Item 12, a legislative consent motion on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. I call on the Minister for rural affairs and north Wales to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths.

Motion NDM8177 Lesley Griffiths

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6, agrees that provisions in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion. I'm extremely disappointed to have to address the precision breeding Bill today. This Bill lifts certain types of gene-editing technologies out of the current definition of genetically modified organisms and the associated legal requirements. Although an England-only Bill, it will create unavoidable consequences for Wales and will undermine the devolution settlement.

When exploring this policy, the UK Government could have engaged the framework process, which was set up to facilitate four-nation collaboration and co-operation after our exit from the European Union. They chose not to. Instead, they pressed ahead with the Bill without acknowledging the implications for Wales and other devolved countries. Members will see in the memorandum we laid that we recommend withholding consent. Members will also note that the Welsh Government's view is that the entire Bill requires Senedd consent due to the effect of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. 

At this point, I would like to say that I'm grateful for the important work done by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to scrutinise the LCM and the Bill, despite the limited time for consideration. I note that in its report, the LJC committee questions whether this Bill is suitable for consideration under Standing Order 29. For the reasons I will outline today, it's the Welsh Government's view that this Bill does make relevant provision in relation to Wales. It is a relevant Bill for the purposes of the consent process. However, more broadly, I support their call for review of the Standing Orders to ensure they are clear and fit for purpose. The Bill and the operation of the UK Internal Market Act does mean, in some cases, that provisions of this Bill will displace Welsh law.

I want to now examine the proposed policy objectives of the Bill. According to the UK Government, the Bill will modernise the genetic modification regulatory framework. They argue it will reduce regulatory and financial burdens and it will make it easier to use new genetic technologies to develop new plants and animals in response to the dual emergencies of climate change and biodiversity loss. These are laudable aims and the Welsh Government has always supported scientific research. It is right to review our laws in response to scientific advancements and new evidence. However, a headlong rush to deregulate, without consulting the other UK nations, is not the right approach. Policy that has significant long-term consequences should be made in a measured and considered way, and we should follow the principles set out in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The Bill sets out a new regulatory framework for gene-edited organisms—so-called precision-bred organisms. If the Bill is passed, it will be easier to release precision-bred plants and animals into the environment. It will be easier to market them and to use them in food. 

What does this mean for Wales? The UK Internal Market Act will apply to sales of precision-bred organisms across Great Britain. We've been working to understand the complex way the precision breeding Bill will interact with UKIMA. There are still many important, unanswered questions. However, it is clear that precision-bred products produced in England will be allowed on the Welsh market without needing to comply with the GM requirements set out in Welsh law. This totally undermines devolution. The Bill will establish a new regulatory framework for the authorisation of precision-bred organisms and safety assessment of precision-bred foods. In practical terms, this will create a dual enforcement approach in Wales, which both businesses and enforcement bodies will need to navigate.

I want to set out the specific arguments for not recommending consent. Firstly, Welsh law restricts the marketing of GM plants and animals. However, as I've already set out, UKIMA means Welsh law will not apply to precision-bred plants and animals when they are brought into Wales from England. So, a precision-bred tomato could be sold in your local shop or your supermarket, and precision-bred animals in your local pet shop. It is very clear to me that Welsh law will be undermined and displaced, and I note the LJC Committee agreed with our analysis of the effects of UKIMA in its report. In its report, the committee also questions whether our analysis of the effects of UKIMA on this Bill is different to that of the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Bill. Although these Bills are different, our approach is consistent. Where the Senedd legislates, they do so free of UKIMA, so primary Senedd legislation in a devolved area can be made free from the requirements of UKIMA. This means the Senedd could correct the position caused by this Bill by making new primary legislation here in Wales. However, we should not need to do so, and our existing law should be respected.

Secondly, the UK is choosing not to mandate labelling of precision-bred organisms. Research by the Food Standards Agency clearly shows most consumers want to know if they are purchasing food containing precision-bred ingredients. However, this is only possible with mandated labelling. Welsh consumers should be able to choose whether to buy these products, but this view is not shared by the UK Government. Furthermore, without labelling or traceability, it would be very difficult for enforcement bodies to enforce the appropriate regulatory regime here in Wales.

Thirdly, I am concerned about the effect that Bill will have on organic producers and international trade. Welsh food and drink exports were worth £640 million in 2021. In that year, Wales had the largest year-on-year percentage increase in the value of food and drink exports when compared with England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is something to be celebrated, and I'm sure all colleagues will agree that Welsh food and drink has gone from strength to strength over the last decade. However, this Bill may bring about practical challenges and costs for businesses exporting precision-bred products. Once precision-bred organisms are in full circulation, how will businesses know and how will they be able to demonstrate their products are free of GM?

Finally, key parts of the Bill—including the regulation of precision-bred animals—are to be set out in future secondary legislation. This makes it very difficult to know how these powers will be exercised and what the further effect will be on Wales. Worryingly, this includes welfare standards for precision-bred animals. Animal welfare is devolved, and these animals could be sold in Wales. However, we will have very little influence on those welfare standards.

I'm also concerned with the lack of scrutiny to which this secondary legislation may be subject, and the extent to which we will be able to object to UK legislation that falls within Senedd competence. I therefore ask Members to withhold consent for this Bill.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We laid our report on this LCM immediately after our meeting yesterday afternoon. The Minister will know we had very little time to consider the memorandum, given that it was laid on 8 December 2022, and we were asked to report by 16 January 2023. That period only included 11 days when the Senedd was sitting, but we've managed to turn it round. We do acknowledge what's been explained to us, that the UK Government's lack of engagement with the Welsh Government on this Bill has contributed to this, and we're disappointed with that, clearly. However, we remain to be convinced that the lack of inter-governmental engagement on this can fully excuse or fully explain the near seven-month delay in the Welsh Government laying the legislative consent memorandum before the Senedd. It has resulted in the time available for meaningful scrutiny to be severely restricted. So, not surprisingly, we've concluded that the delay in laying the memorandum was unacceptable, and it regrettably has prevented Members of the Senedd from undertaking fully the legitimate scrutiny functions in a reasonable period of time, including potentially taking evidence from the Minister and from stakeholders. 

Our report notes the Welsh Government’s view that the Bill makes relevant provision in relation to Wales as a result of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, or UKIMA, as I will now refer to it, and specifically that its requirements mean that the provisions in the Bill will allow the sale and marketing of PBOs—precision-bred organisms—in Wales, which is currently prohibited by Welsh legislation. The Welsh Government concludes that, by virtue of UKIMA, the provisions of the Bill are made for a purpose that is within the legislative competence of the Senedd. Now, we agree with the Welsh Government’s analysis that the effect of UKIMA will be that PBOs could be sold and marketed in Wales, despite existing Welsh law, if those PBOs are lawfully marketable in England. However, and this comes to the crux of it, Standing Order 29 applies where a Bill makes provision 'in relation to Wales'. Unless it modifies the legislative competence of the Senedd, which is not the case in relation to this Bill, it must also make provision for any purpose

'within the legislative competence of the Senedd'.

The substantive clauses of this Bill are limited in their application to England only. Its provisions do not, in our view, apply 'in relation to Wales' so as to engage Standing Order 29. In addition, the Senedd does not have the legislative competence to legislate as to the sale and marketing of PBOs in England so as to render the Bill as making provision

'within the legislative competence of the Senedd'.

In our view, the effect of UKIMA is engaged only by virtue of the Bill becoming an Act and coming into force, and is not a legislative competence issue for the purpose of Standing Order 29, and I'll come to a possible way forward subsequently. We recognise and accept that UKIMA has wider ramifications for Welsh policy. However, the effect of the mutual recognition principle provided for in UKIMA is a separate issue from that of competence and, as a consequence, separate from Standing Order 29. We also note, and this is an important point, that the Welsh Government could have used other Standing Orders as a means of debating the subject matter of the memorandum, which the Minister has explained is vital to debate here in the Senedd. So, we therefore disagree with the statement contained in paragraph 9 of the memorandum that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

'is a relevant bill as it makes relevant provision in relation to Wales because of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020', and I've explained why already. Accordingly, we concluded that the Senedd’s consent is not required for the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.

Before closing, I'd like to highlight that we are surprised—and we raised this with the Counsel General yesterday in an evidence session—that the Welsh Government’s analysis of the effect of UKIMA on existing Welsh law, in the context of the introduction in the UK Parliament of this England-only Bill, appears different to its analysis of the effect of UKIMA on its own Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Bill, when we were told that UKIMA in that aspect 'does not bite' on the Bill and therefore the subsequent Act. So, we therefore recommended that the Counsel General should write to the committee and explain why the Welsh Government is of the view that UKIMA will affect existing Welsh law as a consequence of the introduction of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, but will not affect the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Bill once it becomes law. I suspect, Counsel General, this will be something we'll be coming back to you on.

Our second recommendation—apologies, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'll pull this to a close very quickly—concerns an important issue, relating to UKIMA, that the Minister has touched on. It's vital to ensure that laws to be made in Wales, or Welsh law that's already on the statute book, are effective. It's also important to consider whether law made outside Wales impacts on the purpose and effect of Welsh law. So, we therefore do recommend—and I welcome the Minister's positive response on this—that the Business Committee should ensure that the Senedd’s Standing Orders are reviewed and amended at the earliest opportunity to ensure that they make appropriate provision to ensure the practical effect of UKIMA, which is now upon us and we'll see more of it, is taken into account when considering, for example, Bills under Standing Orders 26, 26A, 26B and 26C and when legislation passing through all legislatures in the UK has an effect on subordinate legislation. Our argument is there is a different way to have this debate and to note it, and that Standing Order 29 is not the appropriate way.

I must admit, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the Minister and the Welsh Government on why they have laid this LCM today and believe that this is a waste of the Senedd's time, and I'm not the only one who believes so. The technicalities of the Bill, as set out in annex A of the explanatory notes, clearly states that the UK Government does not consider that consent is required from this Senedd concerning any part of this Bill, a view that has been acknowledged by the Welsh Government in paragraph 19 of the LCM. In addition to this, the Senedd's own legal services also do not agree with the Welsh Government's assessments that these clauses require Senedd consent. But, if the Welsh Government truly believed that this LCM was necessary, then it should have been tabled within two weeks of the Bill being laid in the House of Commons, not the seven months in which it's taken the Welsh Government to do so. 

Speaking to the Bill itself, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that has the ability to transform the agricultural industry, aiding us in our combined resilience against some of the most significant challenges ahead of us. Be that food security, climate change, disease or cost, precision breeding can be a weapon in our arsenal, securing the future of our agricultural industry for generations to come. 

Now, we must be clear that precision breeding is not genetically modified crops. This isn't artificially adding modified genetics. Rather, this is using pre-existing traditional methods to supercharge investment in UK crop innovation. Precision breeding takes what occurs naturally over hundreds of years and expedites it in a controlled, ethical and safe way. This science is already happening. The Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences at Aberystwyth University, known as IBERS, has led pioneering work, similar to that of precision-bred organisms—PBOs—to develop high-performance grass and clover varieties that are already being used by livestock farmers. Sadly, the Welsh Government's short-sightedness on PBOs and this Bill could potentially see Welsh universities, Welsh academia, miss out on opportunities to be at the forefront of efforts to tackle global food security. Think of the missed opportunity, removing the hope, of Welsh drought- and disease-resistant wheat seed not going to sub-Saharan Africa to help end poverty—an unintended consequence of this legislation not being adopted having a colossal detrimental effect on our Wales and Africa humanitarian programme. 

So, given its undisputable benefits, applicable right across the board from public health to climate change, I am left disappointed and frustrated that the Welsh Government declined to join the Bill last year. If English farmers can increase their yield through PBOs, then this leaves Welsh farmers in Wales at a clear competitive disadvantage. I noted with interest the Minister's concerns, in particular those related to labelling, trade and science, although, across all three fronts, I'm afraid, I must strongly disagree. Concerning the science, DEFRA has shared the technical analysis with you. You possess everything the UK Government possesses. Yet, despite this, you've decided to come to a different conclusion. 

On trade, I would urge the Minister to look at the bigger picture. PBO products will not reach our shelves for at least five years post Royal consent. What is sought is to develop a statutory framework to ensure that, once our trading partners make the same advancements, we have the necessary ability to immediately start trading with our neighbours, because we know the European Union has indicated that they too wish to take a similar route to the UK Government. 

And lastly, labelling. The Food Standards Agency will only authorise products for sale if they are judged to present no risk to health, do not mislead consumers, and do not have lower nutritional value than their traditionally bred counterparts. Based on scientific evidence, PBOs pose no greater risk than what you'll currently find on our supermarket shelves. No risk, but significantly greater reward—that's the opportunity missed by this Welsh Government.

Therefore, Dirprwy Lywydd, whilst we think this LCM is not required, it is before us today, so procedurally we will be voting in favour of the LCM. But we are left bitterly disappointed by the Welsh Government's view on this Bill and urge it to seriously reconsider its position. Diolch.

I regret the fact that we are once again having a debate on another LCM, legislation made in Westminster for England, without any real opportunity for us to consult on it or even scrutinise it thoroughly. But, on the fundamental principle, we on these benches don't oppose the Bill or what it's trying to achieve.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Many people who hear of the Bill for the first time will be concerned that the intention is to allow GM, which is genetic modification, as we heard the Minister say. But, that's not the meaning of 'gene editing' at all.

At the moment, gene editing is part of genetic modification legislation, but it shouldn't be, because they are two very different things, and the intention of the bill is to separate these and to give the ability to scientists and food producers to do what happens naturally in nature. It’s not introducing new genes—that’s not the intention. It’s not some Splice horror film. Gene editing delivers what is already happening naturally in nature, but cuts out the long time that it takes, sometimes hundreds or thousands of years, for genes to cross-pollinate. Indeed, all the food that we eat today comes from plants that have been bred. There are 3,000 plants in use today that have come from extreme plant breeding—for example, pink grapefruit. If you look at seed catalogues, you will see different kinds of vegetables or fruit that breeders have selected and cross-pollinated in order to get a particular breed for sale.

New genes will not be introduced, but rather this will enable minor mutations or changes to DNA in a way that is specifically targeted. This happens naturally, and it can be achieved through screening millions of plants, for example, in order to find the mutation. But, for example, screening every blade of grass is not practical. This could also lead to changes in nutrition in food, making some foods more nutritious and securing resilience in food production.

The new Bill recommends changing the law in order to create a new category of PBO—the precision-bred organism. So, if one uses gene editing to make a new plant or animal, which could have happened naturally anyway, then this will be exempted from the GMO legislation. That’s the intention. This will also mean that smaller companies, such as producers in Wales, could have better opportunities to develop breeds of food, because, as things stand, the current regulation and the cost of making a bid for a right to do this under the GMO legislation is huge, which means that only large multinationals can do this, locking out indigenous Welsh businesses.

There’s also an environmental debate. We need more plant diversity in order to face the challenges of climate change. For example, this could mean that we could develop seeds that could cope in a drier climate with more drought. A recent example is the work of the Scottish agricultural institute, which has been looking at PRRS, which is the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. The Scottish institution has developed pigs that don’t suffer from this particular disease. And it’s possible to see this technology at work as scientists develop ways of tackling various diseases, such as leukaemia. So, the principle is one to support, and it’s regrettable that the Welsh Government hasn’t brought its own legislation forward in this area.

But, finally, I want to note that we are disappointed to see political games being played by the Government. There are valid concerns and that have been listed by the Minister as to the democratic failings of the Bill and the process undertaken, and this is being used, in turn, to justify opposing the LCM. But these same problems that have been highlighted today have also been highlighted with other LCMs in the past, but LCMs that the Government has supported and encouraged others to vote in favour of and support. It would be good to see some consistency from the Government when it comes to LCMs. Thank you very much.

The Minister for rural affairs to reply.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I'd like to thank the three Members for their contributions to this debate. I am grateful to Huw Irranca-Davies and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their scrutiny, and I very much regret that the Senedd has not had longer to consider this Bill. I wrote to the Llywydd on 27 June last year, outlining that the UK Government chose not to work with devolved Governments when developing this Bill, and that really put us on the back foot right from the beginning in a way that I don't think any of us would want. It's a very complex Bill, and my officials have been working very hard to understand exactly what it will mean for Wales, and I think that's also the case with the other devolved administrations.

Sam Kurtz asked why we've laid this LCM. Well, from my viewpoint, I've done it to protect the devolution settlement. Sam Kurtz, as a Conservative, you might not care about that, but I passionately care about that. We’re having to do the work now that, really, we should have done last year, right at the beginning, and if we’d had that proper engagement from the UK Government on the detail of the Bill, I think we would have been allowed to undertake this work at a much earlier stage.

Huw Irranca-Davies referred to a variety of Standing Orders and asked why we laid it under the particular Standing Order that we did. A ‘relevant Bill’ is one that’s under consideration in the UK Parliament that makes relevant provision in relation to Wales, as set out in Standing Order 29. We believe that genetically modified organisms are firmly within the legislative competence of this Senedd, and the precision breeding Bill does not make any provisions directly in relation to Wales. We wanted to take a cautionary approach to genetic engineering, and I fully understand the difference between GM and GE, but we chose to take that approach.

I think what this debate really shows today is that, where the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 negatively impacts on devolution we have to act to minimise its effects, and we will continue to challenge the negative impacts of the Act and champion the rights of this Senedd to legislate without interference in areas devolved to Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies referred to the scrutiny session that you had with the Counsel General yesterday, and the effects of UKIMA on this Bill and the single-use plastics Bill. I know that the Counsel General will be writing to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee on this issue, so I won’t muddy the water here now. I’m very happy to support, if Huw Irranca-Davies and his committee want to write to the Business Committee—and I’m sure that the Llywydd would agree—if you believe in a review of Standing Orders, I’m sure that that would be looked at by the Llywydd and the Business Committee.

I think Sam Kurtz, in his contribution, was really thinking that we'd dismissed this, and I haven’t dismissed it; I don’t dispute that the technology has great promise, and could have great promise, but what I don’t understand is that you can’t see that it’s our duty as lawmakers to carefully consider the evidence for change first and the potential ramifications, and that’s what we are proposing to do. I think we’ve got the time to carefully consider what we do here. So, let's take it. Why not take it? I’ve only had one meeting with the UK Government Minister, and I’ll come to that in a moment, but certainly, my understanding from him was that this will take a couple of years, for the first PB organisms to come on the market. We’ve got the time, so let’s take that time, let’s consider it, and let’s ask for views.

You also asked about labelling, and that was my main question, or one of my main questions, to Lord Benyon, the Minister in the UK Government, and the answer was that, if we labelled this in the way that the Welsh Government has suggested, consumers could believe that there was a safety risk, because it was labelled. Now, in the years I’ve been dealing with Welsh food and drink—and I would have thought Sam Kurtz would agree—consumers want to know where their food is coming from. They want to know what’s in it, because they want to make those informed decisions. So, why not have it if it’s nothing to worry about? If you’ve got nothing to hide, why not have that labelling? So, I think it was really disappointing that the Minister didn’t recognise that.

So, to conclude, we cannot support consent for this Bill. I think it drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement, and, as I said at the outset, I ask Members to withhold consent for this Bill. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? Are there objections? [Objection.] There are objections, and therefore we will defer voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.