That this House has considered the future of gene editing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I secured this debate as gene editing provides immense opportunities to the United Kingdom in boosting growth in our agricultural sector, in supporting our world-leading life science industry and in better protecting our environment for future generations. Being able to diverge from the European Union on the regulation of gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity, but there is much concern that the Labour Government’s EU reset will pause or even reverse the progress made in the UK in setting out a new path to regulate that exciting technology and, in doing so, will sacrifice a key opportunity to help our farming community.
Almost all our domestic animals and plants are the result of thousands of years of selective breeding. Gene editing is best thought of as a modern enhancement of that technique. It is often referred to as precision breeding. It allows scientists to make changes to a plant or animal’s DNA, cutting the DNA strand and then adding, deleting or altering sequences to give beneficial traits, which make for things like disease and drought-resistant crops, or indeed more nutritious crops.
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. This is an incredibly important issue to the farming community that I represent and those across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He is presenting some incredibly interesting facts. Does he agree, however, that we must be careful in any consideration of the future of gene editing to maintain a boundary between gene therapy and gene enhancement? We must ensure that we are not generating superhuman traits, as opposed to seeking to cure genetic traits, which is something we can all agree on. The key issue, as he says, is the issue of drought and disease-resistant crops, which are critical to the farming community.
The hon. Gentleman is a champion of the farming community. He and I, in my previous role, often discussed farming issues, and we both hugely support the importance of food production as a key part of our food security. He is right to draw attention to the fact—I will come to this—that gene editing and gene modification are often confused, when they are very distinct. The crucial point to share with the House is that the changes in gene editing are limited to those that occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding. That is the distinction I will come on to with gene modification. By using gene editing, we can get to a desired trait more quickly. Science therefore accelerates something that could happen naturally, as opposed to being an artificial intervention.
Let me give an example of how gene editing can provide a win-win in practice in our farming community. I represent North East Cambridgeshire, which is the centre of UK sugar beet production. That crop has been severely impacted by virus yellows disease. At the moment, the only way to tackle it is by using a seed treatment, Cruiser SB, which is toxic to pollinators such as bees. Given the downsides for nature, the treatment needs to be granted emergency authorisation on a year-by-year basis. The last time that the authorisation was not made available was in 2020, and 25% of the national sugar beet crop was lost. Without authorisation of something that is accepted as damaging to nature, the crop fell by a quarter, which is a severe consequence.
That led to an economic loss of about £67 million, in an industry involving 10,000 jobs. After some years of approval the current Government have decided that authorisation will again not be available in 2025, which has left the sector with a lot of uncertainty. But instead of requiring us to choose between nature and crop yields, gene editing provides a better solution. Under the previous Conservative Government, a £660,000 grant was made jointly to British Sugar, the agricultural biotechnology company Tropic, and the world-leading plant science institute, the John Innes Centre, to fund gene editing research into sugar beet resistance to virus yellows disease.
The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the potential for gene editing or precision breeding. Does he agree that one of the clearest examples of its promise is the humble potato? During a recent visit that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made to the John Innes Centre, which he mentioned, we met Tropic and saw at first hand how researchers are using precision breeding to develop a blight-resistant potato, a breakthrough that could dramatically reduce the need for fungicide use. It could cut costs for farmers and improve yield resilience in the face of climate change. Does he agree that public engagement and clear, science-led regulation will be key to ensuring that those advancements deliver for both farmers and consumers?
I very much agree. I will come on to public sentiment towards gene editing, which is extremely favourable, but it is helpful to have cross-party support because this is a win-win, as I have said. It boosts yields, helps farmers and reduces the cost of pesticide. It is also a huge benefit to nature. The hon. Member is right to praise the John Innes Institute, which is world leading. That is another reason why we should seize the opportunity that science offers.
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. No one should underestimate the importance of gene editing and its advancement. Does he agree that there is a problem in the devolved regions? Because of the EU law that is applicable to Northern Ireland, we will be behind the curve and could see England advance with gene editing while the rest of the devolved nations lag behind, because of Europe.
The hon. Lady raises an important point. By embracing innovation in the technology, we can lead and, by leading, show the benefits to farming and nature that the EU may wish to follow. The EU regulation is cumbersome. It brings gene editing within the fold of gene modification. The pace of change is slow and its scope more limited. It is better to move ahead and show the benefits, rather than wait for the back-marker to see if they eventually come to the table and make the changes, many years after elsewhere in the world has moved on. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the pace of regulatory change and the sluggish nature of the EU.
The opportunity of this technology is not far away. I mentioned a moment ago the grants that we had awarded for research into virus yellows disease. Researchers hope to have plants by the end of this decade that, if successful, will do away with the need for the harmful treatments and the dilemma that Ministers face as to whether to grant emergency authorisation. That would protect British sugar beet farmers from potentially catastrophic losses, while also increasing crop productivity and resilience, and at the same time increase sustainability and bring direct benefits to nature. I have long believed that there is an opportunity to see farming and nature not as opposites, but as complementary, and we can boost farming in ways that also are beneficial to nature.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about the public response, and he is right to do so. I am pleased to note that the public at large support gene editing because of its environmental and economic benefits. A recent study found support among the public at 70% across the population as a whole. Interestingly, that rose to 80% among generation Z, so there is widespread support among the public. But if we are to realise the benefits and capitalise on that public support, we need to get the regulation right.
That brings me, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned a moment ago, to European regulation. Back in 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that gene-edited crops are subject to the same 2001 legislation as gene-modified organisms. Yet, as we touched on, the two techniques are very different and should not be confused. Gene editing speeds up changes that could occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding; it is unlike gene modification, which is where DNA from different species has been introduced to another, creating new types of plants and animals that could not have come about through natural methods. As a result, gene editing is a much lower and different risk, and should be treated in regulation differently from gene modification, but that is not the position of the European Union.
The right hon. Member raises a very important point: the Government may be cutting funding for farming, but they are very much pursuing climate change goals. Farming is facing periods of extreme weather—we have just had some of the driest and wettest months on record. One of the great successes of gene editing was dwarf wheat, which was drought resistant and allowed places such as Mexico and India to become net exporters of food. Would pursuing gene editing for British farmers not offer them protection against climate change and therefore protection against cuts to the farming budget?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that builds on the earlier intervention on public support. One of the sweet spots of this area of policy is that it is beneficial to farming—because it cuts costs on things like pesticides and increases yield—but it is also hugely beneficial to nature, in terms of climate change. It is also beneficial for the public purse, because gene editing is a way of using science, in essence, to drive productivity and nature-beneficial schemes, rather than simply spending public money.
For context, I am sure the Minister will have seen the farming figures this morning. The Government borrowed £20.7 billion in June alone—the highest figure since records began, with the exception of June 2020, during peak covid. That is not an isolated figure. If we look at the previous month, the Government borrowed £17.7 billion in May. That was also the highest on record for May—again, with the exception of May 2020. So the Government are borrowing record sums, and the Department’s budget is under pressure—all the more reason not to sacrifice genuine scientific opportunities, particularly those that, as we have explored, have widespread public support.
Will the Minister recognise that gene editing jointly serves the goals of food production and protecting nature, and ensure that we do not give away our competitive advantage? Specifically, will he confirm that the £12.5 million from the recent farming futures research and development fund for the precision breeding competition—aimed at mid-stage precision breeding projects—will be paid in full? Will he also confirm that funding will be made available directly to farmers to take part in field trials, so that the science actually progresses?
In conclusion, gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity. It can boost economic growth, support food production, help protect our environment, and give us a competitive advantage over other countries. To sacrifice that as part of some UK-EU reset negotiations would be a serious mistake. It would be another example in a long list of decisions where the Department has been overridden by the Treasury.
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. Let me congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay)—my near neighbour and colleague—on securing today’s debate on such an important policy area. He is clearly deeply knowledgeable on issues relating to EU negotiation and, as we have heard this morning, on matters relating to precision breeding. I will be watching later today to see whether he is seamlessly edited back on to his party’s Front Bench; I wish him well with that.
I found myself being taken back to what was for me one of the most rewarding times in Parliament—sitting on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee. We had many of the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has taken us through this morning. That Bill was a very good piece of cross-party work; there has been considerable cross-party consensus on this topic, although there are areas of disagreement.
This Government were elected just a year ago on a manifesto absolutely promising to kickstart economic growth. We want to work with industry to remove barriers to growth and to seize new opportunities. Key to achieving that is seizing the opportunities presented through harnessing innovative technologies. As the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, I genuinely want to realise the benefits of new technologies to help us address many of the challenges, set out today, that face our agricultural system: to meet our environmental goals, to support productive and profitable British farmers, and to meet the Department’s key priority of achieving food security. Food security, as we all acknowledge, is national security—but, in a world of many different challenges, it is becoming harder to achieve. Precision breeding can play an important role.
The right hon. Gentleman set out many of the opportunities associated with breakthrough precision breeding technologies and how they can help to transform and modernise our food system, making it fit for the future. I remember standing in fields near Bury St Edmunds with people from British Sugar and others, looking at varying degrees of decaying sugar beet plants attacked by virus yellows. We absolutely need to find ways of meeting that challenge. I was very struck by the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) about potatoes. Farmers face real challenges. We need to equip them to meet those challenges.
Sitting suspended.
Even the European Commission has realised that its regulatory approach is not fit for purpose, but progress is remarkably slow in changing it. While it is working on its own legislation, it will come years later and be more limited in scope than what we have done in the United Kingdom. After Brexit, the UK was able to diverge, which is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which removed precision-bred plants and animals from the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system. The Act created a new framework for their oversight and provided the Secretary of State with powers of secondary legislation.
I commend the Government and the Minister on pressing ahead with the required secondary legislation to bring this new system in for plants, which is due to come into force in November. So why the need for this debate? This debate is needed because I fear that the current optimism is a high point in this journey and that we are about to see the UK surrender the advantage that will help our farmers and our nature, and that has been gained with the primary and secondary legislation in place. To prevent that, I am seeking assurances from the Minister in three key areas: implementation, further expansion, and funding.
First, on implementation, the Prime Minister’s EU reset at the UK-EU summit included plans for sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. To achieve that, the EU has suggested that dynamic alignment will be required of the UK, meaning that all relevant EU rules will apply to UK goods. As a result, some experts have suggested that there would need to be a pause on the UK’s progress in taking forward more effective regulation of gene editing, and that we would need to then wait while the EU spends potentially years putting in place its own more limited reforms.
Waiting would hold back centres such as the John Innes Centre, UK science and development, and give up our hard-won commercial competitive advantage in terms of the sector and the jobs it employs. I mentioned how important gene editing crops will be to areas such as my constituency, and to leading businesses such as British Sugar, which works with over 3,500 growers and is concerned about alignment on this matter. It would urge the Government not to sacrifice the UK bioscience sector’s progress on gene editing in the UK-EU trade negotiations and to recognise that delaying the use of the technology in the UK would put us at risk of falling behind other countries using it. I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis and assessment. Will the Minister confirm that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 will come into force in November this year, and that there will be no delay?
Secondly, on further expansion, I note that only regulations on gene editing plants have been brought forward. It was always the intention that plants would be first, and that regulations relating to animals would come second. This will provide another opportunity compared with the European Union. Discussions at an EU level suggest that animals will be excluded from its regulations, whenever they eventually emerge. It is vital that we capitalise on that opportunity, too. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to bring forward the required secondary legislation under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2023 to remove precision-bred animals for the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system?
Finally, on funding, I know the challenge that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers will be facing when it comes to negotiations with the Treasury, having been within both DEFRA and the Treasury, and given that farming is seemingly not a priority for the Labour Government, with £100 million of cuts to farming and countryside programmes announced in the spending review. Given that spending backdrop, one might have thought the Minister would want to maximise opportunities to boost farming and nature, which do not come at a cost to the Treasury.
There is still time. The legislation is in place; the regulations are there. Can the Minister confirm today that gene editing will continue to be a priority, and that the UK Government will secure the advantages that it offers?
The Government have taken action in England by introducing a new science-based and enabling regulatory framework for precision breeding. With that cross-party support, we passed the secondary legislation needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for plants in England. It is absolutely vital that we support that work. It has also been recognised as a key part of engineering biology, a critical subsector within the Government’s recently unveiled industrial strategy. That is no surprise, because in our country we are renowned for scientific excellence.
I represent Cambridge. We are home to a world-leading fundamental plant science research base, with regional clusters of excellence across the UK. I pay particular tribute to the work that goes on in and around Norwich, particularly the John Innes Centre. I am very proud of the work that goes on in this area, including in and around Cambridge in my part of the world and including the work of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany.
The Government recognise the importance of unlocking the opportunities presented by precision breeding. I assure the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire that our commitment to financial investment is secure. In July 2024, we announced the latest round of crop genetic improvement network programmes—GINs—supported by up to £15 million in funding over five years to boost breeding research for key UK crops. The latest programme includes funding for research into precision breeding.
Earlier this year, under the farming innovation programme, the Department announced a £12.5 million competition focused specifically on precision breeding, which the right hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about. As part of the industrial strategy, at least £200 million was allocated to the programme up to 2030, which precision breeding will continue to be in scope for.
The right hon. Gentleman raised further concerns that I ought to address—in particular, the impact of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that we are working on with our European neighbours. He asked how precision breeding will fit into that. The new agreement will establish a common sanitary and phytosanitary zone between the UK and the EU, making agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier by cutting costs and red tape for businesses who export to and import from the European Union. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, on the day that was secured, many food businesses were very pleased, because of the problems they have had over the last few years.
On the precision breeding point, the EU has accepted that there will be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. With the principles and framework of a deal agreed, we will now need to negotiate the detail of an agreement. The Government have been absolutely clear about the importance of supporting new and innovative technologies, so we remain committed to moving forward with the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and we have engaged with industry to help inform our approach to further discussions with the EU. We will continue to do so.
Although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, published a proposal for the regulation of plants by, to use the EU terminology, “new genomic techniques”. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and will continue to do so as progress is made in trilogue discussions. Those proposals are similar to those that we brought forward in the 2023 Act, but I fully acknowledge that the EU is behind us. That has been the argument for some years—indeed, going back all the way to that 2018 court case. We therefore understand that it will be some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU.
However, that is a problem because this is a growing global sector and Europe is falling behind, so investment is going elsewhere—only 5% of venture capital investment in the sector currently comes to Europe. With the new regulations, we have the potential to be at the forefront across Europe and to be a major global competitor in this rapidly growing industry. We need to invest in this sector now, in order to realise the opportunities of precision breeding for tackling issues around climate change and food security. We do not have time to delay.
Let me say a little about the devolved Governments. We recognise the valid concerns that people have raised about the issues of divergence within the UK—there was an intervention to that effect today—including the concern that farmers and businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will miss out on the opportunities presented by the implementation of the 2023 Act for plants in England. That is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Administrations to discuss potential impacts. That engagement builds on regular monthly meetings with counterparts at official level and will support future ministerial engagement at the interministerial group.
Input from the devolved Governments has been invaluable in shaping our approach and objectives to the agreement, ensuring that it will deliver tangible benefits for the whole of the UK. DEFRA has engaged closely with devolved Government officials and Ministers in the run-up to the UK-EU leaders summit, and will continue to do so as we prepare for detailed negotiations with the EU. The timing and format of negotiations will be subject to the outcome of further discussions, but we are committed to engaging closely throughout the negotiation phase to ensure access to timely and expert input from the devolved Governments.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked about the situation of animals in the 2023 Act, and many people are keen to know more about the Government’s plans and timelines. We are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration. In keeping with the previous Government’s approach, which the right hon. Gentleman will remember from that time, while the research is continuing no decision has yet been made about bringing forward legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to animals.
In conclusion, I again thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire for securing this debate. It is so important that we send out a powerful message to investors across the world that this is the place to come and invest. Harnessing innovation in precision breeding can help us to achieve several priorities, including bolstering food security and championing British farming, helping to mitigate and adapt to climate pressures, and driving the Government’s missions on growth and health. The growth potential of this industry is evident; we have the opportunity to be at the forefront of it. I am absolutely determined that that will be the case, and the Government strongly recognise the importance of precision breeding. Let me reiterate our commitment to that technology and to securing its success in our country.