UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Technology

  • 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.

  • Mark Spencer – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    Mark Spencer – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by Mark Spencer, the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    I will address new clause 1 directly. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, “We are very pro science and pro this technology,” and then spent the next 15 minutes explaining why he was not in favour of this technology, so I will address some of his comments.

    The objective of the Bill is to achieve proportionate regulation of precision breeding organisms, which are currently regulated as genetically modified organisms. Science is at the heart of this policy, and the Bill rightly requires the Secretary of State to make decisions based on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—which advises on the regulation of genetically modified organisms.

    ACRE has considerable scientific experience on precision breeding technologies, and has an exemplary record. It is well regarded nationally and internationally for its advice, guidance and insight, and I assure the House that it operates to the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity.

    Precision breeding technologies mimic traditional breeding processes, but more precisely and efficiently, which means that products from precision bred plants or animals contain only genetic changes that would occur through traditional breeding or natural transformation.

    Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)

    There is concern among the cultured meat industry, which is unsure about the impact of the Bill on its research and trade. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to show our support for this important new technology, which the UK is currently at the forefront of developing?

    Mark Spencer

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are many new technologies out there that we want to embrace and give the opportunity to come forward, albeit in a regulated format so that we can have confidence in our food systems, and that is the exact process that the Bill seeks to correct.

    We do not label food products that have been produced through traditional techniques such as chemical mutagenesis, and we do not label foods as “novel” because precision bred products are indistinguishable from their traditionally bred counterparts. It would not be appropriate to require labelling to indicate the use of precision breeding in the production of food or feed. That view is shared internationally; many of our partners across the world, such as Canada, the US and Japan, do not require labelling for precision bred products.

    The Food Standards Agency is developing a new authorisation process to ensure that any food or feed product will only go on sale if it is judged to present no risk to health, does not mislead consumers, and does not have lower nutritional value than its traditionally bred counterparts. In order to ensure transparency, the Bill enables regulations to make a public register through which information about precision bred food and feed products can be assessed by consumers.

    I do not know whether it is appropriate to speak to other amendments now, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    It is up to you, but you will have an opportunity to speak again at the end of the debate.

    Mark Spencer

    I think I will leave it there and speak to other amendments at the end of the debate.

    Jim Shannon rose—

    Mark Spencer

    Before I sit down, I will of course take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

    Jim Shannon

    I thank the Minister for giving me the chance to intervene. I am very conscious that because of the status of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, Northern Ireland is currently under EU rules in this area. That means that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which my party and many farmers across Northern Ireland would like to see in place, will not apply to Northern Ireland. Will the Minister assure me that it is the intention of the Government to ensure that every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the same opportunities? We want those opportunities in Northern Ireland as well.

    Mark Spencer

    The last thing I want is to see farmers in Northern Ireland disadvantaged. There will be a huge advantage to English farmers over other parts of the United Kingdom, so we want to share this technology. There are parts of the United Kingdom, outside of England, particularly with James Hutton in Scotland and the Roslin Institute at Edinburgh University, where we are world leading in this technology. We have some of the best scientists in the world who genuinely lead this field and we want to share that technology across the United Kingdom and to see it embraced and celebrated.

    David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) rose—

    Mark Spencer

    I shall take one last point from my hon. Friend.

    David Duguid

    A UK-wide approach would be preferred by food producers and farmers right across the country. Can the Minister confirm that the invitation is still open to the devolved Administrations, such as the Scottish Government, to help progress this technology on a UK-wide basis?

    Mark Spencer

    Of course it is. I encourage those devolved Administrations to get on board and to support this new tech. They should embrace it and give their farmers the same advantage that we will hopefully achieve in the world marketplace.

    John Spellar rose—

    Mark Spencer

    I keep saying that I will take a final intervention—the Whips will start to get upset with me, but I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention none the less.

    John Spellar

    I was hoping the Minister would expand on some other areas, but can he respond to my point about how the vaccine taskforce has shown that science and proper regulation can work at pace for the benefit of our people? Moreover, will he address the question of what protection the Government will give to institutions engaged in this area, whose facilities may be targeted for vandalism by those who are anti-science?

    Mark Spencer

    I can address many of those points when I sum up the debate, but I am interested to hear other comments from Members around the Chamber before I do so. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the sector already has some robust regulatory bodies, and we want to give them the power to regulate and oversee this technology. What we do not want to do is bind the hands of those bodies so that, in 20 years’ time, we have to re-legislate for another similar structure. We will have a robust regime in place, albeit heavily regulated, that allows the flexibility for this technology to go in directions that we cannot foresee at this moment.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, I look forward to further comments from colleagues and to responding to them later in the debate.

  • Daniel Zeichner – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    Daniel Zeichner – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by Daniel Zeichner, the Labour MP for Cambridge, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    This Bill is now on its third Secretary of State, and I think the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), is the fourth Minister to speak to it.

    I welcome back the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who took the Environment Act 2021 through Committee. She will be delighted to know that I will never cease to remind her that the Government’s 25-year environment plan was supposed to be for 25 years, not to take 25 years.

    On Friday, we once again saw why the Conservatives cannot be trusted on the environment. They are breaking their own law by failing to come up with critical air, water and biodiversity targets on time. On the same day, the Prime Minister gave up on the UK’s leadership role on climate change by ducking COP27.

    When the Government bring forward such a vague, thin Bill, asking the country to trust them to get the secondary legislation right, they can hardly be surprised that people are sceptical, and we are. Their failure fails Britain, and we all deserve better. This is an important Bill that, with the right regulatory safeguards, will reassure the public and provide the right environment for the research and investment we all want to see. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that good regulation is the key to both innovation and investor confidence.

    This Bill concerns our food. After 12 years of Conservative government, people are fighting to keep their head above water against the rising tide of inflation, which is even higher for essentials such as food. It is no exaggeration to say that people are at breaking point, and the fears for this winter are very real. Despite the possible gains that science and innovation might bring, this Bill does not bring urgent relief to families across the country, but it is an important step in enabling scientific advancements with the potential to deliver huge benefits by helping us to produce our food more efficiently and sustainably.

    Labour Members are enthusiasts for science and innovation, which can help to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, safety and security of our food system, while addressing the environmental, health, economic and social harms that the modern system has unfortunately caused. These are the challenges that Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set out to tackle, but the Government have, of course, completely failed to engage with it seriously.

    However, alongside the challenges, there are opportunities. The UK has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others would follow. Even though they rejected them in Committee, there is still time for the Government to accept the improvements that we and many stakeholders believe are necessary to achieve that goal.

    Gene editing technologies have the potential to deliver great benefits, as well as healthy hard-earned rewards for those who are skilled in developing them. Let me repeat my thanks to the many serious people from learned societies and institutions who have done the thinking, and have spent time briefing me and my team as we grapple with some very big issues. I am grateful for the serious and engaged contributions from those who are deeply sceptical about this technology; they raise serious points, which should be properly addressed.

    Let me particularly cite the work from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Unlike this Bill, which takes the narrowest approach possible, it stood back and asked the bigger questions about our food system, about our treatment of animals, about where traditional selective breeding has brought us to, and about how we might approach novel foods and the great changes that we may see in a very few years. In its recent public dialogue, the results of which were published just a few weeks ago, it demonstrated that the public are quite capable of taking a sensible and considered view, one that sits well with the amendments we tabled in Committee, some of which we raise again today.

    Those who took part in that detailed discussion would not be satisfied with the Bill as it stands, and I hope the Government have taken note. They, like us, want animal welfare concerns addressed. They want transparency and a stronger framework, and they want to be sure that the technology is used for the wider good, not just to maximise returns.

    John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive, pro-science approach that he is taking—it is not surprising, given the constituency he represents. Do we not also need to learn from the experience of the vaccine taskforce, which demonstrated how we can achieve results at pace without in any way infringing on safety and while still applying proper regulation? Is that not the challenge for the Government tonight?

    Daniel Zeichner

    My right hon. Friend, as always, speaks good sense. He is absolutely right; with focus and a proper attempt to meet the challenges we face, it is remarkable what can be done. But this needs leadership and, as ever, it is missing.

    Let me turn in detail to the public interest test and our amendment 3. The potential benefits of gene edited crops include creating plants resistant to extreme weather conditions and diseases, which could reduce the need for pesticides and create higher yields to address rising food insecurity driven by climate change and other factors. Genetic editing could also be used to improve the nutritional quality of food. For example, giving farmers the tools to beat virus yellows without recourse to neonicotinoids is a prize worth having.

    However, we must recognise that any new technology also carries risks: risks of unintended consequences; risks of technology being misused; and risks of commercial pressure being exerted in ways that might not be for the benefit of the wider public. Those are all risks that must be properly recognised and addressed, because unless public and investor confidence is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be squandered. Unfortunately, the Government’s blind faith in the market means this is a laissez-faire, minimalist Bill, which does not come close to an effective regulatory framework to guide and oversee the work of researchers and developers.

    Amendment 3 would therefore require that a gene edited organism has been developed to provide one or more of the public benefit purposes listed, if it is to be released into the environment. The amendment neatly recycles much of the wording in section 1 of the Government’s own Agriculture Act 2020, which lists the public goods that can be funded. We are simply applying the same approach to the development and use of gene editing technologies. We believe they should be used only where that is clearly in the public interest, including, for instance, in protecting a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment; mitigating climate change; improving the health or welfare of animals or plants; and supporting human health and wellbeing.

    Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)

    During the Bill Committee, we heard that one of the potential benefits of these innovations was a possible reduction in the overuse of antibiotics on farms, because we would be able to breed things that are more resistant to disease. Although I welcome that, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the comments on antibiotics made by the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), when she was briefly Health Secretary? Is he concerned about her seemingly relaxed attitude towards these entering the food chain and the impact on public health?

    Daniel Zeichner

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right; people should not be careless about antibiotics and that was not an approach to be encouraged at all. I share her concerns.

    Amendment 3 would strengthen the Bill by harnessing the good that can be created through such technologies and ensuring that they are not developed and used for purposes that would not deliver beneficial outcomes—surely that is an objective we can agree on across the House. We believe that would take the Bill much further forward in establishing the kind of regulatory framework that really would place the UK in a leading position. That sits alongside our new clauses, which would establish a single, robustly independent regulator, along the lines of the very successful and genuinely world-leading Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. That regulator does not just approve an application, but tracks, traces and checks over time. That is an important and very different approach, and one discussed in Committee by expert witnesses.

    Our new clauses would ensure that Ministers’ decisions on gene editing are properly guided by the environmental principles set out under the Environment Act 2021, and that there is no regression from the environmental standards agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, which is pretty important when it comes to trade issues. Our new clauses would build an environment in which the UK really could attract the worldwide talent and investment in gene editing research and development that we all want to see.

    On animal health and welfare, I turn to our amendment 4, which I am delighted to see has been endorsed by Compassion in World Farming and 12 other animal protection organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. The amendment would require a range of animal health and welfare factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a marketing authorisation for a gene edited animal. We appreciate that gene editing can be used in the same way as “traditional” selective breeding to produce fast growth, high yields and large litters, which, sadly, we also know are capable of causing suffering in farmed animals.

    Clearly, we have existing legislation to protect animal health and welfare, but the concern is that we should be very clear at the outset that we do not want to see gene editing used in ways that make it more possible for animals to endure harm and suffering. As the Nuffield Council on Bioethics put it,

    “animals should not be bred merely to enable them to endure conditions of poor welfare more easily or in a way that would diminish their inherent capacities to live a good life.”

    Some researchers aim to use gene editing to improve disease resistance in livestock. Of course, that could be hugely beneficial and could help to reduce the serious harm caused by the overuse of antibiotics, for instance. It would be hugely beneficial if we could find ways to tackle porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs or avian flu. But the public would not want to see gene editing used to allow animals to be kept in poorer, more crowded, stressful conditions by making them resistant to the diseases that would otherwise result.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    When it comes to this genetic technology, the farmers I represent are keen to see this happening in a way that does not harm their animals. They are not out to harm them; they want to protect them. I know that the Minister understands that, as my local farmers and I do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the farmers do not want to see anything happening that will harm the animals?

    Daniel Zeichner

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but of course there are always economic pressures and this is about making sure we guard against those. The Minister will be familiar with the chlorine-washed chicken debate, where lower welfare standards are disguised and the Government are always at pains to assure us, “We’re not going to tolerate that.” So they must not allow new scientific developments to be the tech equivalent; there must be no backsliding.

    Referring to the power of gene editing to reduce the risk of disease, Nuffield’s 2016 ethical review of genome editing highlighted the problem. It said:

    “If this risk were reduced or removed altogether then it might be easier to pack more animals together in crowded spaces.”

    That is the concern, so let us guard against it. We believe we can create a regime that can do much better than that, but it requires this Bill to be strengthened to make it happen.

    On transparency and labelling, the research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that although consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from genetically modified foods, they overwhelmingly want effective regulation of gene edited products, with transparent information and clear labelling.

    The Government are trying to gloss over the issues by inventing the entirely non-scientific term “precision breeding”. I could speak at length about this term; I will not, but there is much dispute about it. It is a term without clear scientific meaning. Frankly, it has been invented by the Government for their convenience and is a misnomer. Telling us in a rather paternalistic tone that we need not worry because there is no difference between gene edited or traditionally bred crops and livestock does not convince. There is a risk that, as worded, the Bill will allow trans-genetic transfer—effectively, GM through the back door. I know the Government deny and dispute that, and we had a lengthy discussion about it in Committee, but I and many others remain unconvinced.

    Leaving that matter aside, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want, and to be able to know, how their food has been produced. Clear labelling is the way to deal with another potentially difficult issue: the legitimately held views of different Administrations in the UK. It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way in which the issue has been handled so far. I suggest that the Government tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.

    Labour is also concerned at the number of key elements of the Bill left to secondary legislation, with little or no opportunity for scrutiny or amendment. The Government must spell out the detail to boost confidence for businesses and consumers. The organic sector and those developing cultivated meat have expressed concerns over the lack of clarity in the Bill, which once again risks driving investment and research elsewhere.

    It should not be forgotten that the Regulatory Policy Committee made a damning impact assessment of the Bill, giving it a red rating because it failed to take into account the impact of creating a new class of genetically modified organism; failed to assess the impact on businesses, especially SMEs; failed to acknowledge and assess competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts; and failed to address the impacts arising from removing labelling and traceability requirements. I hope the Minister will address those points.

    In addition to that list of failures, the Bill fails to address the trade implications of the misalignment in regulation of genetically engineered organisms between the UK’s devolved nations and with our EU neighbours. That could have a significant impact on many food businesses that are struggling to rebuild trade with EU countries despite all the self-inflicted red tape, added costs and barriers that the Government have created.

    John Spellar

    Is not the EU in a slightly difficult position because of a perverse judgment from the European Court of Justice against the views of many EU nations, which would have taken the same rational position as my hon. Friend on gene editing? If we take the lead on this issue and do not wrap ourselves up in endless judicial review and litigation, could we not work with our European neighbours and partners to bring an advance not only in this country, but across Europe?

    Daniel Zeichner

    My right hon. Friend speaks good sense once again. Of course, that quite legalistic judgment was met with surprise by many. The question is how we go forward. Others in Europe are going forward as well. I suspect that we will end up in similar places at similar times, but it would be sensible to end up in a much more similar place than looks likely if we pursue the Bill as it has been developed so far. The worry is the effects that the changes are already having on sectors such as the organic sector, which used to have exports to the EU worth some £45 million a year, according to Organic Farmers and Growers, which rightly remains concerned about the Bill as it stands.

    Much more could be said on a topic that is as fascinating as it is interesting and important, but I will spare the House and direct those Members who are interested to look at the detailed discussion in Committee. Tonight I will end where I started and restate Labour’s commitment: we are pro science and pro innovation. We are in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. Science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon, but to achieve that—to give investors, researchers and the general public confidence—we need a much stronger regulatory framework.

    At the moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is simply to leave it to the market. They think that minimalist regulation is the way forward, whereas we say that good regulation is the way forward—a fundamental divide in this Chamber. I would simply say that, given the evidence from the fundamentalist deregulatory experiment carried out on our country over the last few weeks, one hopes that those on the Treasury Bench might just have learned something.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2022 Statement of the 5G Network Removal of Huawei Equipment

    Michelle Donelan – 2022 Statement of the 5G Network Removal of Huawei Equipment

    The statement made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the House of Commons on 13 October 2022.

    Public telecommunications networks and services are critical to the future prosperity of the UK. 5G offers new technical capabilities through higher data rates, reliable and low latency communications, and machine-to-machine communications. This gives 5G the potential to generate significant economic and social benefits across the digital economy. However, it brings risks as our national infrastructure becomes more dependent on these networks and services.

    To manage the risks to UK national security, the Government have issued a designation notice to Huawei and designated vendor directions to 35 public telecommunications providers.

    The directions place restrictions on the use of Huawei goods and services by those telecommunications providers. This follows long-standing advice from the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and the Government on the use of Huawei equipment in UK public telecommunication networks. The Government have concluded a targeted consultation with telecommunications providers and Huawei and is now, following the passage of the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, placing legal controls on the use of Huawei goods and services for the first time.

    I have set dates by which telecommunications providers should meet the requirements in the direction. Having fully considered consultation responses, and following close consultation with the NCSC, the key deadline to remove all Huawei equipment in the UK’s 5G network by 2027 remains unchanged, as do eight other requirements.

    For a small number of operators, the interim milestones initially proposed before the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic could have led to network outages and significant disruption for millions of customers, with delays caused by covid-19 restrictions and global supply chain issues. In light of this, while I am asking providers to continue to meet the original target dates for the removal of Huawei from network cores and the capping of Huawei in the access network to 35% wherever possible (January and July 2023 respectively), I am setting the legally required date for compliance to December and October 2023 respectively to avoid customer disruption. Providers also now have a legal requirement to report to me on progress in January and July 2023, so I can keep Parliament informed of progress. Providers will also work closely with NCSC through this period, who have confirmed that the adjustments represent a sensible balance between network disruption and network security.

  • Lucy Powell – 2022 Speech on Cutting the Cost of Broadband

    Lucy Powell – 2022 Speech on Cutting the Cost of Broadband

    The speech made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 13 October 2022.

    As family bills rocket as a result of the economic crisis made in Downing Street Labour is today calling on the government and Ofcom to stop a broadband bombshell hitting families and firms with a three-point plan to reign in expected broadband price increases and ease the cost of living crisis.

    Ofcom reports that nearly a third of households (8 million households) are having problems paying for their broadband, phone and streaming bills, double the number last year, and the highest since their records began. In a recent Lloyds Bank survey, 26 per cent of adults not using the internet in the past three months gave “it’s too expensive” as a reason. At the same time, 97 percent of eligible low-income families are currently missing out on a social tariff. Meanwhile, it has been reported that broadband firms are in line for a £1.7 billion windfall as a result of above inflation price rises.

    Labour is calling for:

    1) A reversal of changes the government made in 2019 which allowed regulated wholesale prices to rise with CPI rather than costs, so that telecoms wholesalers and internet service providers don’t get a windfall from sky high inflation whilst families and firms struggle to pay their bills.

    2) Ofcom to investigate and take action to strengthen consumer protections including taking action on mid contract price rises, early termination costs for social tariff customers, and loyalty penalties where long term customers pay more than new customers.

    3) An industry wide social tariff for low-income families. Industry including wholesalers like Openreach, must work with Ofcom and consumer groups to develop a mandatory well-advertised broadband social tariff for low-income families, or the Party will set and legislate for one in government.

    Broadband is the newest utility, an essential for everyday life, not a luxury. Yet the Conservative cost of living crisis means that many families are finding internet access increasingly unaffordable, or impossible. Without access to the online world, children can’t do homework, parents can’t access the labour market, social security, or the best rates for services or goods, and grandparents can’t stay in touch face to face with family over distances.

    Broadband wholesale price increases used to be capped at costs with prices stable over many years. However, in 2019, the government changed regulation so the price of existing Openreach networks could increase in line with CPI inflation instead. Wholesale prices for 2023 will be set this October with inflation estimated to reach a peak of 13 percent. As a result it has been reported that broadband bills could increase by a quarter.

    Lucy Powell MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said:

    “Internet access is a necessity not a luxury, yet the economic crisis made in Downing Street is making it increasingly difficult for families to make ends meet and stay connected.

    “Our three-point plan will ease the broadband bombshell facing families and firms, at a time when they are already facing eye watering energy bills, and mortgage and rent increases. Whilst the Conservatives crash our economy, Labour will ensure accessing and connecting to digital infrastructure powers growth across our economy to ensure people and places aren’t left behind.”

    In her Labour Conference speech Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Lucy Powell pledged a new settlement for the digital age, building on our digital infrastructure to make Britain one of the most connected nations in the world for gigabit broadband, and industrial 5G.

  • Dean Russell – 2022 Statement on the Post Office Horizon IT Scandal

    Dean Russell – 2022 Statement on the Post Office Horizon IT Scandal

    The statement made by Dean Russell, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 12 October 2022.

    The Post Office Horizon IT scandal, which began over 20 years ago, has had a devastating impact on the lives of many postmasters. Starting in the late 1990s, the Post Office began installing Horizon accounting software, but faults in the software led to shortfalls in branches’ accounts. The Post Office demanded sub-postmasters cover the shortfalls, and in many cases wrongfully prosecuted them between 1999 and 2015 for false accounting or theft.

    In May 2020, the Post Office launched the historical shortfall scheme, and applications were received over the following months of that year. The scheme was designed to compensate postmasters, without convictions, and outside of those who brought the group litigation order, for the financial shortfalls that they had to make up and the losses accrued as a result. The Government have supported the Post Office in wanting to put right these historical wrongs and are therefore providing financial support to ensure that those affected receive the compensation they deserve.

    I am pleased to update the House on the positive progress that has been made to deliver compensation for those currently in the scheme. Since the Government’s last update to Parliament, a further 388 further postmasters have received a compensation offer. As of 30 September, in total 82%—1938—of eligible claimants have now received an offer, meaning that £52 million has now been offered. To date, 1,628 claimants have accepted their offers, and compensation payments totalling over £33 million have been made to them, helping to address the historical wrongs suffered by these claimants. It is the stated target of the Post Office to issue 95% of offers to existing claimants by the end of the calendar year. The Government’s ambition remains for the Post Office to have issued 100% of offers in this time.

    In addition to those claimants who are currently part of the historical shortfall scheme, the Government are aware that there are individuals who, for a variety of reasons, were unable to apply for the scheme while it was open. Today, I can announce that the Government will extend their financial support to the Post Office so that it can accept eligible late applications into the historical shortfall scheme.

    The Post Office will be writing out to all individuals who have contacted it about making a late application to the historical shortfall scheme to inform them of this.

    The Government encourage any other individuals who may have been eligible to claim compensation under the historical shortfall scheme to contact the Post Office to discuss their position. Further details will be set out on the Post Office website.

    These late claims will be managed through existing historical shortfall scheme processes, including an assessment by the independent advisory panel, to ensure claims are considered consistently with those already submitted.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the Tallinn Digital Summit

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the Tallinn Digital Summit

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 10 October 2022.

    My dear Kaja, dear Prime Minister Kallas,

    Prime Minister Ngirente,

    Excellencies,

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I am very glad to join you here today in Tallinn at the Digital Summit. Here in Estonia, the keyword of this conference – ‘connectivity’ – has a very special sound. You have next door a country that is trying to use our interconnections as a weapon against us. Because Russia is not only waging war on Ukraine. Russia is waging war on our energy, on our democracies and on our values. Estonia – like many of the Baltic States – has been warning Europe for years about the dangers of our dependency on Russian fossil fuels. You were right, and Europe should have followed your example earlier. Ever since you broke free from Soviet rule, you have been working very hard to get rid of Russian fossil fuels and to disconnect from the Russian grid. You have invested heavily in renewable energy, in LNG terminals, in new interconnectors with the rest of Europe. And on top, you have become global leaders in cybersecurity and in the digital field.

    Today, you are standing strong before a hostile neighbour. So from a small country like yours, comes a great example for our entire European Union. This must be a lesson for all of us, especially as the war in Ukraine has now entered a new phase. Faced with the brave Ukrainian resistance, the Kremlin has once again escalated its aggression to a new level. Putin has launched Russia’s first mobilisation since World War II. He has used sham referenda in an illegal attempt to change international borders by force. All of this, while redoubling his efforts to destabilise global energy security. But this will only strengthen our resolve to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. But this new phase of the war also calls for renewed action on our energy independence, on our infrastructure, and on building new partnerships with the rest of the world. In short, it calls for a new investment into trusted connectivity.

    Today, I would like to focus on three issues in particular. The first one is: We need to protect our critical infrastructure. The second topic is: We need to keep replacing unsustainable dependency with more balanced cooperation. And the third topic is: We need to continue to build trust in global connectivity.

    Let me begin with the physical infrastructure that underpins connectivity. The acts of sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines have shown how vulnerable our critical infrastructure is. Pipelines and underwater cables connect European citizens and the companies across the world. They are the lifelines of financial markets and global trade. And they are essential for services such as modern healthcare, for example, or energy. Submarine fibre-optic cables carry 99% of global internet traffic. And now, for the very first time in modern European history, this infrastructure has become a target. So the task ahead of us is clear: We need to better protect our lifelines of the world economy.

    We have carved out five different strands of actions. Let me briefly reflect on them with you here. First of all, of course, we must be better prepared. The good news is that we have brand-new European legislation, which will strengthen the resilience of critical EU entities. With this new legislation that was done under the French Presidency, what we have to do now is implement it, put it on the ground, that it is really working and developing a track record. Second, we need to stress test our infrastructure. We need to identify the weak points and prepare our reaction to sudden disruptions. We all know how important stress tests are to make sure that everyone knows what to do in case of emergency. We will work with the Member States to do these stress tests in the field of energy and other high-risk sectors, such as offshore digital and electricity infrastructure, for example. The third point is: We will increase our capacity on the European level to respond through our Civil Protection Mechanism, if needed. With this, we can support Member States in case of disruption of critical infrastructure with very practical things – like fuel supplies, generators, shelter capacity. All these things have to be in place. And then, we will make best use of our satellite surveillance capacity to detect potential threats. We have this capacity, we should use it much more to really know what is going on in the different areas of our critical infrastructure. And last but not least, we will strengthen cooperation, of course, with NATO on this subject and partners, like for example our American friends. Critical infrastructure is the new frontier of warfare. And Europe will be prepared.

    In the same spirit, we have to step up our support to our Ukrainian friends. Time and again – you have watched and you have been witnessing this in the last months – Russia has been trying to take down Ukraine’s IT systems. Therefore, the European Union has mobilised financial support for emergency cybersecurity to Ukraine. We have helped move government servers to safe locations. And this direct assistance is multiplied by Member States. Many thanks also to our host, Estonia, you have done a great job on that one. I know you have done a great job on that one because you understand very well, by bitter experience, that in the struggle between democracy and autocracy, the digital sphere is not a sideshow, but it is the front line. This is the critical infrastructure and the question of how we can better prepare to protect the physical infrastructure.

    Let me move on to the second point which is that we have to replace unsustainable dependencies, which we do have, with balanced cooperation that we want with trusted partners. For that, we have to double down on our positive engagement with the rest of the world and continue to act in a spirit of openness, of cooperation, and of trust – that is the motto of this Summit. Just last year, just to give you some examples, we inaugurated the EllaLink transatlantic cable, connecting Europe with Latin America – revolutionary. And we are now deploying a new fibre-optic cable under the Black Sea. It will diversify internet access across Central Asia and reduce dependency on terrestrial cables that go through Russia. This project is one of the typical projects of Global Gateway – we have heard already a lot about it. Global Gateway, as you know, is our big investment project of EUR 300 billion for investments abroad in trusted connectivity. And I am very glad to see here the Prime Minister of Rwanda. We have, for example, a typical Global Gateway project that is building up vaccination manufacturing capacity. With the experience of the pandemic, we have decided to say: ‘Listen, there needs to be manufacturing capacity of mRNA vaccines in Africa, not only for COVID-19 but potentially to later fight malaria, tuberculosis and other deadly diseases.’ And here we have done what is typical for Global Gateway: come with public money but also come with our legal framework, for example for pharmaceuticals, that has to be in place; attract private capital; have a partner on the ground that is working with us to make sure that the project develops. That is one of the typical projects we have and we need more infrastructure like this in our neighbourhood managed and funded through Global Gateway. We also need this kind of infrastructure to connect Ukraine, to connect Moldova, Georgia and the Western Balkans more tightly to our Union. And we can do it. We have the experience. We have shown this. Let me give you a typical example: It was about two weeks after Russia’s invasion that we successfully connected the European electrical grid with the Ukrainian electrical grid. They decoupled from Russia. That was a move, I was told before the war, that was planned for 2024 – so two years ahead of us. We were able to manage that and to do that in two weeks. These are exactly the projects that have to be done through Global Gateway. Here, we needed to really join forces, of course to invest massively, but we did within two weeks what was planned for two years. So now Ukraine is an important new exporter of electricity to the European Union that creates a revenue stream for Ukraine. And our Union can rely on electricity from Ukraine to help tackle the energy crisis. And in case of need, we can provide them with electricity.

    This is just one example in the broad attempt to get rid of Russian energy supplies. We have been working hard over the last seven months, since Russia invaded Ukraine – and we have been working with success to get rid of our dependency on Russian fossil fuels. We have completely cut off the supply of Russian coal. And if I can give you two figures concerning Russian gas: Last year, of all the gas imported to the European Union, 40% was Russian gas. In seven months, we have been able to decrease that dependency down to only 7.5% of Russian gas in the overall supply of European gas from abroad. Again, crucial was here to have the right infrastructure in place. And the good news is that Europe is making more progress by the day. The speed is accelerating because the pressure is high, and that is good. Just some days ago, we inaugurated a new gas interconnector between Bulgaria and Greece. It brings gas from Azerbaijan, and from Mediterranean LNG terminals, not only via Greece to Bulgaria but also to Romania, Serbia and North Macedonia. These examples, these interconnections are game changers for Europe’s energy supply and energy security. This means access to trusted and reliable sources of energy everywhere in our Union. And it means freedom from Russian dependency and freedom from Russian blackmail.

    Dear Kaja, you were so right when you were reminding us of the real price tag that is attached to dependency on Russia. You have been describing it in your introductory remarks. We need to keep this firmly in mind as we transition to renewable sources of energy. Because, yes, it comes with an investment but it is worth it. Because if you look at the dependency, and the price tag that is coming with the dependency, it is much more needed to get rid of this dependency, invest in renewables and find your independence. Every kilowatt-hour of electricity or energy that we receive from solar or wind is not only good for our climate – it is also good for our climate and it is necessary – but it is good for our independence and our security of supply. If we invest more and more into renewables in the future, we have to be, also from the very start, vigilant and we have to be strategic. Because renewables – we want to produce them – often depend on scarce raw materials. And that is another topic that I want to raise here. You all know the magnets for wind turbines, the cells for solar panels, they all need rare minerals or rare raw materials, and you know the examples. By 2030, Europe’s demand for those rare earth metals will increase fivefold – five times what we use today, and today it is already a scarce resource. The first and foremost good news behind this fivefold increase is that it shows that our European Green Deal is moving fast. That is good news. The not so good news is that one country dominates the market: That is China. So we have to avoid falling into the same dependency on China – as we were with oil and gas from Russia. And we have to start now. That is why we are working on a European Critical Raw Materials Act. It will help to diversify our supply chains towards trusted partners – the motto of this Summit: ‘trusted connectivity’. And this will be another crucial domain for Global Gateway. Global Gateway will mobilise the public and private investment that is needed on the ground. Investments in projects abroad that connect us.

    But we also have to do our own homework. And let me switch to topics we sometimes do not look at enough. Let me take the topic of semiconductors, for example, which is a good example of our overarching theme of new forms of cooperation. As you all now, semiconductors are in every digital device, from cars to phones to medical equipment. Without chips – no modern economy. This is clear. Let me give an example, how crucial these semiconductors are in the daily life. We have sanctions: The export of semiconductors to Russia. We have banned all export of semiconductors. The impact of these sanctions is now very real and tangible on the ground in Russia. The Russian military for example cannibalises by now refrigerators and washing machines to take out the semiconductors, trying to get the semiconductors for their military hardware.

    Semiconductors are crucial. But not only for others, they are also crucial for us. Therefore, our aim is to increase our global market share to 20% by 2030. And we have all we need to achieve this. What are we doing? We have world-class research and testing facilities. This is attractive for investors – but not enough to create the necessary ecosystem. Thus, with our European Chips Act we have mobilised billions of investment for development, for mass production of next-generation chips. We have just approved, for example, the first state aid decision, giving the go-ahead to a EUR-730-million investment by a Franco-Italian company to build a new facility in Sicily. It will produce, for the very first time in Europe, large-scale silicon carbide wafers – the base of all semiconductors. And in the coming months, a trusted American company is set to break ground with its new chips plant in Germany – a EUR 17 billion investment. That is what trusted connectivity looks like in reality.

    That brings me to my third and final point: It is about trusted connectivity. Who defines the rules of the game? High-tech is great – but what is the purpose you use it for? Who is setting the standards? Who is setting the standards that will govern and protect our societies? Is it the market? Is it the government like in China? Or is it the human-centric approach that is our European approach? Think of the individual and his or her rights. Take the GDPR, as you know, born in Europe, it might not be perfect – but for the very first time the rules of the game have been defined. And now they are setting data protection and they are setting standards, from here not only in Europe, but also in Silicon Valley for example. They are the benchmark for data protection in Silicon Valley. Or take our Digital Markets and Digital Services Act. Here again, Europe is on the vanguard, bringing the rules of the analogue world into the digital world. For the very first time, there are clear rules on how to deal with topics like hate speech, disinformation, terrorist content online. We are doing the same for product cybersecurity, with a regulation proposed next month.

    Now, setting standards for Europe is good. But it is our engagement with our trusted partners that makes European standards finally global standards. This is one of the reasons for example why our work with the United States, and recently also with India, through our Trade and Technology Councils, is so important – set the standards with your friends. In addition, we have teamed up with the G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure – you were describing it, Kaja. With our combined package of USD 600 billion, we are leveraging not just our investments, that is important, but also our standard-setting power. Thus, step by step, we are re-anchoring the values- and rules-based order on firmer ground in a modern economy. Working with friends, working with partners through trusted connectivity. The Roman statesman, Cicero, famously said: ‘The shifts of fortune test the reliability of friends.’ I am glad to be amongst friends. For we cannot always control what history has in store for us. But we can shape our fortunes, we can influence it – by standing tall for our values, and by standing united with our trusted partners and our friends.

    Thank you very much.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2022 Statement on the UK-US New Comprehensive Dialogue on Technology and Data and Progress on Data Adequacy

    Michelle Donelan – 2022 Statement on the UK-US New Comprehensive Dialogue on Technology and Data and Progress on Data Adequacy

    The statement made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 7 October 2022.

    Today, and on behalf of the UK and US Governments, the UK Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, The Rt Hon Michelle Donelan MP, and the US Secretary of Commerce, Gina M. Raimondo issued the following statement on the launch of a UK-US Comprehensive Dialogue on Technology and Data building on our 2021 commitment to develop a landmark bilateral Technology Partnership, and on significant progress made on UK-US data adequacy.

    0.1 U.S.-UK Technology Partnership

    The United Kingdom and the United States recognise the strategic advantage of technology as crucial for securing our prosperity and security, and for ensuring our shared democratic values are protected and promoted globally. We enjoy many strengths through our joint research, innovation, and investment, and we also face common threats to our safety and security enabled by technology. Only by working together, and with other partners and stakeholders, can we fully realise the advantages of technological advancement aligned with our values.

    To this end, former Prime Minister Johnson and President Biden committed at Carbis Bay in June 2021 to develop a new landmark bilateral Technology Partnership (“the Partnership”) between our countries, to enable a new era of strategic cooperation and protect our technology advantage. Over the past year, important progress has been made across a number of shared priorities under the Partnership, including on:

    • Promotion of bilateral and globally-interoperable frameworks for cross-border data flows, and support for data innovation, including through the launch of prize challenges for privacy-enhancing technologies.
    • A deepening of collaboration on semiconductors, particularly on addressing supply chain vulnerabilities
    • Deeper cooperation on telecommunications supply chain diversification through a UK-US Telecommunications Supplier Diversity Working Group, which ensures regular information sharing and finding opportunities for further collaboration, including joint research and development initiatives
    • Work to address the risks posed by AI and deliver on the AI Research and Development Cooperation Declaration
    • Setting out plans, in a joint statement, for closer working in quantum information sciences and technology.

    Today, building on this strong foundation and the continuing close collaboration between UK and US officials, we are pleased to announce the launch of a new senior-level Comprehensive Dialogue on Technology and Data to further our joint efforts. An annual meeting led by the Director General for Digital and Media at the UK Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Director of Technology and Analysis and Senior Responsible Owner for Technology Partnerships at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; and the Assistant Secretary of Industry and Analysis at the US Department of Commerce and the Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy at the Department of State will set ambitions on a yearly basis to ensure progress under the Partnership. The programme for the coming year will focus on three work strands: Data; Critical and Emerging Technologies; and Secure and Resilient Digital Infrastructure, agreeing and delivering initiatives that support tangible and impactful outcomes.

    0.2 Cross-Border Data Flows

    Data is the key enabler of technology. Access to accurate and secure data internationally drives advances in technology, allowing us to share crucial information, such as life-saving research and cutting-edge technological innovation across our borders. In turn, trust in the use of data fuels our respective economies, societies, shared values, and in realising a more peaceful and prosperous future. Since committing to deepening UK-US dialogue on data flows last December, both countries have accelerated and broadened their discussions on ways in which the benefits of improved bilateral and globally-interoperable cross-border data flows can be promoted and realised.

    In this context, we are also pleased to announce today significant progress on UK-US data adequacy discussions.  The UK welcomes the release of the Executive Order “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities” and intends to work expediently to conclude its assessment, with the aim of issuing an adequacy decision that will restore a stable and reliable mechanism for UK-US data flows. The US intends to work to designate the UK as a qualifying state under the EO, assuming the conditions for such designation can be satisfied, which would enable UK individuals who submit qualifying complaints to access the redress mechanism established under the EO.

    This is a significant step forward in our work on bilateral cross-border data flows, which will facilitate the free and secure flow of personal data from the UK to the US. We are working together to ensure that a deal on UK-US data adequacy upholds the rights of data subjects, facilitates responsible innovation, gives individuals in both countries access to the services that suit them, reduces burdens on businesses and delivers better outcomes for people. Building on our strong bilateral relationship, we will continue to work collaboratively on multilateral initiatives to facilitate trusted global data flows, such as the future of the Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules Forum where we seek to remove barriers to commercial cross-border data flows and the OECD’s work on Trusted Government Access to Data, increasing trust in the lawful government access to data for law enforcement and national security purposes; and to counter the influence of authoritarian and protectionist approaches to cross-border data flows.

  • Maria Miller – 2022 Statement on Lithium-Ion Battery Storage

    Maria Miller – 2022 Statement on Lithium-Ion Battery Storage

    The statement made by Maria Miller, the Conservative MP for Basingstoke, in the House of Commons on 7 September 2022.