further questions, we will bring this session to a close.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

We will now hear evidence from Dr Alan Tinch, vice-president of genetics at the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies. He is appearing via Zoom, as we can all see, and we have about 20 minutes for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself? Thank you also for joining a little bit earlier.

Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Q Good afternoon, Dr Tinch. Can I ask how you anticipate the Bill helping in the area of aquatic species? How do you see it fitting in with the international regulatory environment?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

Q Good afternoon. You will probably find my line of questioning fairly predictable. Animal welfare organisations have consistently said that they are concerned about the introduction of traits, which would allow animals to be farmed more intensively. Given the concerns that have been raised around aquaculture in general, how concerned are you that that is the way it will be perceived and seen? My second question is more to do with the trade issues and comes almost on the back of the first question. If our European partners take a different view on this issue, what effect would it have on your industry’s exports?

Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Q Assuring quality control, if you like, would presumably add quite significantly to that lifecycle, so are we talking 10 years?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.