EU: Free Movement of Labour

Debate between Lord Taverne and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent remarks by the Prime Ministers of Sweden and Finland at the annual meeting of Baltic and Nordic leaders in respect of the free movement of labour within the European Union and its relationship with the internal market.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of free movement in relation to the internal market, but free movement is not an unqualified right. We are working with other member states to tackle abuse of this right and to ensure that we prevent sudden and uncontrolled migrations of the kind seen following previous accessions of new member states.

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister found himself isolated from his supposed friends and allies at the Helsinki meeting in his approach to the question of placing limits on the free movement of labour in the European Union. Does he recognise that, by his continuous appeasement of UKIP and by what the Economist called his recent “railing” against the institutions of Europe, he is setting Britain on the path of exit from Europe? Can the Minister assure us that there will be no more appeasement of UKIP before or after the Rochester by-election because, unless he changes course, in the event that he should become Prime Minister again after May he could go down in history as the Prime Minister who did more to destroy British influence in America, among our friends in Europe, in the Commonwealth and in the rest of the world than any of his predecessors?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the Prime Minister was certainly not isolated when he met Prime Ministers at the Northern Future Forum. There was a strong and constructive discussion over dinner about many subjects, with migration clearly being an important one. Although it was a private meeting, the result was that when those present met the next day for their press conference, the Prime Minister was able to say in front of them and with their agreement that:

“I think there was common ground on a number of points”.

Some “problems and issues” had been identified in relation to welfare and benefits but,

“all of the countries around the table last night said that was something that should be looked at”.

He was supported in that by the Finnish Prime Minister, Mr Alexander Stubb, who thanked us for opening our borders in 2004, but also said that we should see what we could all do about the situation to try to alleviate it. In arguing for the interests of this country, the Prime Minister can find those of a like mind who see that a strong Europe addresses the problems that all states are facing. That is because it is to the benefit of all the states of Europe to ensure that we have a system of migration which is not an unqualified right, but is founded in the right to work, contribute to the economy and assimilate into society.

Rural Communities: Prince’s Countryside Fund

Debate between Lord Taverne and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I apologise for striking a possibly discordant note in what has been a very harmonious and high-quality debate. I want to say a few words about food and agriculture. It is very widely accepted, especially by the Prince of Wales, that one way to encourage sustainable and local agriculture is to support organic farming. Unfortunately, very few, if any, of the claims made on behalf of organic farming have ever been upheld, because they have no scientific substance.

First, the whole principle of organic farming is based on the idea that synthetic chemicals are bad and natural chemicals are good, which of course is complete scientific nonsense, as there are many thousands of harmful natural chemicals and a very large number of extremely beneficial artificial chemicals.

Then it is claimed that organic farming is healthier because it is more nutritious. There has been a very careful scientific analysis of those claims undertaken by Mr Dangour on behalf of the Food Standards Agency, which went through every paper that has ever been produced on the question of organic farming and has, after the most meticulous and impartial analysis, found no evidence that organic food is any more nutritious than food which is conventionally grown. Then it is said, “It contains fewer toxins, because of the harmful effects of pesticides. Indeed, I remember reading an article by someone from the Soil Association claiming that one in every three mouthfuls we consume contains toxins. That is completely wrong. Every mouthful that we consume contains poisons of some kind, it is all a question of the dose, as was said a very long time ago. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has pointed out, one cup of coffee contains more carcinogens than one would consume in a whole year's consumption of fruit and vegetables because of pesticide residues. The level at which it is set is 100 to 1,000 times below the safety level.

Then it is said—and this is in some ways the main claim and the most relevant to this debate—that organic farming is good for the environment. Again, that is wrong. Indeed, in some important respects, organic farming is bad for the environment. Organic food costs more. Why? Not because organic farmers try to bilk the public, but because organic farming is a much less efficient use of land. That is why it costs more. Yields from organic farming are 20 to 50 per cent lower than from conventional farming. What is the result? It is a less efficient use of land. The world desperately needs more efficient use of land, and we need that in the United Kingdom as well.

It is an extraordinary fact that Defra spends £30 million a year on encouraging farmers to convert to organic farming—on making farming and the use of land less efficient. If ever there were a case for cuts, there is one. I hope that the Government will take note of that. Of course, I would not cut the £30 million; I would transfer it to agricultural research in excellent centres such as the John Innes Centre, Rothamstead and the various Scottish research centres. My point is that I hope that the Government will cease to subsidise the inefficient use of land and that the Prince’s fund will not encourage organic farming.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I have explained to the Opposition that this is a timed debate. The overrun by noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating debate means that there is no longer full protected time for both the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson and for the Minister. In the circumstances, I think that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson should be permitted to continue with the full allotted amount of time. Unfortunately, that means that the House will not be able to hear a full response from the Minister.