The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
43 Defences to relevant breaches
(1) A failure to comply with a Part 3 obligation is not to be regarded as a relevant breach by a person where that person can prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation by themselves or by a person under their control. (2) In paragraph (1), a person who neither— (a) prepared the food or feed in respect of which the relevant breach is alleged to have occurred, nor (b) imported it into Great Britain, is to be taken to have established the defence in paragraph (1) if they satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (3) or (4). (3) A person satisfies the requirements of this paragraph if they can prove— (a) that the failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation was due to an act or default of another person who was not under their control, or due to reliance on information supplied by such a person, (b) that they carried out all such checks of the food or feed in question as were reasonable in all the circumstances or that it was reasonable in all the circumstances for them to rely on checks carried out by the person who supplied the food or feed to them, and (c) that they did not know and had no reason to suspect at the time of the alleged failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation that the act or omission would amount to a failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation. (4) A person satisfies the requirements of this paragraph if they can prove— (a) that the failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation was due to an act or default of another person who was not under their control, or due to reliance on information supplied by such a person, (b) that the sale or intended sale giving rise to the alleged failure to comply with a Part 3 obligation was not a sale or intended sale under their name or mark, and (c) that they did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, at the time of the alleged failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation that the act or omission would amount to a failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation. (5) A failure to comply with a Part 3 obligation is not to be regarded as a relevant breach by a person where that person can prove— (a) that they are a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements, and (b) that they received the advertisement in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to a failure to comply with a Part 3 obligation.
43 Defences to relevant breaches
(1) A failure to comply with a Part 3 obligation is not to be regarded as a relevant breach by a person where that person can prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation by themselves or by a person under their control. (2) In paragraph (1), a person who neither— (a) prepared the food or feed in respect of which the relevant breach is alleged to have occurred, nor (b) imported it into Great Britain, is to be taken to have established the defence in paragraph (1) if they satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (3) or (4). (3) A person satisfies the requirements of this paragraph if they can prove— (a) that the failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation was due to an act or default of another person who was not under their control, or due to reliance on information supplied by such a person, (b) that they carried out all such checks of the food or feed in question as were reasonable in all the circumstances or that it was reasonable in all the circumstances for them to rely on checks carried out by the person who supplied the food or feed to them, and (c) that they did not know and had no reason to suspect at the time of the alleged failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation that the act or omission would amount to a failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation. (4) A person satisfies the requirements of this paragraph if they can prove— (a) that the failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation was due to an act or default of another person who was not under their control, or due to reliance on information supplied by such a person, (b) that the sale or intended sale giving rise to the alleged failure to comply with a Part 3 obligation was not a sale or intended sale under their name or mark, and (c) that they did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, at the time of the alleged failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation that the act or omission would amount to a failure to comply with the Part 3 obligation. (5) A failure to comply with a Part 3 obligation is not to be regarded as a relevant breach by a person where that person can prove— (a) that they are a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements, and (b) that they received the advertisement in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to a failure to comply with a Part 3 obligation.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.