Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Daniel Zeichner

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hope everyone is still with us, because this is not simple. Part of the problem is that we are learning more all the time. We are trying to set out a regulatory framework and structure that will stand a reasonable test of time. The Minister is slightly unfair with her dramatic language of how we are shackled. Different Administrations across the world take different approaches, of which there is a whole range therefore, which suggests that the choice is not a simple binary one between doing this or that. The reason people do things differently is that people are more or less cautious. Part of the debate—the question—is where we want to be on that spectrum, and where we think we will be best placed to attract investment and to give people confidence and certainty about the approach we are taking.

I am still worried, because two almost-parallel things seem to be going on. On the one hand, there is an appreciation that the newer technologies absolutely involve transgenesis, even though the Government and others have been pretty clear in reassuring people that that is not what is going on. On the other hand, the fall-back is then, “Well, that could have occurred naturally,” which is absolutely right, as has been explained to me—nature does that anyway. However, for the legislation proposed in the Bill, does that mean we should not be explicit about reassuring people that transgenesis is excluded? By stating that as we have proposed in the amendment, people get that absolute confidence.

[Kate Green]

I have listened to the Minister and to the scientific explanation of the hon. Member for South Ribble—which was much appreciated. Does my hon. Friend agree that that transparency should extend, from the public perspective, not just to the end product, as it were, but to what will have happened at every stage of the process?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I rather agree. The problem is that although we are spending time and effort to understand this, that does not always get translated into the wider world. We have seen before how this issue cannot necessarily always be explained as carefully as it might be to the wider world, which is why it is so important that we do not leave uncertainty or doubt in the Bill. That is why this stronger amendment would give us that clarity to reassure people, because that is what they want to hear—people are concerned. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote, because it would give clarity.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hope everyone is still with us, because this is not simple. Part of the problem is that we are learning more all the time. We are trying to set out a regulatory framework and structure that will stand a reasonable test of time. The Minister is slightly unfair with her dramatic language of how we are shackled. Different Administrations across the world take different approaches, of which there is a whole range therefore, which suggests that the choice is not a simple binary one between doing this or that. The reason people do things differently is that people are more or less cautious. Part of the debate—the question—is where we want to be on that spectrum, and where we think we will be best placed to attract investment and to give people confidence and certainty about the approach we are taking.

I am still worried, because two almost-parallel things seem to be going on. On the one hand, there is an appreciation that the newer technologies absolutely involve transgenesis, even though the Government and others have been pretty clear in reassuring people that that is not what is going on. On the other hand, the fall-back is then, “Well, that could have occurred naturally,” which is absolutely right, as has been explained to me—nature does that anyway. However, for the legislation proposed in the Bill, does that mean we should not be explicit about reassuring people that transgenesis is excluded? By stating that as we have proposed in the amendment, people get that absolute confidence.

[Kate Green]

I have listened to the Minister and to the scientific explanation of the hon. Member for South Ribble—which was much appreciated. Does my hon. Friend agree that that transparency should extend, from the public perspective, not just to the end product, as it were, but to what will have happened at every stage of the process?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I rather agree. The problem is that although we are spending time and effort to understand this, that does not always get translated into the wider world. We have seen before how this issue cannot necessarily always be explained as carefully as it might be to the wider world, which is why it is so important that we do not leave uncertainty or doubt in the Bill. That is why this stronger amendment would give us that clarity to reassure people, because that is what they want to hear—people are concerned. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote, because it would give clarity.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Daniel Zeichner

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kate Green]

Q To what extent would it be your responsibility to intervene in the event of misinformation? We are particularly concerned now about online misinformation.

Professor May: That depends very much on the type of misinformation. Local authorities usually enforce in that area. When a product is not what it says it is, for instance, it gets seized or withdrawn from retailers at local authority level. We issue alerts, and we have a national food crime unit that is very actively involved in looking at deliberate crime in the food sector, including people selling things that should not be sold or that are misrepresented. We also do quite a lot in the detection and enforcement of large-scale issues, including supply chain problems, incorrect labelling and so on.

In the case of precision breeding, it will clearly depend on what Parliament decides, but if there were a regulation on labelling, we would need to look carefully at how that responsibility goes out to the different regulators. We would undoubtedly have a view, and we would issue information for local authorities to enforce on what should and should not be on a label.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I have two sets of questions. First, I want to go back to labelling, because I have been mulling over your response. Is the objection to labelling the two apples that you cannot, at the moment, have a test to tell them apart? Is that, in principle, the reason for not labelling, or is there another reason?

Professor May: That is exactly right. As the legislation stands, you might introduce what is called a single base pair chain—a tiny, one letter change in the DNA code of that apple. Those single letter changes happen all the time. If you have a field of apple trees, they will all be slightly different, even if you cloned them all initially, so we would not be able to take that apple, sequence the DNA and definitively say, “This one was created by someone using genome editing, and this one just turned up by chance in the field.” As you cannot tell those two apples apart, if there were a label on one saying “Precision bred” and a label on the other saying “Not precision bred”, I could not, as a scientist, say that that was true. That therefore raises questions in my head about why you would have a label if you cannot be sure, in the first place, that what it says is true.

UK Nationals in the EU: Rights

Debate between Kate Green and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered negotiations on the future rights of UK nationals in the EU.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am grateful for the opportunity to consider the negotiations on the future rights of UK nationals in the European Union and I look forward to constructive clarification of the Government’s position on the matter from the Minister.

According to the United Nations Population Division, 1.2 million British people currently live in the European Union. The largest communities are in Spain, with 309,000 people; Ireland, with 255,000; France, with 185,000; and Germany, with 103,000. It is estimated that of those 1.2 million British people living in another European Union country, about 800,000 are workers and their dependants. It is worth pointing out that, contrary to widely held assumptions, only 20% are pensioners. Some 70% to 80% are working, often cross-border.

This subject is one of the most sensitive in the current negotiations, in part because it affects so many people directly. In yesterday’s debate in the main Chamber, I said that we should not be leaving the European Union. I will not revisit that point today, although I will say that it would be by far the simplest resolution to the problem facing some 4 million people. Today’s debate will be largely about UK citizens in the EU, but there is a clear link—reciprocity, to use the Government’s favourite term—between the two groups.

I have a particular interest because some 9,000 non-UK EU nationals live and work in and around Cambridge. Unison, the public service union that I worked for before entering Parliament, estimates that it has some 70,000 members who are non-UK EU nationals. Some from both those groups will be lobbying Parliament tomorrow, in an event organised by the 3 Million, British in Europe and others. I hope hon. Members will take the opportunity to meet them and listen to their concerns. I found the lobby in February quite harrowing, listening to people’s concerns—as I do for many of the people who visit my surgeries and are from families that face a completely unexpected and totally uncertain future.

I am conscious that many others wish to speak, Mr Streeter, so I will try to set out the current position succinctly. I will try to be balanced—as in any negotiation, both sides have taken positions that might look unfair to an impartial observer, and one hopes that the differences will narrow as the process develops. It is perhaps worth observing at the outset that the very idea of a negotiation on the future of 4 million innocent people leaves more than just a bad taste. As has been said many times, people are not bargaining chips. Many of us wanted an absolutely clear settlement at the outset, regardless of reciprocity, to give certainty and to calm fears. I was personally assured, as were others, by people close to Government that this would be achieved quickly—within months. That is not what has happened, and I fear that whatever is said, we are in a negotiation.

In the UK Government’s position paper published in June, “The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union: safeguarding the position of EU citizens living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU”, there is much about the position of EU citizens in the UK, although many of us were disappointed by the substance, and the reaction from the EU was not positive. Conversely, there is very little in that document on the future rights of UK nationals in the EU. The Government paper states:

“The Government’s objective is to ensure continuity in the immigration status of EU citizens and their family members resident in the UK before our departure from the EU (including their ability to access benefits and services). At the point that the UK leaves, EU citizens lawfully resident here (and their families) will be able to continue their activities in the UK. The Government will not discriminate between citizens from different EU member states in providing continuity for the rights and entitlements of existing EU residents and their families in the UK.

The UK fully expects that the EU and its member states will ensure, in a reciprocal way, that the rights set out above are similarly protected for UK nationals living across the EU before the specified date. Firstly, UK nationals in the EU must be able to attain a right equivalent to settled status in the country in which they reside. Secondly, they must be able to continue to access benefits and services across the member states akin to the way in which they do now.”

That is all fine, but it guarantees nothing at all. It is, as with so many of the other Government papers regarding Brexit, merely an expression of hope.

Sadly, the EU has made it crystal clear that the offer that our Government have tabled is not acceptable, and therefore reciprocal rights cannot be expected as no withdrawal agreement will be confirmed on these terms. Whether one has any sympathy with the EU position or not, that is the fact: there will be no reciprocity for UK nationals in the EU on the basis set out in June. Both sides are unwilling to make a unilateral offer, so there is no clarity for the 4 million.

Reciprocal rights are only a possibility if the EU thinks that the Government’s offer is sufficiently beneficial to the rights of EU citizens, and currently it does not. The latest joint technical document on citizens’ rights has been published. It sets out the UK and EU’s positions, helpfully highlighted in green for agreed positions, yellow for those that need work or clarification, and red for those on which the UK and EU disagree. Sadly, there was a lot of red. The lack of clear guarantees in the UK’s offer on comprehensive sickness insurance, future family members, the role of the European Court of Justice, administrative procedures surrounding the documentation that the UK proposes for EU settled citizens, criminality checks, healthcare, and rescinded status after two years’ leave, are all raised as problems by the EU. Equally, there is a range of issues on which the UK is unhappy with the EU offer, such as the residence rights of UK nationals within the EU, voting rights in local elections and the protection of posted workers.

There is a particular issue concerning those who on paper are British citizens, but who in some cases may not even have set foot in the UK. In the second round of negotiations, the UK proposed that children and other family members should have post-Brexit rights as “an independent right holder”. Currently, the EU position is that these citizens should have the status of “family member” post-Brexit. That implies that we could have a situation where a child born to UK parents in the south of France, who is completely fluent in French and whose entire life has been made in France, could find themselves with no protection under the withdrawal agreement if their 18th birthday falls a few months after Brexit. In contrast, an adult who takes the last Eurostar to France the day before Brexit could receive more protections than that child. That does not seem acceptable to me.

It is possible that the imbalance of the number of EU citizens in the UK versus the number of UK citizens in the rest of the EU 27 can at times result in many forgetting that there are 1.2 million British citizens in Europe. That is 1.2 million people who have decided to start a career, enjoy their retirement, start a family or study, and essentially establish a life outside of the UK, because they have had the right to do so. Many British children have been born in EU countries to British parents and have not pursued the path of dual nationality because it was not necessary to do so. There was simply no need. What will happen to the rights of the children who turn 18 after Brexit? Some will argue that these children should seek dual nationality, but what about those living in Spain, Austria or the Netherlands, where dual nationality is not an option?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I apologise that I cannot stay for the entire debate, Mr Streeter, but I am glad to have the opportunity to ask my hon. Friend whether he has also considered the potential conflict of law. Where a British child resident in another European country is involved in a parental dispute—separation or divorce—it may not be clear which legal system will prevail in deciding the family law issues.

[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.