The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair: †
Annette
Brooke
†
Bain,
Mr William (Glasgow North East)
(Lab)
†
Blenkinsop,
Tom (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)
(Lab)
†
Clappison,
Mr James (Hertsmere)
(Con)
†
Crockart,
Mike (Edinburgh West)
(LD)
†
Dakin,
Nic (Scunthorpe)
(Lab)
Donaldson,
Mr Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley)
(DUP)
†
Drax,
Richard (South Dorset)
(Con)
†
Duddridge,
James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
†
Hopkins,
Kelvin (Luton North)
(Lab)
†
Jones,
Graham (Hyndburn)
(Lab)
†
Kawczynski,
Daniel (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
†
Paice,
Mr James (Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs)
†
Spencer,
Mr Mark (Sherwood)
(Con)
Alison Groves, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
The following also attended,
pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Connarty,
Michael (Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
(Lab)
European
Committee
A
Monday
31 January
2011
[Annette
Brooke
in the
Chair]
Animal
Cloning for Food
Production
4.30
pm
The
Chair:
Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee
wish to make a brief explanatory statement on the decision to refer the
relevant document to this
Committee?
Kelvin
Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab):
We usually make a statement
at the beginning of such Committees. There are several members of the
European Scrutiny Committee here, but we have not been given a
statement on this occasion, so I assume that we shall not be making a
statement
today.
Mr
James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con):
The hon. Gentleman is
absolutely correct. In the circumstances, I shall therefore make a
brief statement on behalf of the Committee without the prerequisites to
which he
referred.
Today,
the Committee is considering a European Union document in the form of a
report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council
on animal cloning for food, as opposed to animal cloning for research
purposes. As members of the Committee will have gathered, the document
we have been given raises issues on animal welfare and related ethical
matters, and the European Scrutiny Committee considered that in view of
the public interest in such matters, it was a suitable document for
debate with which to gauge the opinions of hon.
Members.
The
Chair:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that statement. I
call the Minister to make a
statement.
4.31
pm
The
Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Mr James Paice):
Thank you, Mrs Brooke. This is the first
time that I have served in Committee under your chairmanship, which I
am pleased to do, and I welcome you to the Chair. This is also the
first time that I have taken part in a European Committee debate from
the Government side of the room. Having held the Opposition post for
some years, asking questions on such matters, I am on the other side of
the fence. I shall certainly do my best to answer questions in due
course.
I
shall start with a matter that is relevant, particularly in light of
the comments that we have just heard. The issue is in a state of flux.
Obviously, we are happy to discuss Government policy and, indeed, the
European proposals, but I emphasise that there is dispute between the
European Parliament, which has adopted one position; the Commission,
which has adopted another; and the European Council of Ministers, which
has not adopted
a position at all. Discussion is still taking place on some aspects of
the Commission’s report. It is only a report, not a legislative
proposal.
Although
I shall obviously discuss the viewpoint that the Government have taken
on the subject, I emphasise that it is still far from settled as to
where, if anywhere, the issue will be resolved before any legislative
proposal comes forward. The Commission published its report on 19
October. It is a useful summary of all the issues relating to cloning
for food production. The key points are that the Commission recommends
a five-year suspension on cloning, and food from clones. I stress that
that is just the food from the clone itself, rather than its
descendants. The Commission also recommends new requirements to enable
the industry to set up a voluntary traceability system, which would
involve making it clear whether imported semen and embryos were derived
from cloned
animals.
As
the Committee will see from the motion, the view of the Government is
that a ban is unnecessary and that a ban should be introduced only when
there are compelling reasons. We take the view that such regulation
should be based on sound science, and that it should be risk-based and
proportionate. All the scientific advice that we have received is that
there is no case for the suspension or five-year ban. However people
want to phrase it, that would be the impact of the proposal and it
would be
disproportionate.
One
of the main reasons for that advice is that cloning is a new science,
especially when applied to animals farmed for food production. It is
advancing very quickly, and to ban it for five years would be to ignore
any developments that might occur in those five years and how some of
the issues, which I am sure we will discuss in a few minutes, might be
resolved, perhaps well short of those five years. Therefore, we do not
believe that there is a case for it. We also need to be mindful of the
Foresight report that was published last week by the
Government’s chief scientific officer and not close our minds to
new
technology.
The
main reason why many people are justifiably and understandably
concerned about cloning relates to animal welfare, which has already
been touched on. There are welfare implications to cloning, and we
fully recognise that. However, as far as this country is concerned, we
think that our welfare legislation is adequate to deal with any such
problems. We also believe that if problems arise with any animal, those
responsible for the animal must take the necessary action to deal with
them. Cloning technology is, as I have said, advancing very quickly,
and the welfare aspects are also improving all the time. I stress that
we accept that there are some welfare issues, but existing legislation,
primarily the Animal Welfare Act 2006, contains a duty to care, and
makes it an offence to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering
or fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. On top of that,
the Committee will be aware of the regulations on the welfare of farmed
animals in England, which implement the EU framework directive, which
is highly relevant here. It
states:
“Natural
or artificial breeding or breeding procedures which cause or are likely
to cause suffering or injury to any of the animals concerned must not
be
practised.
This
provision shall not preclude the use of certain procedures likely to
cause minimal or momentary suffering or injury, or which might
necessitate interventions which would not cause lasting injury, where
these are allowed by national provisions.”
It continues, in
paragraph
21:
“No
animal shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can reasonably be
expected, on the basis of its genotype or phenotype, that it can be
kept without detrimental effect on its health or
welfare.”
The
Government argue strongly that there is no need for further regulation.
We think that cloning and its welfare consequences, or potential
consequences, are covered by the provisions to which I have just
referred. That is why we need to look at existing regulation and check
that the EU regulation can deal with those problems. We believe it
can.
By
way of a brief introduction, I would like to refer to food safety. I
need to stress that the matter is covered by the Food Standards Agency.
Under the EU Novel Foods Regulation, food from non-traditionally bred
animals must be approved before it can be marketed, and we have already
had debates in the House and a Select Committee discussion on the
subject. Cloning is clearly not a traditional breeding technique, and
therefore comes under the scope of that regulation. There was debate,
when the matter cropped up last autumn, on whether the issue is just
about the food from clones themselves, or about food from the offspring
of clones. Cloning, to the best of our knowledge, is not taking place
in the UK. Indeed, we are not aware of any company offering a cloning
service in the EU. The FSA and the European Food Safety Authority have
advised that for cattle and pigs, which is where the work is going on,
current evidence suggests that meat and milk from healthy clones or
their offspring are as safe as those from traditionally bred animals.
That view, published in November, was supported by the Advisory
Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. On 7 December, the FSA
announced that it was minded to amend its advice. Initially, the advice
had been that food from all the descendants of clones in perpetuity
should be covered by the Novel Foods Regulation, but on 7
December the FSA proposed to exclude offspring; in other
words, the advice will relate only to the clones
themselves.
I
hope that what I have said has been helpful as an introduction but,
obviously, I am happy to answer
questions.
The
Chair:
We have until 5.30 for questions to the Minister. I
remind hon. Members that questions should be brief. I will call the
Opposition spokesman to ask up to three questions. As we go
round, I will take supplementary questions if it makes sense to do so,
but otherwise we will continue until questions are
exhausted.
Mr
William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab):
It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairpersonship for the first time, Mrs
Brooke.
Last
week, I was privileged to visit the European Parliament in Brussels and
to speak to many of its Members about agricultural issues, and
particularly about cloning. I am aware of the profound passions and
concern of Members of the European Parliament, and that reflects the
interests of their constituents and
ours.
Page
14 of EU document 15277/10, on the Commission’s proposal to
introduce a five-year moratorium on the accessibility of material only
from cloned animals in the food chain—not
research—states:
“As
operators would be required to mention in existing certificates whether
or not the reproductive material derives from a clone, the
administrative burden is
limited.”
In
the Minister’s memorandum, I cannot find any detail about why he
disagrees with that. Will he provide that
detail?
Mr
Paice:
In short, I will have to come back to that point,
not least because I cannot find the page to which the hon. Gentleman is
referring—sorry, I have misplaced the
document.
Why
do we disagree on the five years and on traceability? The purpose of my
opening remarks was to explain that. I am sorry if I was not clear. The
science of cloning is moving so fast that temporarily to
suspend or ban cloning in the EU for five years would be
disproportionate, bearing in mind the advance of science. We cannot see
what changes or improvements may arise in the next one, two or three
years, but they might resolve some of the welfare problems about which
people are concerned, and this is a welfare
issue.
To
pick up the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comment about his
discussions with Members of the European Parliament, I readily accept
that there are many views in the European Parliament and some of them,
certainly in discussions that I have had, relate to ethics. In this
country, we do not have ethical legislation, except on human
fertilisation and embryology, so I cannot address the ethical
issue.
I
am sorry if I was not clear on traceability. We do not have the
facilities for it. What is proposed is a voluntary approach requiring
semen and embryos from cloned animals to be identified on import
certificates, which would be possible. Clearly, it would be voluntary,
and we are not desperately against any voluntary agreement that people
want to implement, but I have to say that it would be technically very
difficult. The proposal becomes more difficult in that it would require
that the cloned status of the parent be included on pedigree
certificates. That prompts the whole question of where we go from
there, because any subsequent information system would not deal with
the offspring of clones that may already be in the EU. We know that
there are clones in the EU. To the best of our knowledge, cloning is
not going on in the EU, but clones have come in, primarily from
America. Certainly the ones in the UK have come from the United
States.
We
do not have any means of dealing with imported food derived from
animals with clones in their ancestry. If it was simply dealt with on
the import certificates, it would be relatively straightforward. If it
is a voluntary scheme, of course, we do not need agreement; people can
do it anyway. The Government’s view is that we do not
see what that would achieve on its own. To go beyond that to a
full-scale traceability system would be disproportionate and
unnecessary, bearing in mind the points that I have already made about
food safety. The requirement to add information to pedigree
certificates would need an amendment to legislation, which would make
it more complicated. I hope that is
helpful.
Mr
Bain:
On the review clause after five years, according to
the Commission document, its purpose is to ascertain and gain the
science and additional research to which the Minister referred. As he
pointed out earlier, the principal concern is not about food safety,
with which
the FSA in this country has dealt very readily in the past couple of
years, but animal welfare. If he does not believe that a period of five
years is proportionate, what period would he deem proportionate,
particularly given the votes cast by his Conservative colleagues in the
European Parliament, which were with the Socialist
group for the
ban?
Mr
Paice:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not wise to
start bandying about our colleagues’ voting procedures in the
European Parliament. I can match every one of his examples the other
way round, so we will not play that game. However, he makes an
important point, and picking a period of time is precisely the problem.
I do not pretend to be an expert scientist and highly knowledgeable
about where science is on cloning technology, and I venture to suggest
nor is the hon. Gentleman. I do not mean that offensively, but I expect
that that is the case. We do not know what technological development
may be around the corner, or what may happen within days, weeks or
months. Yet if we have banned it for five years, we have lost it for
five years, and we may lose out by not being able to take that advance
forward. The point is that it is only by scientific trial, test and
analysis that we move a scientific technique forward. What the hon.
Gentleman seems to be suggesting is that if we banned it for five
years, we would be entirely dependent on the science and technology
continuing to take place in the United States or somewhere
else—not in Europe—and then we would benefit if the
science has advanced in five years’ time. That is the wrong
approach. We should be prepared to say that if companies in Europe want
to move forward with cloning and develop the science here, they should
be enabled to do so, particularly, I stress, as we believe that the
animal welfare issues are covered. Companies would be discouraged from
taking a step too far in scientific research if they risked being
prosecuted under the welfare
legislation.
Mr
Bain:
The Minister will be aware that under the EC treaty,
as amended by the treaty of Amsterdam, animals are recognised as
sentient beings for the purposes of EU law. Again, why does the
Minister believe that a policy of having no review period and no
moratorium is the best way of discharging the responsibility that
member states and European institutions have towards such ethical
questions?
Food
labelling is connected with the ethics, the science and the
traceability system. Is the Minister aware that his Conservative
colleagues in the European Parliament, together with other Members in
that Chamber, have addressed concerns about food labelling? They are
urging further regulation, to ensure that the country of origin of
cloned products—perhaps America, Brazil or Argentina—is
dealt with. What is his
response?
Mr
Paice:
The hon. Gentleman introduces the word
“ethical”—he looks askance, but he has just
challenged me about a moratorium on an ethical question. That is not
what we are talking about. Yes, I fully accept that cloning raises
ethical issues, but we have no legislation on ethical questions on
which to base any
decisions.
I
thought that the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question was about a
moratorium on the science, based on issues of animal welfare, to which
he rightly referred and
which I readily accept are of concern. Of course I accept that animals
are sentient beings, as he reminded us, but nowhere else to the best of
my knowledge do we introduce a moratorium simply because something
involved in research is a sentient being. The idea of a moratorium
would primarily, I guess, be for those who do not want a
particular scientific development at all—they think that if we
can keep putting it off, we might put it off
permanently.
My
argument is that science is moving forward all the time and we should,
therefore, have an ongoing dialogue with the science profession about
how to address the issues. If, on the animal welfare front, scientists
took an unnecessary risk—I read out the European regulation
earlier—and actively put at risk the welfare of either the
cloned individual or its surrogate mother, they would risk prosecution
under the Animal Welfare Act. Therefore, it is for scientists to judge
how they are taking that
forward.
The
hon. Gentleman then brought in a second issue—relevant, but
totally different—namely, labelling. Much of the debate about
food labelling in this country has involved the offspring of clones,
but he referred to food from clones themselves. We have to draw a
distinction. At the moment food from clones would require permission
under the Novel Foods Regulation and, currently, it is banned. No food
from clones—from America, Argentina or anywhere else in the
world—can come into our market, so the issue of labelling does
not arise. It does not arise because the practice is
banned.
Labelling
comes up if some food from the offspring of clones has gone into the
food chain—as we all know, that has happened, albeit
accidentally. I know the hon. Gentleman is not on the Select Committee
on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but we had a long debate on the
problem with labelling, which the Committee is looking
into.
Such
legislation cannot be enforced, because all the scientific advice we
have suggests that there is no way of identifying whether a particular
piece of meat or milk, for instance, has come from the offspring of a
clone. The genetic make-up of such meat clearly does not identify any
differently from that of ordinary meat—similarly with milk or
other dairy products. Therefore, labelling would be impossible to
enforce, even if regulation were in
place.
Mr
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con):
I thank the Minister for
clarifying some of the animal welfare issues, which have been of
concern to
me.
Has
the Minister had any discussion with the Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons? Would he do so, if at any point in the future it expressed
concern about animal welfare? My impression is that some of the
practices are invasive, in particular to the dam of a cloned animal.
Embryo transfer is common in the livestock industry, but my
understanding is that cloning technologies are more invasive than
embryo transfer. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Royal
College of Veterinary Surgeons? Is he satisfied that current animal
welfare legislation is sufficient to ensure no welfare
breaches?
In
addition, I hope that the Minister recognises that any animal’s
value is fundamentally attached to its traceability, so the livestock
industry is keen to ensure that that is fully in place. I do not regard
traceability as
an issue, because those who are involved in the industry will be keen to
ensure that an animal is fully traceable—often its value is
linked to its genetic make-up.
My only other
concern, which is probably not within the Minister’s remit, is
the size of the gene pool. Am I allowed this many
questions? Probably
not.
The
Chair:
No.
Mr
Spencer:
I will be quiet, then. How large would the gene
pool remain if the industry were to go down the cloning route? Will the
Minister be in a position to influence that matter as we move forward?
I am sure that I have abused my position, but I thank you for your
patience, Mrs
Brooke.
The
Chair:
As long as the questions keep flowing—that
is
important.
Mr
Paice:
I have not had any discussions with the RCVS, but
there is guidance for vets on artificial breeding techniques. Vets are
required to ensure that there are sound and acceptable reasons for
using the invasive technique. My understanding is that cloning is not
as invasive as my hon. Friend believes it to be; I might have got that
wrong. Certainly, it is an embryo transfer procedure, which is no
different from the embryo transfer that is now commonplace in
agriculture, as he rightly said. I understand cloning creation involves
a laboratory procedure from a few cells, but I do not know precisely
how invasive such a procedure is. I assure him, however, that the
guidance for vets already covers that.
On possible
breaches of animal welfare, I must be honest and say that I can never
be satisfied that nobody will break the law at some stage—that
is why the law is there. I am satisfied, however, that it is adequate
to deal with such breaches if
necessary.
On
traceability, my hon. Friend is quite right—genetics are a very
important part of modern livestock breeding. People are anxious,
therefore, to be able to trace high- quality animals back. I suggest,
however, that that does not guarantee that all the offspring of a clone
will always automatically be traceable. First, with cattle, for
example, there is no facility to mention cloning on the cattle
passport. Secondly, at some stage offspring become
commercial—they go into the meat chain or are simply used to
produce milk, at which point their ancestry may be a lot less
identifiable, particularly if they are only a steer. There are no
passports with pigs, so there is not even a paper trail to follow to
identify their parentage.
I have no
knowledge about the impact on the size of the gene pool were cloning to
become commonplace. It will be a long while before that happens, so
there is time to work that out. Cloning could be advantageous in
situations where gene pools have become very small, particularly with
some of the rare breeds. It would allow us to reproduce an animal that
is incapable of natural reproduction. For example, if someone
unwittingly castrated a male of good blood lines, those lines could be
recreated via a cloning process. That could also apply to a female who
was, perhaps, too old for reproduction. There is a potential link to
the gene pool, but I cannot answer my hon. Friend’s particular
question.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairpersonship for the first time, Mrs Brooke. I understand that the
EFSA has highlighted important welfare issues on surrogate cattle dams
suffering from late gestational
losses—in other words, miscarriages—and more difficult
delivery. My first question to the Minister is: we know that delivery
for human beings is painful and difficult at times, so should we be
concerned about imposing this on other sentient beings, without the
advantages that we humans
have?
Mr
Paice:
The honest answer is that, yes, we should be
concerned about it. I was at pains in my earlier remarks to make clear
that I am concerned about it. I am arguing that, first, we believe that
our existing animal welfare legislation would deal with the issues
identified by EFSA, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly refers, and,
secondly, that the scientists developing the technology of cloning are
trying to address those issues themselves, which is why I do not believe that a permanent ban
or five-year suspension of the technology is in the long-term interests
of advancing the
science.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
We understand from the same source that cloning
gives rise to large offspring syndrome, which is a common problem in
cattle and sheep clones, but not in pigs. That is an abnormality. There
is another possibility of underlying frailties, which do not show until
the animal becomes stressed in later life. Should we not be concerned
about those things, because they suggest that cloning is not such a
good
idea?
Mr
Paice:
They are certainly issues that we would be
concerned about. The Committee should not be in any doubt that the
Government share those concerns. The discussion and debate between us
is whether those concerns are best addressed by banning the technology
for five years, or by the technology continuing to develop and advance,
backed up by the heavy regulatory operating system under existing
animal welfare legislation, under which the science would be done. I
suspect that most, if not all—I do not wish to use a crystal
ball—the problems that the hon. Gentleman has rightly identified
will be resolved by the advancement of the technology. They will not be
resolved if we just stop it today. There are many potential benefits
from using cloning technology in agriculture and that is why our
position is that we should continue to allow the science to progress,
to see whether those benefits are
achievable.
Mr
Clappison:
May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to serve
under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Brooke? How does
the Minister see this matter proceeding in the European Union and what
does he envisage as the possible consequences of the
Commission’s policy, which he has enunciated in this
report?
Mr
Paice:
It is a brave Minister who prophesies how any
European negotiations will progress. As I said in my opening remarks to
the Committee and to my hon. Friend, the European Parliament has taken
a very robust position on the subject. It wants cloning stopped and it
wants the use of clones for food and their offspring stopped. It wants
the full works. The Council of Ministers has not yet formally debated
the issue in open council. The working parties under it—our
civil servants—are discussing the issue, and there are a
multitude of different opinions. The European Commission is the author
of the document that we are discussing.
The precise
situation is that there will be a meeting of the working party tomorrow
to start the conciliation process. After that, it is difficult to
foresee what eventualities will come out of it. Perhaps I should not
speculate, but it is possible that this will not go down as a decision
of the Council. It is possible that a compromise
will be reached. As my hon. Friend is aware—he makes a study of
these things—trying to thrash out a solution when there are
polarised views from 27 different countries takes a long time. I do not
know what the final outcome is likely to
be.
Mr
Clappison:
I appreciate the Minister’s good answer,
which comes on top of earlier good answers to all the technical points.
However, if a temporary ban were to be enforced by the European Union,
how would it be enforced? Would it be enforced by legislation, and if
so, on what legislative basis?
Mr
Paice:
I do not say that the ban will not come in because,
as I have suggested, that is a matter of negotiation between the
various parties. If the ban does come in, it would have to be followed
by some regulatory approach, although I do not know precisely under
what legal basis that would happen. The Novel Foods Regulation is
obviously part of that, but I am afraid I cannot tell my hon. Friend
whether that could be used as the vehicle, or whether a freestanding
piece of regulation would be required. I may get some advice on that
matter to pass on in a few moments.
The reverse
situation—which is just as likely—is that no progress is
made at all and the Commission’s proposal does not lead to
legislation. In the absence of more specific EU legislation, the
amended Novel Foods Regulation would apply, assuming that it is
adopted. In the eventuality that there is no agreement on the current
proposal, the existing Novel Foods Regulations will continue to apply.
That requires pre-market authorisation of food that is produced from
cloned animals.
Nic
Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab):
It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. As ever, the Minister is knowledgeable
on these issues. He speaks with great authority and has clearly made
the case for research to continue. However, the Commission is arguing
for scientific research to continue, but not for anything to go into
the food chain—there would be a moratorium on products entering
the food chain. Surely that is a sensible position, considering
everybody’s concern to get the legislation
right.
Mr
Paice:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind
remarks, but that is not my understanding of the proposals. The
Commission’s proposal is
to:
“Suspend
temporarily the use of the technique in the EU for the reproduction of
all food producing animals; the use of clones of these animals; and the
marketing of food from clones.”
I accept that the
proposal does not go as far as food, but my reading is that the
suspension of the technique would not allow for continued research
either.
Nic
Dakin:
I recognise, as does the Minister, that there are
genuine concerns about animal welfare. If the legislation
continues in the direction of travel that the Government seek,
in addition to having confidence
in the animal welfare legislation, will they monitor and evaluate the
effect of this changing technology on animal welfare as it is a new
development?
Mr
Paice:
I am sure the answer to that
must be yes; we try to monitor all developing pictures in agriculture.
To the best of our knowledge, no cloning work is going on in this
country, so there is nothing to monitor in terms of legal
responsibility. My officials have as much access to what is going on in
other European countries as anybody else, and if anything comes to
light we will keep it closely under review. I believe that is the right
way forward, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that were there to be a
development in cloning technology that went in the wrong direction from
the one I have spelt out, that would cause us to think again about our
position. I have no doubt that other countries will take the same view
if they continue to progress as they have. We must be realistic and
honest. Not many years ago, the vast majority of clones failed even to
implant in surrogate mothers, let alone to go on to have the issues
that we have discussed. I think that the science will continue to
develop, but the answer is that we will, of course, continue what is
going on elsewhere.
Graham
Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab):
It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairpersonship, Mrs Brooke. This is an interesting subject, and I
thank the Minister for his reasonable answers. Does he believe that
cloning is harmful to animals? I draw his attention to page 3 of the
Commission’s report, which endorses the European Food Safety
Authority’s
opinion:
“It
also noted that the health and welfare of a significant proportion of
clones had been found to be adversely affected, often severely and with
a fatal
outcome.”
Mr
Paice:
Of course I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s
point. As he rightly says, it is sitting there on page 3. I recognise
fully that cloning involves potential animal health and welfare issues.
As I tried to explain earlier, the legislative base on which this
country operates in terms of animal welfare is the Welfare of Farmed
Animals Regulations 2007. If somebody undertook cloning tomorrow, they
would be expected to do so in the full knowledge of that welfare
legislation.
Like a lot of
animal welfare legislation, I am afraid, the only point of prosecution
occurs after somebody has clearly breached it. We cannot use
legislation to prevent someone from ill-treating their dog; we can only
act under legislation after they have done so. Equally, if someone
proceeded with the cloning process and found that most or all of the
offspring were clearly suffering from welfare
problems—over-enlarged foetuses, as the hon. Member for Luton
North mentioned, or high levels of dead foetuses—clearly, they
would be at risk of prosecution under the legislation. Therefore, such
people should not proceed unless they believe that they will not create
welfare problems and that the majority of cloned offspring will be all
right.
While
I am on my feet, I should correct something that I said earlier. I am
afraid that I misled the hon. Member for Glasgow North East by reading
out only the Commission’s proposal about food-producing animals.
Apparently, the Commission is proposing an exemption for research. I
apologise. The Commission is also proposing exemptions for the purposes
of producing pharmaceuticals and conserving endangered species, a point
to which I have referred. I am sorry to have misadvised
him.
Graham
Jones:
The Minister tried to give an answer, but does he
not agree that it was a retrospective answer? He said that the measures
will facilitate cloning, and that the legal process under the Welfare
of Farmed Animals Regulations 2007 will kick in to place a duty of care
on breeders. However, is that not a case of shutting the gate after the
horse has bolted? I return to the essential
point.
The
Chair:
Order. Questions should be
brief.
Graham
Jones:
The Minister’s defence is that the matter is
retrospective, yet page 4 of the report
says:
“Between
July 1998 and September 2009, 575 cloned cattle were born in Japan of
which 55% died shortly after
birth.”
The
suffering has occurred before the prosecution and surely it is very
difficult in this industry to predict precisely what will
happen.
Mr
Paice:
I follow entirely the hon. Gentleman’s
argument, which is perfectly reasonable, but I would say to him that
scientists working on cloning are not working in isolation in their own
little laboratories without talking to anybody else. All this
leading-edge science is widely communicated through the scientific
community and, therefore, scientific advances, which are happening all
the time, will be pretty readily communicated throughout the scientific
community. Although it is perfectly correct for him to have read out
those statistics from the top of page 4 of the report, I would argue
that a time span of 11 years is a long period in terms of scientific
advance. The report says that 55% of those animals died shortly after
birth. I wonder how many of them died early on in that 11-year period
and whether it was a level proportion or whether the proportion dying
at birth changed. We do not know—the information is not
there—but I would argue that, as science advances, information
and the latest technology and techniques are transmitted between
scientists. I believe that, as with most scientific endeavour, the
science in this sector is moving forward all the time, which is my
fundamental reason for opposing the five-year
ban.
To
return to the issue of research, obviously, from what I have said, it
is clear that I believe the research should continue. My reading of the
report, having corrected myself, is that, yes, it clearly says that
cloning should be allowed to continue for research, but not for
food-producing animals. We are talking about research on food-producing
animals. I am not 100% certain precisely what the Commission is
proposing in that fine detail, but the point is that we need to move
on. That is why we oppose the ban; we think it disproportionately
long.
The
Chair:
I am looking for brief questions now. I need
to return to some other Members who have additional
questions.
Tom
Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab):
We are returning to the point about the Minister’s notion of
100% certainty and what “research” actually means. It
clearly states in the European Commission’s report
that
“production
of pharmaceuticals or the conservation of endangered species or
breeds”
would be exempt.
Earlier, however, the Minister said that research would be inhibited by
such a ban. How would the ban inhibit research when it is quite clear,
in black and white, that research
on
“production
of pharmaceuticals or the conservation of endangered species or
breeds”
would
be
exempt?
Mr
Paice:
The hon. Gentleman should read the whole sentence
that he is quoting from. It
says:
“Cloning
will remain possible for all other purposes than food production such
as
research”
and
so on. That raises the question, if the research is on a food animal,
such as a cow, is it research or food production? This is purely a
subjective comment, but I am simply raising the question whether
research on a food animal would be exempt. However, I would suggest
that the point is fairly immaterial.
Tom
Blenkinsop:
The main point is that, earlier, the Minister
was indicating that a ban would be a hindrance to all research. It is
quite clear that it would
not.
Mr
Paice:
I do not think that I can add much to what I have
already said. We believe that the five-year ban would be
disproportionate, given our current state of knowledge of the
development of this science. Also, if there is a ban, even if the
research allowed was to make a tremendous step forward in 12
months’ time, we would then have to go—if we
could—through the panoply of unbanning research. I believe that
to be totally disproportionate and
unnecessary.
The
Chair:
We are beginning to get a little repetitive, so I
see no reason to extend time for questions. However, I had suggested
that I would return to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, if he
wishes me to do so.
Mr
Bain:
I understand the position that the Minister is
in—the Department and the Government have boxed themselves into
a corner—but the argument shifted as the debate
continued.
The
Chair:
Order. I remind Members that we are in a question
session. We are about to begin the debate, and can do so now if hon.
Members wish
it.
Mr
Bain:
The key question that I would bring to the
Minister’s attention is, if the Commission is proposing that
research on this technology can continue so that no one will be left
behind in its development, but the only thing that will be regulated is
its use in the food chain, and that that will be for a limited period
of up to five years, what is disproportionate about that? If five years
is too long, what period do the Government believe to be proportionate
for any temporary restriction?
Mr
Paice:
I am afraid that I shall not be drawn on any
particular period, because that would be wrong. We should accept that
the science is developing—whatever the rights and wrongs in the
debate about whether research on food animals should be exempt, the
fact is that the science will continue to develop. None of us can
foresee how fast it will develop or at what point we
might want to lift any ban that had been imposed. Therefore, I really do
not see the advantage of imposing a ban for a particular period,
whatever it may
be.
Many
people—some of the MEPs to whom the hon. Gentleman referred
earlier—are probably opposing the proposal on ethical grounds
and believe that five years is not enough; they would probably prefer
50. That is why I think that once we start choosing a period, we fall
into a hole. If I can use this analogy, an
organisation has been proposing a five-year moratorium on genetically
modified foods and technology for at least the past 10
years, if not 15. We have probably had two or three five-year
moratoriums, during which time, as we know, the science in that context
has moved on. That underlines why choosing a period is not the right
approach.
The
Chair:
If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will
proceed to the debate on the
motion.
Motion
made, and Question
proposed,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 15277/10, a
report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council
on animal cloning for food production; and supports the
Government’s view that a ban or temporary suspension on cloning,
the use of clones and the marketing of food from clones is
disproportionate in terms of food safety and animal welfare. [9th
Report of Session 2010-11, HC 428-ix, Chapter 1].—(Mr
Paice.)
5.23
pm
Mr
Bain:
The view of the Opposition is that the Government
should address the Commission report more profoundly. If they are of
the view that a five-year moratorium is disproportionate, they should
explain what period would be proportionate. Only one European Union
country—Denmark—has introduced any regulation at all in
this area, so, in effect, the other member states have a moratorium on
the use of this technology in the food
chain.
Mr
Clappison:
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government
must address the Commission’s report. Do we take it from that
that the Opposition’s policy is to support the temporary ban and
the Commission’s
report?
Mr
Bain:
We believe that the Government should be much
clearer than they have been in the document that they produced for this
Committee. They have simply described the Commission’s proposal
as disproportionate and left it at that. They must address the serious
concerns expressed by MEPs—indeed, Conservative Members, as I
said earlier—who are of the view that a ban or a moratorium is
not in itself enough. They would support mandatory food labelling
requirements for the progeny of cloned
animals.
Significant
concerns about the issue have been raised by constituents across the
country and the Government should be far clearer about their position.
They should be willing to negotiate with mainstream Europe, noting the
opinion of the institutions and, indeed, of member states. That is why
we would encourage them, in their discussions at the Council, to reach
an effective compromise with the European Parliament, based on the work
of the Commission. If they have proposals that build upon those of the
Commission or are different from them, based on science and proper
evidence, we shall look forward to hearing them.
As the
Minister knows, I have not engaged in knee-jerk opposition to
suggestions from his Department, but have taken a scientific approach
to all matters that he and I have discussed. However, I am not
satisfied with the responses given in the memorandum and the Opposition
will oppose the
motion.
5.25
pm
Kelvin
Hopkins:
I strongly support my hon. Friend, but would go
further. Until recently, I was under the impression
that cloning produced what could be considered identical twins, but it
seems from what we have learned today that that is not the case. I am
more concerned about cloning now than I was previously; my worries
about it have been reinforced. There are problems with the animals
concerned, and death and distress are
involved.
How
much transparency are we seeing? I am not sure that I would be terribly
confident about research done in other countries. We have not been
given clear statistics today about the number of animals that survive,
and the number that are not exactly cloned, but are not entirely the
same as the animals that they are cloned with. There are also animal
welfare
concerns.
Although
I am a meat-eater, I am concerned above all about animal welfare.
Things are not perfect in Britain, but we are in many ways ahead of the
world when it comes to regulations on animal welfare, and I want that
to continue and to be strengthened. I buy British-produced meat because
I am not convinced that meat from abroad is produced under the same
beneficial conditions. I have a personal prejudice—a personal
preference—for British-produced meat, and it is based on animal
welfare grounds. Some make a case for vegetarianism that is based on
the effect of meat production on the environment, the production of
carbon and so on. Perhaps we should eat rather less meat; it could be
helpful in many ways.
The EU has
taken a proper stand on the question. I would go as far as the Danes,
which is beyond what the Opposition suggest, but I would certainly lean
in that direction. By taking a stand, we can wake up the rest of the
world to our concerns. Britain is a big market for imported meat. We
could say that we want to know about all meat that has been cloned:
whether it is descended from cloned animals or whether cloned animal
has been used in the meat, we want it to be labelled as such. People
such as me could then choose not to buy cloned meat, which would put
pressure on overseas producers. We could do the same with animal
welfare and across the range.
We want to
ensure that animals are treated humanely throughout the world, not only
in Britain. To do that, we would require certain standards before
importing the meat and consuming it. Supermarkets are big purchasers of
meat. They have enormous buying power. If they said, “Our
customers don’t like cloned animals and don’t like
animals that are not treated fairly before being slaughtered for
consumption,” they would not buy it. I hope that the
supermarkets will take this up and that pressure will be put on
producers throughout the world in all sorts of
ways.
I
am sufficiently concerned about the matter to support my hon. Friend
the Member for Glasgow North East in opposing the Government’s
motion and to support the European Union moratorium on cloning for
commercial purposes—where profit is concerned.
Clearly, if a
small number of rare breeds are helped to continue by cloning, that is
very different. If there is a little scientific research, that is
another factor. However, what we are considering is mass cloning for
commercial use. I would like a permanent ban on that, but a moratorium
for five years is at least reasonable. It means that the rest of the
world will have to demonstrate that animals are not being mistreated
and that animal welfare concerns are being met. It also means that, as
far as possible, we shall make sure that whatever meat we eat is
produced humanely, with animal welfare concerns to the
fore.
5.30
pm
Mr
Clappison:
As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon.
Member for Luton North. I strongly agree with his comment that we have
high animal welfare standards, an excellent agricultural sector and
many conscientious and caring British farmers, producing high-quality
produce.
The Minister
has, in this short debate, fully addressed the questions that have been
put to him, and the policy issues. He has set out a clear Government
policy line, on which he deserves to be congratulated. I cannot think
of anything else that he could do to be clear on the matter, or to
address the issues in a fuller way. People should be clear about where
they stand on the issue, and the Minister has been clear about that. I
say that as someone who in the previous Parliament trooped through the
Lobby with the then Government, on the question of animal cloning
techniques for medical research. I recollect that in some Divisions
there were not many Members other than members of the Government in the
Lobby to support them. I was happy to do
so.
I
am happy with the Minister’s responses and policy line. What
concerns me more is the way in which the European Union has become
seized of the issue. Some things that I have heard about the debate in
the European Parliament give me some concern, as does the fact that the
Commission has taken it on itself to launch the initiative in the first
place. I am concerned that it may result in informal proposals. The
Minister rightly said that that is all yet to be negotiated, but there
is certainly a possibility. The Government’s explanatory
memorandum seems to envisage that possibility; it is certainly possible
that the Commission will present a formal proposal.
I am
concerned about the procedure that will be followed when that
happens—when a proposal comes before the Council of Ministers
and possibly the European Parliament, as part of the Community method.
I should be concerned if it were to come within a legislative base, as
I think it may well do, involving qualified majority voting, so that
the clear line set out by the Government, and the clear wish that they
have expressed as the democratically elected Government of this
country, could be outvoted by other member states. We would then have a
European Commission-generated policy that we did not want, and which
was contrary to our Government’s wishes, foisted on us. The
Minister has been so clear today that no amount of fudging in the
future would be able to conceal that, and we would have a very
unsatisfactory outcome.
I would like
to pause to question what we are doing here, why we are dealing with
the matter and what business it is of the European Commission. We have
our own Government and our own policy, based on
good scientific advice against the background of a good agricultural
sector. What on earth does it have to do with the European
Commission?
5.34
pm
Mr
Paice:
I thank hon. Members for their comments. I shall
start by replying to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for
Hertsmere. I said earlier that I was not aware of the legal base on
which any proposal would be put forward. I can now tell him that it
would be under article 43 of the treaty, which I think he is correct in
assuming would be a majority voting issue. I have a lot of
understanding of and sympathy with his points about why we are
considering the matter at all, but of course food safety and animal
welfare are European competences and that is why we must deal with them
in this
way.
My
hon. Friend rightly agreed with the hon. Member for Luton North about
Britain’s animal welfare standards and reputation, and I stand
four-square with him and the hon. Gentleman. We have extremely high
welfare standards, and as the Minister with responsibility for these
issues, I am not prepared to see a diminution of them. However, all
animal welfare should be guided by science and all the evidence we
have: it should not be guided by emotion, which sometimes guides some
people’s comments. I am not referring to the hon.
Member for Luton North, because I have far too much regard for
him to suggest that.
As I say, we
need to be guided by science. That brings me back to the question
raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East about why the
Government persist in opposing the Commission’s suggestion,
which is all it is at present. The reason is that we do not believe
that there is the scientific evidence to support a five-year ban,
moratorium, temporary suspension or however we might wish to describe
it. We have not had an impact assessment yet, and one would come
forward only in the case of a legal proposal. There is not sufficient
evidence to justify the ban.
Graham
Jones:
The Minister says there is insufficient evidence,
but I return to my two questions. Does he not consider that the animal
welfare issues raised in the report are of serious enough concern to
warrant some sort of temporary ban?
Mr
Paice:
I agree entirely that they are of serious concern,
but I do not believe that there is the evidence in the report to
justify a ban. The hon. Gentleman quoted to me the figures—I
fully accept that they are unsatisfactory—from the evidence in
Japan. They run from 1998 to 2009, and the technology has moved on
dramatically in that time. I have not seen the detailed figures, but I
would be prepared to make a personal wager that the results in 1998
were far different from those at the other end of the
timetable.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
I mentioned statistics in my speech, and it would
have been helpful if we had had some evidence to back up the
Minister’s belief that things have improved. Does he not think
that we should have some statistics?
Mr
Paice:
I concur with the hon. Gentleman. I want to pick up
a couple of the other points that he made. He said that cloning does
not produce identical twins, but I should tell him that, genetically,
it does produce identical twins. However, the welfare issues that he
and others have highlighted are to do not with the animal’s
genetics—that is what a clone is about—but with other
issues, and I certainly do not pretend to know the full details of why
there is sometimes a tendency, as he said, towards enlarged foetuses.
However, scientists are working to overcome those problems.
The
hon. Gentleman said that he would not buy cloned meat. As I said
earlier, however, he could not buy it even if he wanted to, because it
is banned—people cannot sell cloned food in this
country.
The hon.
Gentleman talked about food labelling. The Government feel very
strongly about proper labelling and about consumers having proper
information so that they can choose properly, but I also strongly
believe in enforceable law, and there is no point bringing in
legislation that cannot be properly enforced. When I talked about
labelling food from the offspring of clones, my point was that it would
be impossible properly to enforce such a measure. We could argue that
such a provision is disproportionate because there is no evidence that
such food is any different from any other food in food safety terms.
However, the fundamental point is that such meat and dairy products are
identical in composition to any other meat and dairy products, so we
could not enforce such provisions.
The
hon. Member for Glasgow North East kept on about the voting record of
Conservative MEPs. I suggest that he lets me worry about my
party’s MEPs and that he worries about his own sometimes. He
also urged me to negotiate with those who hold what he called the
mainstream views in Europe. I can assure him that in the period of
conciliation, which runs for two months and starts tomorrow with a
meeting of the permanent representatives, we will be very much
negotiating clearly with all the other organisations and viewpoints.
The
purpose of the debate is to describe the Government’s position in
response to the Commission’s proposals. However, negotiations
mean just that and I cannot foresee what the outcome of them will
eventually be. He talks about negotiating with the mainstream, but I am
sometimes a bit more wary about where that mainstream might be. We will
certainly negotiate with good intent, but we will bear in mind the
evidence we have, on which these decisions need to be based. As things
stand, I therefore remain of the view that the evidence does not
justify a five-year ban or a temporary suspension on cloning. That is
why the motion is as on the Order
Paper.
Question
put.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
5.
Division
No.
1
]
AYES
Clappison,
Mr
James
Drax,
Richard
Duddridge,
James
Kawczynski,
Daniel
Paice,
rh Mr
James
Spencer,
Mr
Mark
NOES
Bain,
Mr
William
Blenkinsop,
Tom
Dakin,
Nic
Hopkins,
Kelvin
Jones,
Graham
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 15277/10, a
report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council
on animal cloning for food production; and supports the
Government’s view that a ban or temporary suspension on cloning,
the use of clones and the marketing of food from clones is
disproportionate in terms of food safety and animal welfare. [9th
Report of Session 2010-11, HC 428-ix, Chapter
IJ.]
5.42
pm
Committee
rose.
