UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Technology

  • Caroline Nokes – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Rural Broadband

    Caroline Nokes – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Rural Broadband

    The parliamentary question asked by Caroline Nokes, the Conservative MP for Romsey and Southampton North, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2022.

    Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)

    What steps her Department is taking to expand broadband coverage in rural areas.

    The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)

    We are investing £5 billion through Project Gigabit to deliver lightning-fast, reliable broadband to hard-to-reach areas across the UK, and we are making great progress, having already launched procurements with a value of £780 million. Today, we announced the award of a new £108-million contract to connect up to 60,000 homes and businesses across Cumbria with the fastest broadband speeds. We are also boosting our voucher scheme: we have increased the value of the vouchers so that people can apply for as much as £4,500 towards the cost of installing gigabit-capable broadband in rural and particularly hard-to-reach areas.

    Caroline Nokes

    I assure the Minister that the people of Nether Wallop, Over Wallop and Barton Stacey do not feel that Project Gigabit is delivering for them. They have seen changed criteria; an inability to split postcodes, which is difficult when they are on a county boundary; delays in the processing of their applications; and then being told that they will not be able to reapply until 2023, because the project will still not be procured for those areas. They want answers and delivery, not the news that the project is delivering in Cumbria.

    Julia Lopez

    I thank my right hon. Friend, although I cannot agree with her on the importance of Cumbria, which is one of the hardest to reach areas of our country. That we are taking that area as one of our first shows just how much we care about narrowing the digital divide. More than 95% of premises in my right hon. Friend’s constituency now have superfast broadband, which is up 55% over the past 12 years. During the same period, gigabit-capable coverage has risen from 0% to 71% in her constituency. I appreciate that particular villages and parts of people’s constituencies do not have the coverage they need, and that is why we are significantly boosting the voucher scheme. We have launched two of our procurements in areas that cover my right hon. Friend’s constituency in Hampshire. I also host regular Building Digital UK drop-ins for colleagues—I hosted one yesterday—and if she would like to come along and speak directly to BDUK officials, we shall look into the villages affected.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2022 Statement on the Online Safety Bill

    Michelle Donelan – 2022 Statement on the Online Safety Bill

    The statement made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

    The Online Safety Bill is a vital, world-leading piece of legislation, designed to ensure that tech companies take more responsibility for the safety of their users, particularly children. It is also vital that people can continue to express themselves freely and engage in pluralistic debate online. For that reason, I am today committing to make a number of changes to the Online Safety Bill to strengthen its provisions relating to children, and to ensure the Bill’s protections for adults strike the right balance with its protections for free speech.

    Since taking up the role of Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport I have engaged extensively with colleagues to hear views on this legislation. We have heard concerns from many parliamentarians, stakeholders and members of the public on a number of issues, including a desire to go further on child protections, wanting better protections for legal speech and a concern that too much power over what we see and engage with online rests with tech giants themselves. Making progress on these important concerns did not, in my view, need to come at the expense of one another. I therefore set out a clear approach with three main aims:

    Strengthen the protections for children in the Bill

    Ensure that adults’ right to legal free speech is protected

    Create a genuine system of transparency, accountability and control to give the British public more choice and power over their own accounts and experience.

    We can say with confidence that all three aims have been achieved with the amendments the Government are putting forward. We will go further to strengthen the elements of the Bill that specifically protect children online. At the same time, we will remove the clauses pertaining to “legal but harmful” content for adults and replace them with a “triple shield” that empowers users and ensures that control over the online experience rests with individuals rather than anonymous committees in Silicon Valley.

    Protections for Children

    The Bill’s key objective, above everything else, is the safety of young people online. Not only will we preserve the existing protections, I will table a number of amendments that go further to strengthen the existing protections for children in the Bill to:

    make clearer the existing expectations of platforms in understanding the age of their users and, where platforms specify a minimum age for users, require them to clearly explain in their terms of service the measures they use to enforce this and if they fail to adhere to these measures, Ofcom will be able to act. I will table these amendments in the Commons;

    require the largest platforms to publish summaries of their risk assessments for illegal content and material that is harmful to children, to allow users and empower parents to clearly understand the risks presented by these services and the approach platforms are taking to children’s safety

    name the children’s commissioner as a statutory consultee for Ofcom in its development of the codes of practice to ensure that the measures relating to children are robust and reflect the concerns of parents.

    The Government will table the remaining amendments in the Lords.

    Legal Free Speech

    A large number of colleagues, stakeholders and members of the public have been particularly concerned about provisions that would result in the over-removal of legitimate legal content by creating a new category of “legal but harmful” speech. However admirable the goal, I do not believe that it is morally right to censor speech online that is legal to say in person.

    I will therefore table a number of amendments in the Commons to remove “legal but harmful” from the Bill in relation to adults, and replace it with a fairer, simpler and we believe more effective mechanism called the triple shield, which will focus on user choice, consumer rights and accountability while protecting freedom of expression. We are taking the same approach when assessing the proposed new harmful communications offence, which when applied could potentially have criminalised legitimate discussion of some topics. I have therefore tabled amendments for the second day of Report stage to remove the harmful communications offence from the Bill.

    To retain protections for victims of abusive communications, including victims of domestic abuse, we will continue progressing new offences for false and threatening communications. Furthermore, the Bill will no longer repeal the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and relevant sections of the Communications Act 2003. To avoid duplication in legislation, the Government will remove elements of the offences in these Acts which criminalise false and threatening communications.

    Protection for Adults: The Triple Shield

    It is unquestionable that speech that is illegal in the street should also be illegal online, and that major platforms should remove illegal content from their sites. While most platforms, including social media sites, have robust terms of service detailing the types of content they do or do not allow, anyone who uses these platforms regularly will know that there is a widespread failure of companies to enforce their own terms of service and platforms can often treat some sections of society differently. Lastly, I believe that rather than censoring adults, the Government should be standing up for free speech and choice by empowering people.

    Together, these three common sense principles form the basis of the triple shield, a comprehensive set of tools to protect and empower adults. Under this system, three important rules apply:

    Illegal: Content that is illegal should be removed. The Bill includes a number of priority offences, and companies must proactively prevent users from encountering this content. The Bill includes the relevant offences for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Companies will also have to remove other relevant illegal content, when they become aware of it.

    Terms of service: Legal content that a platform prohibits in its own terms of service should be removed, and legal content that a platform allows in its terms of service should not be removed.

    User empowerment: Rather than tech giants’ algorithms alone deciding what users engage with, users themselves should have the option to decide. Adults should be empowered to choose whether or not to engage with legal forms of abuse and hatred if the platform they are using allows such content. So the “third shield” puts a duty on platforms to provide their users with the functionality to control their exposure to unsolicited content that falls into this category. These functions will, under no circumstances, limit discussion, robust debate or support groups’ ability to speak about any of these issues freely.

    The user empowerment tools will allow adults to reduce the likelihood that they will see certain categories of content if they so choose. The duty will specify legal content related to suicide, content promoting self-harm and eating disorders, and content that is abusive or incites hate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sex, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation. This is a targeted approach that reflects areas where we know adult users, in particular vulnerable users, would benefit from having greater choice over how they interact with these kinds of content. For the first time, tech giants will be required to give individual adults genuine control over their own accounts and online experience. I will table amendments relating to these provisions in the Commons.

    This will be done while upholding users’ rights to free expression and ensuring that legitimate debate online will not be affected by these stronger duties. There are high thresholds for inclusion in these content categories, which will exclude discussions about these broad topics—even where that could be controversial or challenging—but where it does not become abusive. Nothing in this duty will require companies to remove or take down legal content. This will also be made clear through the Bill’s explanatory notes.

    Category 1 services will still need to give users the option to verify themselves and choose not to interact with unverified users. This duty will remain unchanged, and again reinforces this Government’s commitment to ensuring users have genuine choice over their online experience.

    These changes will ensure the Bill protects free speech while holding social media companies to account for their promises to users, guaranteeing that users will be able to make informed choices about the services they use and the interactions they have on those sites.

    Accountability and further measures

    Publication of enforcement notices: The regulator, Ofcom, will hold companies to account if they fail to comply with the requirements in the Bill by issuing fines or notifications requiring them to take steps to remedy compliance failures. To further strengthen transparency for users, we will give Ofcom the power to require services to publish the details of any enforcement notifications, including notices requiring them to remedy breaches, that they receive. I have now tabled these amendments in the Commons.

    Self-harm: I am aware of particular concerns around content online which encourages vulnerable people to self-harm. While the child safety duties in the Bill will protect children, vulnerable adults may remain at risk of exposure to this abhorrent content. I am therefore committing to making the encouragement of self-harm illegal. The Government will bring forward in this Bill proposals to create an offence of sending a communication that encourages serious self-harm via an amendment in the House of Lords. This new offence will ensure that trolls sending such messages to a person, regardless of the recipient’s age, face the consequences for their vile actions.

    Tackling violence against women and girls: It is unacceptable that women and girls suffer disproportionately from abuse online and it is right that we address this through the Online Safety Bill. Therefore, extensive work has been undertaken, including with Home Office colleagues, to understand how we can further protect women and girls through the Online Safety Bill, including to:

    List Controlling or Coercive behaviour as a priority offence. This is an offence that disproportionately impacts women and girls—listing this as a priority offence means companies will have to take proactive measures to tackle this content, therefore strengthening the protections for women and girls under the Bill.

    Name the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner as Statutory Consultees for the codes of practice, to ensure that they are consulted by Ofcom ahead of drafting and amending the codes of practice.

    These changes will be made to the Bill in the House of Lords.

    As announced last week by the Deputy Prime Minister, we are also going to take forward reforms to the criminal law on the abuse of intimate images. Building on the campaign of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), as well as recommendations from the Law Commission, we will criminalise the sharing of people’s intimate images without their consent. This, in combination with the measures already in the Bill to make cyberflashing a criminal offence, will significantly strengthen protections for women in particular as they are disproportionately affected by these activities. The Government will table these amendments in the Lords. Separate to the Online Safety Bill, the Government will also bring forward a package of additional laws to tackle a range of abusive behaviour including the installation of equipment, such as hidden cameras, to take or record images of someone without their consent.

    Epilepsy Trolling: I have tabled amendments for the second day of Report Stage to legislate for a new flashing images offence. I would like to pay tribute to the passionate campaigning that has been done on this issue, both by the Epilepsy Society, and parliamentarians from across both Houses to help the Government ensure that this appalling behaviour is tackled and that we fulfil the Government’s previous commitment to legislate to protect victims from epilepsy trolling. We have also made a number of other technical changes to clarify existing policy positions, further details of which can be found in the amendment paper.

    To ensure the proposed changes go through proper scrutiny, we intend to return a number of clauses back to a Public Bill Committee for consideration. These are issues that are of fundamental importance to the regime, and to members of this House, such as freedom of expression, user empowerment, and age assurance, and it would not be right to proceed with these changes without detailed scrutiny in the House of Commons. We intend to make further changes, as set out above, in the House of Lords, however the timing of these amendments will depend on parliamentary scheduling.

  • George Freeman – 2022 Statement on UK Earth Observation

    George Freeman – 2022 Statement on UK Earth Observation

    The statement made by George Freeman, the Minister of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

    The Government are announcing today a package of up to £200 million funding to invest in the UK Earth observation sector, to protect the future of UK talent and industry in earth observation and mitigate the impact of ongoing delays to UK participation in the EU Copernicus programme, while the EU continues to block our association.

    Earth observation (EO) is a vital science and a growing industry. This is the right time to invest in projects that benefit our planet and grow our economy: EO supports the UK to become a science superpower and prioritises our space and net zero ambitions—more than half of key climate data comes from space.

    The UK has a vibrant landscape of world-leading EO academic and industrial organisations and a well-founded reputation for excellence in EO. For example, in climate science, leading UK research institutions have been measuring sea and land surface temperature from space for over three decades—Oxford University, RAL Space, Reading University and Leicester University. This data is used by meteorological agencies around the world to improve weather forecast accuracy, helping to save lives, infrastructure and crops.

    In the “National space strategy”, His Majesty’s Government committed to remain at the forefront of earth observation technology and know-how. The investments announced today will deliver an essential funding boost to recognise the importance of this work/market and will benefit academia and industry and build our national capability. The funding is spread across 17 projects delivered through the following Government partner organisations:

    £137.6 million UK Space Agency (UKSA)

    £19.3 million Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

    £14.7 million Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

    £11.7 million Met Office

    £4.2 million Innovate UK

    These projects will deliver benefits across the UK and include a broad range of activities from measuring wind speeds to improving the accuracy of climate data, and from funding small and medium-sized enterprise projects to additional PhD places. Some projects will involve new or extended collaborations with international partners such as Australia.

    Investing in the UK EO sector is a vital part of achieving our ambitions in space and with the range of applications of EO data, including net zero targets, but it is just the first step.

    Over the last few months, my officials have begun discussions with the Earth observation community about the longer-term plans for the sector. The package announced today provides an interim response to what we have been hearing are their biggest challenges. We will continue to work with the sector to identify strategic priorities to keep building on the world-leading excellence in UK Earth observation.

    These investments are UK-wide and will provide targeted support during this time of uncertainty. They aim to support the retention of talent and firms across the sector, and we have particularly focused on how to ensure that both academia and industry can benefit from these projects.

    Context

    The EU has now delayed our association for nearly two years. The UK has done everything it can to secure association, including entering into formal consultations to encourage the EU to implement its obligations.

    The Government remain ready to discuss association with the EU, but with the EU continuing to refuse our request to formalise association, we cannot wait forever. Our priority is to invest in the UK’s EO sector and protect our knowledge and capabilities.

  • Julia Lopez – 2022 Speech on Cyber Essentials

    Julia Lopez – 2022 Speech on Cyber Essentials

    The speech made by Julia Lopez, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sports, at DCMS in London on 7 November 2022.

    Introduction

    Good afternoon everyone, and thank you for joining us at this Cyber Essentials showcase event. I’m very excited to be here today, and it is great to see so many people here from a range of organisations including large and small businesses, government departments, trade bodies and charities. I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to attend and celebrate this fantastic event with all of us here at DCMS.

    It has been great to hear about the Cyber Essentials journey from Chris [Pinder, IASME] and Lindy [Cameron, CEO, National Cyber Security Centre], and some of the noteworthy milestones of the scheme over the past 8 years. It is amazing to be able to say that the 100,000th certificate was awarded a few months ago, and I know that many of you here today are Cyber Essentials certified and are counted in that number.

    The UK government is working to make the UK the safest place to live and work online. DCMS plays a critical role in strengthening the UK’s cyber ecosystem and building a resilient and thriving digital UK, in line with our £2.6 billion National Cyber Strategy. As part of that strategy, we are committed to increasing the uptake of standards such as Cyber Essentials. To date, Cyber Essentials has had a profound impact in driving improved cyber security across a wide range of organisations. It is becoming increasingly embedded within our economy and it is playing a vital role in driving a more resilient and prosperous UK.

    We regularly hear from organisations that are benefitting from the scheme – from large blue chip companies to small organisations and local charities, helping the most vulnerable in society – a small managed service provider in Northern Ireland, a nursing home in Liverpool, a domestic abuse charity in the Midlands and a charity supporting those with visual or hearing loss in Scotland – are just a few organisations that have gone through the Cyber Essentials scheme recently.

    We have heard a lot about growth today, not just of the Cyber Essentials scheme itself but of the entire ecosystem that surrounds it. It is also helping improve all organisations’ productivity and growth as they securely embrace digital technologies. The government’s vision is for this growth to continue, especially in the face of economic adversity. We want to raise awareness of the scheme, to see an exponential increase in the number of Cyber Essentials certifications and to raise the baseline of cyber resilience across the economy. We want all organisations in the UK to be working towards Cyber Essentials. To do this, we need organisations to be asking their suppliers, partners and other third parties they engage with to have it. Most suppliers to government need to have Cyber Essentials and we believe that organisations across the wider economy should be asking their own suppliers to do likewise and that is our ask of you today – to promote and use Cyber Essentials as a key tool when assessing the security of your suppliers.

    Supply chains

    I know a lot of you are grappling with cyber security challenges in your supply chains. Worrying incidents have shown us that exploiting supply chain vulnerabilities can have severe, far reaching consequences. In the supply chain call for views we published last year, 46% of organisations said a lack of tools is a severe barrier to managing their supplier risk.

    I believe Cyber Essentials has an important role to play here. It is not a silver bullet and does not guarantee organisations won’t  fall victim to a cyber attack, but it does provide protection and resilience for so many. In our engagements with industry, including many of you, we are seeing an increasing number of organisations use Cyber Essentials as a tool to assure themselves that third parties, including suppliers, have implemented minimum cyber security controls.

    For example, the NHS recently introduced a requirement for IT suppliers to have Cyber Essentials, thus raising the bar for those organisations that wish to do business with the NHS.  Other organisations have seen reduced costs and increased efficiency in their due diligence processes by requiring suppliers to have Cyber Essentials. A well known property website recently told us that asking for Cyber Essentials from suppliers has reduced their due diligence process from days to hours. For them, Cyber Essentials has a commercial benefit and is saving them money.

    In a similar vein, we are delighted to announce that DCMS is now working in partnership with St James’s Place, a large financial services firm, who have recently required all of their partners to become Cyber Essentials Plus certified. We will hear more from them in our panel discussion in just a few minutes, but this is a great example of an organisation proactively driving improved security practices in those organisations they work so closely with.

    Cyber Essentials Pathways

    Now, it would be remiss of me to not recognise the fact that for some organisations, especially those with large and complex IT infrastructures, it is a struggle to comply with all aspects of Cyber Essentials. As Lindy mentioned, we are looking forward to seeing the results of the Cyber Essentials Pathways pilot and anticipate this will provide a further opportunity for organisations to attain Cyber Essentials. We want to ensure that being Cyber Essentials certified is accessible for all organisations. To this end, we are also in the process of launching an evaluation of the scheme, to help us identify and address any barriers that organisations face when going through the Cyber Essentials process.

    Conclusion

    On that note, I wanted to close by saying that my officials and I would love to hear from you, to better understand how DCMS and industry can work together to ensure Cyber Essentials is an effective certification scheme. I invite you to collaborate with us, to join us on the journey to improve Cyber Essentials and ensure it continues to raise the baseline level of cyber security across our supply chains.

    The new government remains intent on improving cyber security across our economy. Our Product Security and Telecoms Infrastructure Bill is close to completing its passage through Parliament and when it becomes law, this will ensure much better security in consumer IoT products. We are also working to improve our cyber resilience legislation and expand the number of skilled people working in cyber security. We’re continuing to build our digital identity framework, which will help the public and businesses verify identities in an easy, secure and trustworthy manner.

    Together we can reduce the social and economic harm that we continue to see from cyber security attacks and drive a more resilient and prosperous UK. Thank you once again for working with us on this amazing scheme.

  • Jo Gideon – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    Jo Gideon – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by Jo Gideon, the Conservative MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I think we have had a very thoughtful and good-humoured discussion. It is clear that animal welfare is a key feature for both sides of this House. I just want to mention amendment 7, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, but I will not be supporting it because I think the question of labelling needs to be looked at in a much wider context. I would very much urge the Minister, within that wider context, to look at consumer information, which I think is a really important issue.

    Last week, I spoke in the Chamber on the national food strategy and food security. Much has changed since Henry Dimbleby published his recommendations last summer. The cost of everyday staples continues to rise as the war in Ukraine pushes food price inflation to its highest level in 14 years. So this is the right time to consider alternative ways that our Government can strengthen the nation’s food security.

    By removing barriers to precision breeding, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill will open the future to developing crops that are more resistant to pests, disease and climate change, reducing the need for fertilisers and pesticides. Genome editing provides the opportunity to achieve the outcomes of plant breeding, which has been so successful in controlling diseases and improving yields, but in a much more precise manner.

    In encouraging this innovation, placing UK researchers and commercial breeders at the forefront of exploring what these technologies have to offer, we can use science to move away from chemical use and make land more productive, both reducing the cost of food and restoring the balance of nature. However, the UK’s world-leading animal welfare standards must be upheld, so I support the step-by-step approach to legislation, with a focus on plants and maintaining our high standards in animal welfare. I am sure that the Minister has listened to some of the concerns that have been expressed, and that will probably be reflected in looking at the wording of the Bill.

    This Bill is a real opportunity to make a positive contribution to a more sustainable food system. For instance, by reducing the spoiling and browning of foods and increasing their shelf life, we can help reduce food waste. It could enable us to improve the nutritional profile of foods—for example, by increasing antioxidants, phenols and tannins in fruit and vegetables, or improving oil and carbohydrate profiles, delivering foods that benefit consumers and reduce the burden on healthcare providers.

    Precision breeding represents an opportunity to develop crops with modified macronutrient status, such as increased resistant starch, which naturally reduces the calorific content of food, but increases the level of fibre. Through agritech innovations, farmers around the world will have the opportunity to make better use of their land, fight off harmful pests and better regulate the nutrients in their soil, while removing unnecessary barriers, and helping the world grow more and strive towards a greener tomorrow. In that spirit, I think the Bill is the right step forward, and I just hope that we can all get behind it.

  • Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He brings much knowledge to the debate and I thank him for sharing that with us.

    I welcome the Bill and I declare an interest, as I must, as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and a farmer in Northern Ireland. The Bill will bring great benefits, not just to England but to the whole United Kingdom. In my earlier intervention, I mentioned the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which I will touch on later. I welcome the Minister’s response.

    I live among farmers, who are incredible people. They love their animals and the job they do. They are very efficient. Near me, they have high-quality dairy herds, beef cattle, lamb, pork and poultry. My farmers want the best, and that is what I want for Northern Ireland. It is no secret that Northern Ireland’s high-quality produce is some of the best in the world and is much envied. Northern Ireland leads the way, but we want to be part of the Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, however, does not enable us to do the same as the farmers here.

    As the Member for Strangford, a strong agricultural constituency, legislation to unlock new technologies to boost food production, support farmers and grow more productive crops is certainly of great interest to me and those I represent—my neighbours across Strangford and across Northern Ireland. As always, one of my first ports of call was to see what the farmers thought about it. They were clear and quickly explained to me that gene editing is different from GM and gives us an opportunity to be more efficient and farm better. It does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species and creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced more slowly by natural breeding processes. It will potentially provide a greater yield and better farming practices.

    Crucially, precision breeding technologies will help to develop foods with direct benefits to the public, such as products of better quality, increased nutritional value and a longer shelf life. Those are things that we are all striving for and we should all try to make those ambitions happen, so the technology can only be a good thing as long as it is safe and has farmer buy-in. From my discussions with farmers, it clearly has that buy-in.

    We must be realistic and say that farmers have been gene editing for generations but did not have a fancy name for it; they knew it as splicing. I am old enough to remember my grandmother splicing the peas and beans to make bigger and better varieties of peas and beans. That goes back to the ’60s—it was not yesterday—but even in those early days, perhaps my grandmother was a bit of a pioneer in doing such things. Today we do not call it splicing but genetic technology. That is a much fancier name, and much greater, because it is about more than that, which is why the Bill is important. Through trial and error, science has allowed us to go to the next level, yet we must be mindful of the difficulties that can come by decimating the wonderful structure of nature that God has put in place. I believe that the Bill provides safety and security, and a way forward to UK food security.

    A fortnight ago, I had the opportunity to meet a constituent, Stephen Alexander, who keeps 130 Dexter cattle—an almost-unique herd across Northern Ireland. He takes 60 acres of land at Orlock in North Down, he has some land at home in Greyabbey, and he takes other land just down the road. He made a deal with the National Trust, which was that he would not use fertilisers or bring anything new on to the land—it all had to be natural; the grass was natural—which was quite unique. Along with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister Edwin Poots and others, I had a chance to see how that works. It does work: it is an organic farm in every sense of the word, yet all the cattle are exceptional.

    That is another reason why it is essential to bring in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as a matter of urgency. As Edwin Poots outlined:

    “The introduction of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in England will not apply to Northern Ireland. The Protocol requires alignment to EU rules so gene-edited crops developed in England under the Bill”—

    that we could take advantage of in Northern Ireland—

    “would not be available for cultivation in Northern Ireland.”

    We need parity of opportunity and of legislation. When the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill returns to this House from the other place, we need to see that we will have that opportunity.

    The fact is that for any British gene-edited crops we would have to apply to the European Food Safety Authority for approval before they could be sent to Northern Ireland, which imports, among other things, grain for animal feed. Even then, the crops could still be banned by Dublin, and that is what this really is: the EU and Dublin, with their hand—their dead hand—upon us on many occasions. That would present a fresh headache in ensuring the affected plants did not cross that invisible Irish border.

    It is clear that while this Bill is a stand-alone one, the fingerprints of European intransigence are all over it. I again make the point that it is not this Bill, but the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, whenever it comes back, that will give us in Northern Ireland the same chance as the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. I would ask the House and the Government to reinstate their support for us whenever the Bill, which I think is going through the other place tomorrow, comes back to us.

    As someone who loves the land and always supports the farmers, I trust those who have farmed for generations when they say that this is an enhanced version of splicing and that there is a need to be open to all possibilities. I say the Bill is the right way to go to ensure that the facility is there and so suits the farmers and food producers, and allows Northern Ireland to play a crucial and important role to advance our markets across the world. It will also ensure that we can grow and provide more jobs and a stronger economy, and that we can determine this for ourselves, rather than have the unelected EU, with no Northern Ireland voices, dictating our food security and farming practices.

    That is my bid for the Minister about what has been brought here tonight. I really do support this, and I think it is the right thing to do. I will say in advance that amendment 4—perhaps the Minister can clarify this for me at the end, if possible—while it has been put forward by the Labour Opposition, has I believe been done in the best possible sense. I understand that the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), was going to put forward something similar, and we were apt to support that. So if the Opposition move amendment 4, which would ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account animal welfare in relation to Northern Ireland, that is the one on which we will probably disagree with the Minister, unless clarification can be given to us. However, on everything else, I fully support the Minister and the Government as they bring this Bill forward.

  • Neil Hudson – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    Neil Hudson – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by Neil Hudson, the Conservative MP for Penrith and the Border, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is a passionate advocate for the environment and animal welfare issues.

    I firmly believe that this Bill is an important piece of legislation. I first declare an interest: as a veterinary surgeon, I am passionate about animal health and welfare. I also represent Penrith and The Border, a huge rural constituency with a huge farming footprint. We have the most fantastic farmers in Cumbria, and across the UK, who farm to the highest animal welfare standards. I firmly believe that we do not have anything to fear from this legislation, but I do understand some of the concerns that have been raised, and I will speak to some of the amendments and new clauses.

    It is important to reaffirm from the outset that this Bill is to do with gene editing, which is very different from genetic modification, where genetic material from an exogenous species is potentially inserted. That is not the case with what this Bill is concerned with. Gene editing is very different from genetic modification. When the Government move forward with this Bill, it is important that they keep articulating and communicating that to the public, to try to alleviate some of those concerns.

    I firmly believe that there are huge benefits to be gained from this legislation to animals, plants, the environment and the human race. I respectfully disagree with amendment 1, because I firmly believe that it is important that animals are included within the scope of the legislation. I will try to articulate why I believe that. There will be huge benefits to animal health and welfare from the development of animals and potentially birds that have more resistance to diseases, as colleagues have touched on. As a veterinary surgeon, I firmly believe that is a good cause, because if we can reduce the incidence of disease, that is an animal health and welfare gain.

    We have talked about birds becoming more resistant to avian flu, and we have seen how this country is being ravaged at the moment by avian influenza. Technology that helps us to mitigate that is to be welcomed. In addition, in the pig world, pigs with resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, PRRS, will be another good development. Anything that can reduce morbidity and mortality in the animal world is something to be welcomed. As some Members have touched on in interventions, ultimately that could also lead to a reduction in the use of veterinary medicines. That will be of benefit to the animals, but it will also be of indirect benefit to humans. If we can reduce the amount of antimicrobials used, that will mitigate the blight of antimicrobial resistance that is affecting the whole world. I firmly believe that there are indirect benefits to the human race as well.

    As I have touched on, we are seeing widespread cases of avian flu across the UK, which leads me to stress to the new ministerial team that we really need DEFRA to adequately fund the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Certainly, the Weybridge headquarters in Surrey is in urgent need of refurbishment, which has been estimated at £2.8 billion. The Public Accounts Committee has looked at that, as has the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I really push the Government to invest in the APHA to try to prevent diseases and outbreaks in the future. That is very important.

    I firmly welcome anything that can reduce morbidity and mortality in farming. I speak as a vet with a lot of first-hand experience through the patients I have treated, but also through my experiences in the foot and mouth crisis of 2001. The trauma that infectious diseases can create for rural communities is something that we are still living with in Cumbria and other parts of the UK. When a farmer who is farming his or her stock gets the vets involved to treat disease, that has a toll on the vets and on the farmer. No one working there wants to see animals suffering from disease.

    I firmly believe that if we can improve animal health and welfare with such technology, that will have an indirect benefit on human mental health. We on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have looked at that in our rural mental health inquiry. If we reduce the amount of medicines, that will help animals and people.

    I also firmly believe that the Bill will help with food security, as other hon. Members have said. If we can develop climate resilient and disease resistant crops, that will reduce the need to use pesticides and fertiliser. In the food security crisis in the UK and across Europe, we have seen how critical the supply of fertiliser is to the country. We have two plants, one of which, the Ince plant, has been mothballed and one of which, the Billingham plant, has ceased to produce ammonia. Anything that can help to reduce the use of fertilisers will help with critical infrastructure too.

    As I said, I understand some of the concerns that have been raised tonight and in Committee. To mitigate and alleviate some of those concerns, the Government could tweak the Bill in the other place, or the Minister could give reassurances at the Dispatch Box tonight that the Government are looking at some of those suggestions and will move forward with them.

    On amendment 11, regarding exogenous material, that point has been well made. As I said earlier, however, gene editing is different from genetic modification where exogenous material comes in. If the Government could be clearer with the public and articulate again that the gene editing procedure does not include exogenous genetic material being inserted, many of the fears outside this place would be mitigated.

    I share some of the concerns about consumer confidence in terms of transparency, the providence of our food and how it is produced, so the Government could indicate that they will look at giving more information to consumers through labelling and information about how some of those products are produced. We have nothing to fear from this technology, so I do not think that we have anything to fear from being clear with the public about the technology. If the Government could give reassurances on that, it would help people inside and outside this place.

    I take on board the concerns about animal health and welfare. People fear that the Bill might lead to different practices that will exacerbate animal health and welfare issues in farmed animals. It is important to remember that in this country, we farm to the highest animal welfare standards and that there are robust mechanisms for monitoring animal health and welfare in our farming practices. People should be reassured by that, but equally, there is scope within the Bill for increased monitoring of animal health and welfare in terms of the animals that are produced through this technology. So again, we have good regulatory mechanisms and there is scope within the Bill to improve them. If the Government could give reassurances on that, it would alleviate some of the fears.

    We in this country should be proud of farming to the highest animal health and welfare standards and we can be a beacon for the rest of the world in that area. I support the Bill, but I understand some of the concerns that have been raised. If we can get some clarity and assurances from the Government, the House could come together, as the Bill progresses to the other place, to say that this will ultimately benefit animal health and welfare. As I said, I think it will help animal health and welfare and the environment, and support human and public health and the mental health of people working with animals. I wish it well as it progresses.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    Caroline Lucas – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    It is a pleasure to follow the important speech by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), with which I agreed. As I said on Second Reading, this is a flawed Bill; it is unclear and it is not robust, and legal experts have said that it is staggeringly imprecise. Nothing that has happened since Second Reading has caused me to change my mind, so I have tabled a number of amendments, and welcome the opportunity to speak to them, starting with amendments 1 and 2, which would remove animals from the Bill’s scope and title. For the record, it is my intention to press amendment 1 to a vote.

    As I say, amendment 1 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill, but the intention is not, as the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested, to kick the can down the road; I genuinely believe that we need more time to look more carefully at what kind of regulatory framework we need, so that we can make the most of potential benefits, but also safeguard ourselves against risk. I acknowledge that there may well be potential benefits to the legislation, but I hope that others will acknowledge that there may well be serious risks, and I do not think that the work has been done to get the balance right in the Bill. We need more safeguards that are commensurate with the risks. That is why—for the moment, at least—we should remove animals from its scope. If the Government wish to legislate on gene editing of animals, they need to give much more thought to defining the circumstances in which that is acceptable, and to provide much more detail on how it will be regulated.

    I recognise that clauses 10 to 15 are an attempt to prevent the significant risks that are associated with precision breeding, but I do not think that those measures are sufficient. When we debated the animal sentience legislation, the Government were prepared to accept that there should be a mechanism, via the animal welfare hub, through which the impact of animal sentience legislation could be properly considered by independent experts with the relevant skills. There is an urgent need for something similar that allows us to judge whether genetic engineering will be harmful to animals, how it can be better regulated, and how that can be done transparently. The model in clause 11, however, gives the person applying for authorisation and the Secretary of State far too much authority and responsibility, and the proposed animal welfare advisory body is given only a weak, secondary, advisory role. I worry that that suggests that welfare considerations will carry very limited weight in decision making.

    It is also of concern that, under the Bill, the full regulatory system is supposed to be set through secondary legislation. That vastly reduces the scope for vital parliamentary scrutiny on issues of animal welfare and gene editing.

    The claims made for gene editing mainly focus on increasing productivity and disease resistance. The Government argue that gene editing is simply an extension of traditional breeding, such as selective breeding, but is more precise and efficient. I assume that is intended to be reassuring, but over the last 50 years selective breeding has itself caused substantial health and welfare problems in most of the main farmed species. We have already heard about the concerns about broiler chickens who have been bred to grow so quickly that many suffer from leg disorders, while others succumb to heart disease. Hens have been bred to lay over 300 eggs a year. They have to draw on their own bone calcium to produce egg shells. This results in osteoporosis, leaving them susceptible to bone fracture. A cow producing milk for her calf would normally produce just over 1,000 litres in her 10-month lactation. Many of today’s dairy cows have been bred to produce 10,000, or even 11,000 or 12,000 litres of milk a year. That contributes, unsurprisingly, to many suffering from lameness, mastitis and reproductive disorders, and the animals live with those welfare problems for a substantial part of their lives.

    Gene editing for even faster growth and higher yields would exacerbate the suffering caused by selective breeding. I believe it would be unethical to permit it for increased productivity, and it simply should not be necessary for disease resistance. The proper way to reduce diseases that are generated by keeping animals in poor conditions is to move instead to health-oriented farming systems, in which good health is inherent in the farming methods. Indeed, gene editing could lead to animals being kept in even more crowded and stressful conditions, as they would be resistant to the disease risks that are inherent in those conditions.

    I cannot be the only Member who has been lobbied hard to remove animals from the Bill’s scope. I urge the Government to listen to the public and look again at this. They should return the legislation on this subject only once they have given much more detailed consideration to the issues that I have raised. Another of those issues is that nobody involved in drafting this legislation could, I imagine, have honestly envisaged it applying to, for example, domestic cats and dogs. Yet, without clarification, that is exactly what the current drafting could result in.

    Our constituents want to be confident that there is consistency in the Government’s ambition for improving animal welfare. They want to know that gene editing cannot be used as some kind of techno-fix and that it will not entrench intensive farming, with its inherent environmental and animal welfare shortcomings. If my amendments are a step too far, I would urge Ministers, as a form of compromise, to bring forward an amendment of their own in the other place that will at the very least limit the scope much more explicitly to farmed animals. In the meantime, my amendments 1 and 2 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill.

    Let me move on briefly to a few other amendments in my name. New clause 7 is about informing consumers about what they are buying. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the labelling of this new class of GMO and to do so in consultation with key named stakeholders. Clear labelling is something that we know consumers want. The Food Standards Agency found that:

    “Consumers wanted transparent labelling…if genome edited foods reach the UK market.”

    My new clause does not prescribe what form that labelling should take; the groups and organisations that it lists for consultation are much better placed to determine that. They include the FSA, food producers, retailers, consumers and anyone else the Government think appropriate. In other words, it would allow for co-operative, sensible, well-informed approaches. I hope Members will back new clause 7 on that basis. Finally, labelling—in either the form set out in my clause or some other form—could represent a step towards resolving the differences with the devolved Governments, which we have already heard about, for whom, for example, alignment with EU standards is a major priority and a current source of disagreement with Westminster.

    Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are a group designed to ensure that regulation is sufficiently robust when it comes to authorising activities involving so-called precision-bred organisms. They seek to convert the powers afforded to the Secretary of State into requirements. In addition, amendment 8, alongside amendment 7, would require obligations relating to supply chain traceability. Without amendment 7, the Bill fails to mandate any such traceability for the new category of precision-bred organisms.

    That would be inconsistent with the current long-standing requirement for mandatory traceability for GMOs and would create significant trade barriers for organic businesses in the UK wanting to export products to, for example, the EU or Northern Ireland. The UK organic sector is worth £3 billion, so it makes no economic sense not to amend the Bill and ensure mandatory supply chain traceability. Traceability of genetically engineered organisms is also essential to support recall in the event that novel allergens or toxins, or other safety issues emerge after release.

    I believe the Bill is badly conceived and badly drafted. My amendments are all designed with one of two things in mind: to bring either clarity or robustness to the regulatory framework for precision-bred organisms. It is with that intention that I lent my name to a number of other amendments, on behalf of the official Opposition in particular. I hope that they might support mine in the same spirit.

  • George Eustice – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    George Eustice – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by George Eustice, the Conservative MP for Camborne and Redruth, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    As the former Secretary of State who introduced this Bill on Second Reading, I rise to express a little sympathy for amendment 4—not so much sympathy that I would vote for it if it went to a Division tonight. Nevertheless, I believe that it highlights some important issues that are worthy of further consideration.

    First, amendment 1 proposes removing animals altogether from the scope of the Bill. Undoubtedly, using gene editing on animals raises complex ethical issues, along with the animal welfare dimension, and it was during such discussion when the Bill was being drafted that I considered excluding animals from the Bill. However, I want to explain to the House why, after reflection, I decided that we should include them.

    First, from my experience in government and, indeed, in this place, there is always a tendency to put off things that are difficult or complex and to kick the can down the road, but the right thing to do is to grapple with these complex matters and chart a course through them. Secondly, when considering some of the issues that we might be able to address through precision breeding, it became clear to me that, if this technology was used properly, we could actually enhance animal welfare in certain areas.

    When I first became a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Beak Trimming Action Group set up by the last Labour Government was concluding its work. Beak trimming, using infrared beak tipping on day-old chicks, is required particularly for free-range systems, because otherwise there may be injurious pecking of laying hens. Through that work, we concluded that, while there were things we could do such as paying special regard to the feeding regime, it was against the welfare of those birds not to carry on the beak trimming.

    However, something else emerged from that work. The white-feathered birds, which lay white eggs, are much less prone to injurious pecking. In fact, if white-feathered birds had the docility and behavioural traits we see in the brown-feathered birds that lay the brown eggs that dominate the UK market, the door would be open to regulatory changes that could ban beak trimming. It is the long-standing position of both main parties in this House that mutilations in the livestock industry should be phased out.

    There is a second area, which I saw first-hand, relating to the fate of male chicks in hatcheries producing laying hens. Every Easter, we will see pictures of yellow chicks on Easter eggs to celebrate spring and the birth of new life, but the fate of yellow chicks is not a particularly happy one. In the inter-war years, commercial laying flocks were bred specifically so that male chicks would be yellow, with the express purpose that somebody working on the production line could helpfully put the yellow chicks on to the right conveyor belt so that their life could be ended, since they had no use as laying hens.

    Leipzig University has explored the possibility of changing the eggshell colour so that a male egg can be identified much earlier and sentient beings are not hatched and then killed. I think precision breeding techniques could phase out that very bleak practice of killing day-old male chicks, which is a clear part of the laying hen system.

    Kerry McCarthy

    I am very pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, as I have spent quite a lot of time trying to convince people that that does happen to day-old chicks. Is it not the case that some other European countries have introduced legislation on that point, so it is not necessarily linked to genetic technology? I think they have acted to prevent so many chicks being killed.

    George Eustice

    What a number of countries have done—the UK was in the vanguard of this—was to move away from maceration of day-old chicks towards the use of carbon dioxide and argon gas as a means of dispatching them. However, I think we could accelerate the process of identifying the eggs through the use of genetic technology.

    Dehorning cattle is another mutilation that we would like to phase out over time. Progress has been made for some breeds on polled cattle—that is, cattle born without horns, so that we do not have to use a hot iron, albeit under anaesthetic, to de-bud them. Again, it is difficult to perfect without precision breeding techniques, but if we had that technology, we could have more polled cattle and reduce the need for conventional dehorning of cattle, or even pave the way for a regulatory change to prevent it.

    There is also the prospect of breeding more resistance to diseases. In the dairy herd some selection is already done for natural resistance to bovine tuberculosis. It is limited in its ability, but if we had the technology, we might be able to go further.

    At the moment, the Government plan to phase out and remove badger culling is predicated on a lot of confidence that a cattle vaccine will be viable and deployable, but it would be helpful to have additional tools in the box, and resistance to TB could be one of them. Of course, we are about to face another very difficult winter when it comes to avian flu, and this technology might have some application there.

    However, my sense when I read amendment 4 was that whoever drafted it had had one sector in particular in mind—the broiler chicken sector. There is a genuine concern that the production speed of broiler chickens, reduced now to around 32 to 33 days, is so fast that they are having all sorts of leg problems, and we might be able to make some changes there. That is a legitimate point, because while we might say it has improved the welfare of a broiler chicken that it is bred to finish within 32 days, we might say it is in its welfare interest to ensure that it does not have leg problems. There is a second question, which is whether it is the ethical and right thing to do to produce a chicken within 32 days rather than, say, 37 days, in which case the welfare problem goes away.

    A less obvious and less talked-about situation might be commercial duck production. We know that ducks need and want open water—it is part of their physiology and the way their beaks work. However, many commercial duck producers do not give ducks access to water. I have come across vets who will argue that it is in the interest of ducks not to have access to water, since that can spread disease and that is not in their welfare interest, but that goes to the root of the issue with animal welfare. We can either see animal welfare in the conventional five freedoms sense—freedom from pain, hunger, thirst and so on—or we can see it in the more modern sense of a life worth living.

    The amendment does not work, because the more we put into an amendment the more we inadvertently exclude. If we accepted an amendment that proscribed certain things but missed certain things, at a future date a breeder might bring a judicial review and say, “Well, this wasn’t covered by the Bill and everything else was.” Therefore, we would not be future-proofing the importance of animal welfare.

    However, that is where guidance could work. After Second Reading of the Bill, I asked our officials to give some thought to the idea of guidance, which might give organisations such as Compassion in World Farming and people such as Peter Stevenson, who is very thoughtful on these matters, the reassurance they need in the absence of a legislative change on the face of the Bill, which is difficult to do. The Minister may find that there is some guidance helpfully drafted—or it may be that it was not drafted, but it is not too late, because the Bill has time in the other House.

    Will the Minister consider whether this issue of how the animal welfare body should approach its task and how it should assess the impacts on animal welfare could be dealt with in a non-statutory way through guidance. He and his officials will have to issue terms of reference anyway to the animal welfare body, which is likely to be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, and it would not take much to set out some parameters for the things we want it to bear in mind when making assessments.

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by Kirsty Blackman, the SNP MP for Aberdeen North, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    We are concerned about the disadvantageous position that the Bill will likely put farmers in and about the knock-on impact on farmers in Scotland, despite the fact that the Scottish Government are not yet at the stage to approve the technology in Scotland.

    The regulation of genetically modified organisms is a devolved matter. There is no question about that, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments have made that clear in their responses. The Scottish Government have been clear in their opposition to the UK Government’s moves on this. We do not presently intend to amend the GMO regulatory regime in Scotland, as we want to await the outcome of the EU’s consultation on whether some gene-edited organisms will be excluded from the GM definition.

    According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, we are already suffering a 4% reduction in GDP due to this hard Tory Brexit. We do not need to see the introduction of further trade barriers caused by the UK’s rush to make this change. A delay to see the outcome of the consultation early next year would be far more sensible than passing the legislation now. This is relevant because of the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which tramples over devolved competencies, and prevents the Scottish Parliament from refusing the sale of these products.

    I wish to speak to new clause 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), which ensures that the democratic principle of devolution is upheld and that the Scottish Parliament still has the authority to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms. We have raised concern after concern about the implementation of the 2020 Act. If the UK Government intend to respect devolution, which the people of Scotland voted for, they must ensure that the Scottish Parliament can continue to take those decisions.

    There are both animal welfare and environmental concerns relating to precision breeding. We must ensure that those are properly considered and that all information and evidence is available before taking any decision. We strongly welcome more research into gene editing and new genetic technologies, but that must precede the wide-scale deployment of such technologies.

    The Scottish Government want to ensure that Scotland operates to the highest environmental and animal welfare standards, so that our world-class Scottish grown food continues to be outstanding. The impact assessment of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the precision breeding Bill acknowledges divergence from the EU approach, which could have implications for compliance costs and future trade. We must be able to export our produce and the Bill risks our farmers being further hamstrung—in addition to all the hardships they already face as a result of this Tory Brexit.

    David Duguid

    The hon. Member will be aware of the expression of disappointment from Martin Kennedy, president of NFU Scotland, that the Scottish Government have not become more involved in a UK-wide approach to this matter. None the less, she is absolutely right to say that this is a devolved competency. Does she agree that the UK Government have done nothing but be positive in terms of inviting the Scottish Government to be as involved in this matter as they possibly can be?

    Kirsty Blackman

    I cannot answer a question about the conversations that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have had on this matter, because I am not aware of exactly how those conversations have gone. What I am concerned about is the significant amount of produce that we export to the EU and the fact that the Bill poses a risk, for example, to the export of Scottish salmon. That is because the Scottish Government will lose some of their competency over this due to the internal market Bill and to the way that this framework is laid out.

    Should amendment 1 from the Green party be pushed to a vote, the SNP will support it. The paucity of evidence is particularly acute in relation to animals. The Bill also risks violating the intention and application of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, passed for England and Wales earlier this year. The RSPCA has highlighted the fact that the public would not and do not support that.

    New clause 8 relates to the labelling of food or feed produced by precision-bred animals. Eighty four per cent of people polled consider it important that all GE products introduced for sale in the UK are labelled as such, and only 8% do not consider that to be important. We are disappointed, therefore, that the UK Government no longer plan to consider requiring labelling for these products, despite the Minister saying in January 2022 that they would look at the matter. This will have a double impact in Scotland, because, even though the Scottish Parliament does not currently permit the marketing of these products, consumers will not be able to make an informed choice due to the lack of labelling requirements.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, now is not the time for this Bill to pass. The UK Government have failed to make the case for “why now?” and have failed to ensure that the devolved competencies of the Scottish Parliament are respected as they seek to push through this legislation.