← Back to House of Commons Debates
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill - Clause 1
06 March 2023
Lead MP
Mark Spencer
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Foreign Affairs
Other Contributors: 10
At a Glance
Mark Spencer raised concerns about genetic technology (precision breeding) bill - clause 1 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
These amendments aim to provide clarity as to which genetic changes produced through modern biotechnology are acceptable in a precision-bred organism. The original term 'natural transformation' is removed and replaced with features that can be present in a precision-bred organism resulting from the use of modern biotechnology, aligning definitions with corresponding terms in the genetically modified organisms legislation. The aim is to maintain precision-bred organisms containing only changes that could also have arisen in the gene pool through natural variation or through the kinds of directed breeding programmes already in use today.
Theresa Villiers
Con
Chichester
The Bill demonstrates that the United Kingdom can regulate more effectively when making decisions in its own national interest than when it was a member of the European Union.
Robert Goodwill
Con
Hindressham and Southpawsworth
The Bill does not affect traditional methods such as induced mutation using gamma radiation or chemicals like colchicine, which have been used for many years to produce varieties such as Golden Promise winter barley.
Daniel Zeichner
Lab
Cambridge
Zeichner argues that while some improvements have been made, the Government's amendments do not provide a strong and robust regulatory framework required for public confidence. He highlights concerns over the vague definitions in the Bill regarding animal welfare and the lack of an overseeing authority to address ethical issues.
Goodwill intervenes, supporting the bill's benefits for farmers and consumers by mentioning new wheat varieties that reduce acrylamide levels, which can cause cancer. He emphasises the importance of including both animals and plants in the Bill.
Neil Hudson
Con
Epping Forest
Hudson strongly supports the Bill as a veterinary surgeon, arguing it will improve animal health and welfare. He welcomes Government amendments that tighten definitions and introduce more parliamentary scrutiny to protect animal welfare.
Patricia Gibson
SNP
Gibson expresses opposition to the Bill due to its impact on devolved areas of the Scottish Parliament, particularly agriculture and animal welfare. She criticises the lack of consultation with the Scottish Parliament.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Supports the Bill, noting its alignment with farmer needs and genetic advancements. Emphasises benefits such as disease resistance in livestock and crop improvements like allergen reduction and climate resilience.
Expresses gratitude to colleagues for supporting the Bill and acknowledges its importance for scientific progress, specifically mentioning England's role. Addresses concerns about animal welfare by highlighting a step-by-step approach in regulations and future research.
Patricia Gibson
SNP
North Ayrshire and Arran
Intervenes to express disappointment over the Bill's England-only nature, suggesting it will leave Scottish farmers at a commercial disadvantage. Questions the justification for legislating in devolved areas.
Robert Goodwill
Con
Hornsea
Intervenes to argue that SNP's opposition is politically motivated rather than based on scientific grounds, suggesting a potential alignment with EU policies instead of UK interests.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.