Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Thangam Debbonaire

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful, Mr Stringer. I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. One difficulty we have in discussing the Bill is that the philosophical underpinning is somewhat absent. These big questions of what agriculture is for, and whether we are going to have a future, sustainable agricultural system, trouble many of us. As I said earlier, those issues do not go away. He made a very strong point, which many Opposition Members will return to, about the danger of effectively moving the environmental harm elsewhere. That is a key sticking point, which I suspect will be returned to on many occasions.

We want to ensure that we can manage a transition. I would like to see us get to a much more sustainable system. I hope that the discussions we are having provide a structure to allow people to make that transition. The danger is that it becomes more expensive, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.

We may move to lower levels of food production in this country. That is a matter to be debated. Provided the standards elsewhere are good enough, from our point of view, it would not necessarily be the case that we would want to maintain the current levels. We will come to that when we discuss food security, no doubt. It is always tempting to say that we should continue as we are, because that happens to be where we are now. Looking ahead, do we think the world is safer than it was or not? Those are the questions worth asking.

Returning to discussion of the amendment, many of us would like to see much more local, sustainable production. People worry about food miles involved. Having rehearsed these debates in the past, I am sure there are transport experts in the room who will point out that it is not simple. Not being far away geographically does not necessarily produce a lower carbon footprint.

Those are matters that people rightly want to discuss and challenge. There is no better person to challenge those than my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who displays a passionate knowledge. She has been bending my ear on this issue for the best part of two decades. [Interruption.] Sorry. That was when my hon. Friend was a very young person.

As is often the case, people are proved to be right. I am not sure that when my hon. Friend was embarking on those points two decades ago, everyone would necessarily have agreed or given her the space to make those points. She has been proved right. It is important to pursue the matter in the amendment. I take the Minister’s point that it might be possible to secure some support through the environmental land management schemes. Without wanting to sound like a broken record, it would have been a lot easier if we had had further detail on that earlier. That is why I think it is reasonable for us to keep pressing.

I understand that the Government did not have entire control over the political agenda in the past couple of years, but this has been done in the wrong order. The food strategy is really important, and we welcome it, but it just seems to be the wrong way round. The food strategy should be set first, followed by discussion on how to achieve it. We are in the curious position of trying to second-guess what is going to happen. Given that it may well be set in stone, as this is a key moment in agricultural policy, and may have to stand the test of time for 40 years, it is difficult to approach the matter in this order.

I fully appreciate what the Minister said about tackling poverty. From our side, every opportunity to tackle poverty is worth pursuing. It is a striking feature of too many parts of our country that the opportunity for people to eat healthily has been withdrawn from local communities. Sometimes, it is all very well to point the finger at individuals, but individuals can only choose from the choices that are offered to them. Ironically, it is not only in cities—in many villages and rural communities we have seen the absence of local shops. Of course, the market will do what the market will do unless we intervene.

Labour strongly believes in intervention. Where there are market failures, we want to respond to our constituents’ rightly held view that if there is no fresh fruit and veg in the local shop—as is too often the case—they are left with unpalatable choices because, as demand falls, it is hard for shopkeepers. What should we do? The amendments would give us the opportunity to provide support. I know that would not be welcome to market fundamentalists, and it might not be the most hyper-efficient way of producing food goods, but it produces something bigger, which is a public good—our people having access to the food that they deserve.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I am here in my capacity as a Whip today. Does he agree that the time will come when people will look back on the Bill as a lost opportunity? We have not grasped this—the point of agriculture, as many farmers, including Members opposite know, is to grow food. Is this not the time to tackle food poverty?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is considerable enthusiasm in many communities to grasp that opportunity, if it is given. Many communities do not have the resources necessary to do it themselves, without some external help and support. This is exactly the opportunity to do that.

I will touch on the Minister’s initial discussion of how Environmental Land Management schemes may operate. We are all enthusiastic and want them to work well. I have rather enjoyed the images that the Secretary of State has occasionally conjured up of a cosy chat around the farmhouse table. I caution the Conservative party—I think country suppers got it into trouble in the past. Members opposite may want to reflect that not all farms are the same. I have often noticed over the years that the kind of farms I have been invited to are wonderful, astonishing places—the crème de la crème of our system. Not all farms, in my experience—I go back to my days as a rural district councillor in Norfolk—are like that. For many farmers, it is tough. As we know from the statistics, they are barely eking out a living in some places. I have never been entirely convinced that all those farms would be quite so welcoming to the agri-economist turning up to have a discussion. From their perspective, it may feel a touch intrusive, if they are told to make changes that they will find very difficult.

My cautionary note is that this may work well for some. I was challenged by the NFU to visit a farm in Cambridge, which my team originally thought would be a challenge. It turned out that we have a wonderful farm on the edge of Cambridge doing some fantastic work through many of the existing agri-environmental schemes. I am sure it will do very well under the new system. My worry is what happens to farms in other places that will find this much tougher.

UK Nationals in the EU: Rights

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Thangam Debbonaire

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Sadly, I suspect that we could spend much of the afternoon considering yet further such problems.

All these difficulties confirm what many of us have argued from the outset—that a negotiation would be difficult and a unilateral guarantee was needed, even just to get the discussion going. It is not about exchanging these rights for those rights, but about having a genuine conversation, trying to do the right thing, and moving into a position where we have a genuine discussion rather than get locked in to a winners-losers negotiation, which seems to me all too likely to remain deadlocked for a very long time, not least because there are many players involved.

I suspect that it is not always clear to everyone in Britain that it is not just the Commission negotiators who must be satisfied; the European Parliament has a key role as well, and it is not very impressed either. Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament’s chief negotiator, has been fairly definitive. In his statement, he said:

“The European Parliament cannot be clear enough that sufficient progress means progress across the board, and not just in one or two areas.”

He clarified:

“To be precise, the European Parliament will remain vigilant regarding citizens’ rights and will continue to push for full rights for EU citizens in the UK as well as UK citizens in the EU. It is a core mission of the European project to protect, not to diminish, the fundamental rights of all citizens… The European Parliament specifically seeks to fully safeguard the rights concerning family reunion, comprehensive healthcare, voting rights in local elections, the transferability of (social) rights, and the rules governing permanent residence (including the right to leave the UK without losing this status). Simultaneously, we seek to avoid an administrative burden for citizens and want proposals which are intrusive to people’s privacy off the table, e.g. proposed systematic criminal checks. Last but not least, the European Parliament wants the withdrawal agreement to be directly enforceable and to include a mechanism in which the European Court of Justice can play its full role.”

For the Parliament to be satisfied, as it must be, movement is required on both sides, but I suspect that it will be harder for the UK Government, not least because of the Prime Minister’s continuing aversion to the European Court of Justice. In previous debates, I have described it as a fetish, but whatever it is, it is a problem. It is not just this Government’s Achilles heel; it is their Achilles legs, arms and body too, and it creates problems in considering directly the rights of UK citizens resident in EU member states.

If the European Court of Justice no longer has any jurisdiction over the UK’s treatment of EU nationals, a reciprocal agreement would work the same way for UK nationals in Europe. We are therefore leaving UK nationals vulnerable to the domestic laws and national courts of member states, without any protections. We need an international referee to ensure that countries comply with their obligations on citizens’ rights. The EU demands that it be the ECJ, but the UK Government say no, so what should it be? What is likely to be acceptable to both? The conundrum not only dogs this discussion but is a problem across the piece.

Turning to another problem, the UK’s creation of settled status comes saddled with a range of problems that, if reciprocated, will seriously compromise the rights currently enjoyed by UK nationals in the EU. The UK condition that EU settled status in the UK can be rescinded after two years’ leave is unacceptable to the EU, as well as to me and many others. To understand why, think of it in reverse: imagine a UK academic from my constituency, Cambridge, who has been living and working in Rome and who is offered the opportunity to do a different job at a UK university, on a temporary basis, for a couple of years. Would they take it, knowing that they might not be able to return to their home in Rome? That is not a hypothetical example but an everyday occurrence.

To be at the leading edge of research and study, we need global flexibility. It is not just about economics; there are many situations in which someone might have to move for a period of two years or more, such as for family reasons. We must think through the real-life consequences of the proposals. When we do, we can see the problem.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Streeter; I too cannot stay for the whole debate. A constituent of mine has told me about her son, who is married to a German woman and lives in Germany with her and their two young children. She says that it is all very unsettling. Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of legal certainty is causing great distress, disrupting family life and interrupting people’s ability to pursue their careers?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I agree. The human cost has been completely underestimated. Whatever the final outcomes, the stress and unhappiness being caused now are real.

As I have said, the Government maintain that reciprocal arrangements are the way forward and will best guarantee the rights of UK citizens in the EU, but if our treatment of EU nationals here is seen to be ungenerous, where will that leave our people in the European Union? It need not even be by design. In the past month, some EU citizens in the UK have received mistakenly sent letters threatening them with deportation. We are told it was an error, but clearly we do not want that to be reciprocated. Sadly, the 3 Million campaign has been compiling compelling evidence of discrimination against EU nationals across employment, housing and a range of services ever since the referendum. We do not want that reciprocated either.

Last week, the Home Office’s immigration plans were leaked. Many people—rightly, in my view—reacted with outrage. Are we really going to restrict the rights of EU family members to enter and remain in the UK, and police that with biometrics? Is that the kind of treatment that we want reciprocated?