Lords motions to approve Brexit SIs on the Environment - Feb 12

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 December 2018 be approved.

My Lords, in line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, these regulations make technical, legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of UK legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable. The regulations will also, where appropriate, prevent the otherwise automatic incorporation of EU legislation into our national law. The SI presents no changes of policy.

 

The regulations consist of three main components. The first set of amendments, in Part 2, are to three environmental Acts: the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Act 1995 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. Because these regulations amend primary legislation, they have undergone additional legal scrutiny by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

 

Regulation 2 amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This Act contains references to the UK’s obligations under EU law, which will no longer work legally after exit, and we are replacing them with references to “retained EU law” and “retained EU obligations”.

 

Regulation 3 amends the Environment Act 1995 and makes similar amendments to those in Regulation 2. It also includes adjustments to powers in the Act to make directions and regulations for the purposes of implementing EU law, so that they can instead be made for the purposes of retained EU obligations following exit. There are also amendments to the power for appropriate agencies—for instance, the Environment Agency, the Natural Resources Body for Wales or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—to impose charges in relation to retained EU law.

 

Regulation 4 amends the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and makes similar amendments to those in Regulation 2. It also adjusts the power in the Act to make regulations under Section 2 of the Act for the purposes set out in Schedule 1 to the Act. That power can currently be used in relation to EU directives, which Ministers designate from time to time. Regulation 4(3) removes this power to designate but lists the directives which have already been designated, preserving our existing ability to change and improve the relevant environmental regulations. If we did not do so, the reduction in the scope of the power could mean that we would have to use primary legislation to make the necessary changes to maintain and update environmental standards.

 

Part 4 of these regulations addresses existing directions and regulations made using powers under the Environment Act 1995. We are providing for them to continue for what will be domestic purposes. This will ensure, for example, that the recent air quality directions to English local authorities, requiring them to prepare local air quality plans, remain in force.

 

Part 3 of these regulations makes amendments to three cross-cutting environmental statutory instruments: the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006, the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 and the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015. These instruments make similar references to EU law to those made in the Acts I have already mentioned, and for the same reason need to be amended. The instruments apply to England only; devolved Administrations are addressing separately any similar issues in devolved legislation. The amendments in these regulations make no changes to policy and these instruments will continue to operate substantively as they do now.

 

There is a type of EU legislation that is directly applicable. This is law that applies in the UK without any further legislation by our parliaments, and includes EU regulations and decisions. These will automatically be brought into national law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, as part of retained EU law. In some cases, however, that is not appropriate. When we are no longer a member state, the UK will no longer be allowed to authorise participation in the EU’s Eco-Management and Audit Scheme—EMAS—or the EU’s Ecolabel scheme. Existing EMAS and Ecolabel registrations with UK bodies will no longer be valid. These regulations do not bring about this change: it is a result of our leaving the EU. These regulations make appropriate legal amendments to reflect the situation.

 

The EU EMAS regulation establishes the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. Participation in this scheme is entirely voluntary, and there are only 17 UK-registered organisations. ISO 14001, a similar scheme established by the International Organization for Standardization, has more than 16,000 UK-registered participants. The EU Ecolabel regulation establishes another entirely voluntary scheme, under which producers, importers and retailers can apply for the EU Ecolabel for their products. Again, uptake in the UK has been low. In fact, a European Commission fitness check of EMAS and Ecolabel across member states in 2017 found that the schemes were substantially limited by levels of uptake.

 

The Government nevertheless attach importance to voluntary schemes that encourage businesses to improve their environmental performance. In our resources and waste strategy, we recognise that providing transparency of information can help those consumers or organisations that want to make environmentally friendly choices to do so. Guidance is also provided on how to look after their products and dispose of them at end of life. We will develop options for domestic eco-labelling before consulting more widely.

 

In the meantime, businesses holding existing EMAS registrations and Ecolabels will still be able to sell their products in EU member states, and they can apply to rejoin these schemes through other member states offering the service. We have published and circulated information notes on EMAS and Ecolabels to affected businesses. If we do not act, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will bring EMAS and Ecolabel regulations into our national law. For the purposes of good public administration, and to avoid any confusion for businesses wanting to join such schemes in the future, these regulations stop that happening.

 

Finally, there are further EU decisions included in the schedule to these regulations, which refer to EU environmental action programmes. These EU decisions are either already out of date or will serve no ongoing purpose after we leave the EU. We will be making these amendments for the same reasons as with EMAS and Ecolabels.

 

These provisions apply to the whole of the UK and have been agreed between all four nations. The amendments in these regulations will ensure that UK law continues to operate smoothly when we leave. They represent no change in policy and the regulatory impact experienced by businesses and the public will not change as a result of these regulations. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this section of statutory instruments and have listened carefully to what he said: there is no change in policy. Indeed, it is important that we pass these statutory instruments to maintain the existing regulations that we have been connected with.

 

My noble friend also talked about sustainability in the long term but recognised that the current audit and labelling schemes will no longer be valid. Perhaps I might press him a little more on that because clearly we will have to introduce a scheme to replace the existing ones. Is he able to tell us a little more about that and how the department will approach it? Also on that issue, I think he said that we were going to be consulting more widely. Again, it is a matter of timeframe: how soon that will happen? Clearly, that would help us in dealing with this statutory instrument.

 

Lastly, my noble friend mentioned that some aspects of existing EU law have become out of date and we would need to transfer powers to a new set of regulations. Can he give us any indication of how many of the changes taking place are to regulations that are considered out of date?

My Lords, in general, this is obviously a sensible regulation. However, I have a number of queries, one of which is exactly the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. There are references to redundant and inappropriate regulations, but there is no list, as far as I can see, of which regulations they are or whether further regulations might be deemed to fall within that category. I may have misread the rather complex way in which the regulations are presented, but there may be a whole batch of regulations which, down the line, Defra officials may decide are redundant and use the power under the Act to take off the statute book.

 

My other two questions are these. It is true that EMAS and Ecolabel have been a bit of a slow burn, but, nevertheless, there is a degree of consumer recognition and take-up. Is the Minister saying that in no circumstances could we use those terms under British law to continue to reflect the qualities that some consumers have now come to recognise, or will his consultation be directed to providing an entirely new British scheme—which, by definition, will require a further educational and informational period before it begins to be recognised? Even in the more benign context of a deal of some sort, would it not be sensible for some mutual recognition and continued use of the existing labels to operate post the UK leaving the EU?

 

Finally, I declare my presidency of Environmental Protection UK, one main concern of which has been air pollution and air quality. The Minister referred to that in passing. The problem with the air quality regulations is that, hitherto, the effective enforcement of those regulations has depended substantially on the Commission’s intervention and on campaigners—ClientEarth, mainly, in this case—taking the British Government through the courts on the basis of EU law.

 

In both those respects, I am not entirely sure what mechanism replaces that. Is it the much-heralded but still unclear new environmental statutory body, which will presumably appear in the environment Bill when we eventually get it, or is it simply to be enforcement of these new regulations, having become British law, or retained EU law, enforceable through the British courts? The problem hitherto has been that it has been government bodies at local and national level which have failed to meet, for example, the provisions on maximum NOx levels for air quality. Unless we stipulate in the new regulations who will enforce equivalent standards to the European standards, we may well have something on the statute book but we will be unable to enforce it.

My Lords, clearly this is one of the less contentious SIs under the Defra brief, but important scrutiny still needs to be undertaken. I put on record my gratitude to the staff who, this morning, when I had particular points on which I wanted clarification, were able quickly to reassure me on some of them. I thank them. They were about the Ecolabel issue. I was not clear what would happen if there were not a no-deal scenario.

 

It is clear from the Explanatory Memorandum what happens if there is no deal and a British company which operates both in the UK and in other parts of Europe wants to continue using the Ecolabel: it can do so as long as it registers in a member state elsewhere. The logo would still be usable in the UK in the event of no deal. I press the Minister on what would happen if we do get a deal. I want to be absolutely clear that if we get a deal with our European partners in the foreseeable future, the scheme, with the very distinctive Ecolabel—which looks very European and, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, is gaining traction among consumers in an important area—the regulations, the processes and the scheme will carry on exactly as they do now, maintaining what is to many of us an important initiative for businesses to help us deliver our environmental objectives.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his exposition of the statutory instrument. I know that it has made his brain hurt, so he is in common with all of us. I will focus on some specific issues and particularly tax him on one of its more arcane elements. This SI is one of those known as a jumbo regulation, because it sweeps up so many provisions in a high-level way, but it has one oddity. Regulation 5(4) dives into the detail of the Northumbria and Solway Tweed river basins. Can the Minister explain this arcanity in his response?

 

In a more mainstream way, I want to focus on some other issues. The Schedule to the regulations stops the EU legislation on the environmental action programme, EMAS and the Ecolabel from being brought into UK law. Personally, I am sad that we will no longer have the framework of the environmental action programmes, which were, at a minimum, the forum for EU member states to come together to express ambition for the environment. In my experience, EU Ministers and the Commission working together were braver and bolder than they would be individually when they came back home and were faced with conflicting pressures against the environment. That is another loss that we will suffer from leaving the Union.

 

I turn to EMAS, the European Management and Audit Scheme, of which we will no longer be a part when we leave the EU. The Minister kindly provided a briefing session involving him and a veritable army of Defra civil servants; I think of the £4 billion costs so far of exiting the EU. We were rather surprised to learn at the briefing that, as he outlined, only 17 organisations in the UK have adopted EMAS, compared to 16,000 which perform to ISA 14001, which is the global standard.

 

The Minister confirmed that the Government are, therefore, not planning to develop an EMAS-type scheme for the UK after Brexit. EMAS has some benefits in its approach which are beyond ISA 14001. It delivers not just continuous improvement in environmental performance and credibility—it is externally validated—but, most importantly, it promotes much greater transparency, with publicly available information on environmental performance by businesses and organisations. I ask the Minister to consider how this virtue of greater transparency could be applied to environmental performance schemes in the UK, post Brexit. What arrangements will be made for promoting continuous improvement in the environmental performance of businesses and other organisations?

 

At the Minister’s briefing sessions, we also heard that only 50 UK organisations use the EU Ecolabel. Ecolabels—for they are many and varied—help the public make informed purchasing choices in products and services with a reduced environmental impact. The Government made a commitment, through the waste and resources strategy, to look at developing a UK ecolabel. I say commitment, but the strategy actually says that the Government will consult key stakeholders, consult “more widely”, consider whether ecolabelling makes any difference to the public’s buying habits, consider how to encourage the public to use label information in purchasing, then decide whether a statutory scheme is needed at all. Perhaps business could just do it.

 

This all seems a bit “jam tomorrow”. I know that Defra is the department for food, farming and rural affairs, but tomorrow’s jam is the only food it seems to concentrate on these days. I assume that all this considering and consulting cannot happen before 29 March, so we have another example of a gap in the environmental governance framework post Brexit, with no clear timetable for the introduction of a UK alternative ecolabel. Can the Minister tell us the timetable for the introduction of a UK ecolabel and whether it will cover simply waste and resources issues or the wider environmental impacts of products and services?

 

Of course, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, it will be important for us to maintain alignment with the EU Ecolabel scheme if we want to trade with our nearest neighbours. What assurances can the Minister give that importers and exporters will not have to operate with different labels for the home market and the export market? In the midst of all that, how will he ensure that ecolabelling is kept as simple as possible for consumers?

 

While we are talking about tomorrow’s jam, the major hiatus concerns who will monitor, enforce, sanction and handle complaints about the way the new arrangements are carried out by UK authorities. We are not talking about inconsequential matters: this SI alone covers serious environmental issues contained in the Environmental Protection Act, the Pollution Prevention and Control Act, and regulations on contaminated land and environmental noise—to name but a few. The Government promised us the office for environmental protection to fill some of the gaps left by the substantial remedies we currently enjoy as an EU member, which will disappear as we leave the EU. For example, in instances where government and public bodies fail to perform, cases can be referred to Europe, with remedies through the infraction and fining process and, ultimately, the judgments of the European Court of Justice. However, we have no timetable for the legislation needed to create the office for environmental protection—the environment Bill—or its establishment in practical terms. We have no clarity yet about the real weight of its powers.

 

The talk on the streets is that, bearing the legislative timetable in mind, the OEP is unlikely to be fully operative until the end of the transition period, if we have one. Can the Minister confirm his understanding of the timetable? He very kindly wrote to me to say that there would be interim arrangements in the meantime but that he could not yet tell me what they might be. We are only six weeks away from potentially needing such arrangements. Either Ministers know what they are planning, and arrangements are under way behind the scenes but they are unwilling to be open with Parliament, or they do not know and no arrangements are being planned. Which is worse: being secretive or being unprepared? It is a case of one or the other; I leave noble Lords to choose one.

 

The environment and the people of this country are at risk from this potentially protracted governance gap. Is the Minister in a position yet to provide a timetable for the permanent and interim solutions? Can he give the House details of, or even a broad clue about, the interim solution? I hope that he accepts these comments and questions as a constructive contribution, as they are intended.

My Lords, I will say from the outset that I consider all the contributions made in the debate immensely constructive. If I am not in a position to answer any questions concerning precise detail, I will address them in due course. I was struck by the exchanges between my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty; I have been in other skirmishes with them when they put their heads together, knowing that they dealt with the water Bill or whatever, so I know that I am in difficult territory. I can confirm that my noble friend Lady Byford is absolutely right that there is no change of policy.

 

Noble Lords raised ecolabelling and EMAS immediately. As I said, we are not in a position to continue with those schemes because we are leaving the EU. However, if we get a deal, such arrangements and schemes would continue during the implementation period; everyone seems to be working extremely hard on that. Of course, how those schemes could continue would then be open to further phases of negotiation. The question concerns how we would proceed given that, as the EU has conceded, uptake across the European Union for such schemes has been low. I was struck by the number of participants in ISO schemes compared with European ones: thousands of organisations in EU countries are registered with the ISO, but only a comparatively small number are registered with EU schemes. I do not wish to denigrate the EU Ecolabel or EMAS in any way, but it is worth considering that the number of UK-based registrants to ISO schemes is substantial.

 

A number of questions were asked about our vision. Noble Lords have heard this before but our vision is for environmental standards to be not only maintained but enhanced. Our waste and resources strategy recognised that information transparency is essential. As I said, we will develop options for domestic ecolabelling before consulting more widely. I am not in a position to outline the precise timing for that, but we wish to develop those options as part of our strategy. I suspect that if we get a deal—I hope we do—the ISO scheme, which runs in parallel with the ecolabelling scheme, will continue. I am sure that we would welcome noble Lords’ views about how best to ecolabel.

 

One issue is particularly important. I sympathise with noble Lords and say that we have a lot of ambition for primary legislation. We wish to enshrine in the environment Bill the 25-year environment plan and the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection, which will be independent and will hold the Government to account. It is a matter of parliamentary timing. We said that legislation would be brought forward in the second Session, and we are absolutely clear that it will have teeth. It will ensure that all the areas referred to by noble Lords who have concerns about governance are addressed.

 

I wrote to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone, about interim arrangements. I am not in a position tonight to say precisely what they are. I do not recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, because we have said in public that we are considering interim arrangements. I am simply not in a position to say tonight. I know that it is being worked on, because it has come from colleagues that this matter is being worked on. I have promised to tell both noble Baronesses, as well as all noble Lords in this debate, as soon as there is some announcement about what the interim arrangements are.

I wonder if my noble friend might give way. Is it possible to find out what body or who will be responsible before the new environmental body is set up? The difficulty is that it could be many weeks or months; we really do not know how soon that will come in. Therefore, the natural question is: after 29 March, if things are not going as we hope, where does the buck stop? Who is responsible in the meantime? It may well be that his own department takes that on, but I did not think it was clear in the statutory instruments we have just been debating. I would be grateful for some clarification.

I have to say that that area is not what this statutory instrument is about. I can say that we will bring forward measures so that there is no gap in environmental governance in the event of a no-deal Brexit. We fully realise that the independent environmental body will not be complete; we have to have primary legislation for that. But I can say—I hope it provides some reassurance—that once the office comes into effect it will have the power to review and take action on any breaches that occur from the day of us leaving. There will therefore be no period of time during which government actions cannot be held to account by an enforcement agency. I hope that is an assurance that the Government’s bona fides on this are very strong and that we do not want there to be an environmental governance gap. I am not sure that I can add anything further, but I look forward to the noble Baroness’s intervention.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I just express a slight nervousness about the provision, which I absolutely recognise is necessary, for the new body to be able to take action on complaints that arise from the day of exit, whenever that is. If we were to leave without a deal and the new body did not come into being for 18 months or two years, which is quite possible under the current timetable, I would not like to think of this growing pile of complaints mounting up as the new body comes into being, so that its first act is facing a huge backlog.

I entirely accept what the noble Baroness has said. It is our duty as a Government, whoever is in office, to ensure that we enhance the environment. That is the whole purpose of the 25-year environmental plan, but I am very conscious of what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I beg to move.

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 January be approved.

My Lords, the instrument before your Lordships makes technical amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of retained direct EU legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable, so that the law as today will continue to function properly following exit. There are no policy changes made by this instrument.

 

The purpose of these regulations, in line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, is to provide for public authorities in the UK to exercise a series of legislative functions currently conferred by EU legislation on the European Commission. In each case, the legislative function was conferred on the EU Commission so that it can interrogate the technical details of a specific EU regime and adapt them to changes without the frequent need to refer back to the EU Council and EU Parliament. These powers are clearly defined and strictly limited to technical and administrative matters. They are not the kind of matter for which we would generally, in the domestic context, require primary legislation. Rather, they would be suitable to be dealt with by secondary legislation or administratively.

 

Examples of these functions include specifying the forms to be used, amending technical annexes to reflect advances in scientific and technical knowledge, and updating annexes to reflect requirements under international agreements. We need the UK authorities to be able to continue to update such technical details for ongoing domestic purposes to ensure that the legislation can keep pace with change, including technological developments and our international commitments, without the need for primary legislation every time a change in such matters is required.

 

Parliaments and Assemblies in the UK have, until now, had little input into how these powers are exercised. In each case, these regulations set out the procedure for the exercise of these legislative functions in future. With two minor exceptions, the powers will be exercised through secondary legislation that will be subject to the scrutiny of our Parliaments.

 

This SI makes a number of adjustments. These represent no changes in policy, nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public.

 

Regulation 2 confers functions under the EU regulation on persistent organic pollutants, or POPs. These include a power to amend POPs waste concentration limits for the purpose of adapting to scientific and technical progress, and to ban, restrict or modify the use of POPs in accordance with international agreements.

 

Regulations 3 and 6 confer functions under the EU regulations on illegal timber and timber products. These include a power to recognise licensing schemes in partner countries to form the basis of licensing, and to amend the list of timber products to which the licensing scheme applies.

 

Regulation 4 confers functions under the EU regulation establishing a European pollutant release and transfer register. These include a power to take measures to initiate reporting on releases of relevant pollutants from diffuse sources where no data exists, and to adopt guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of emissions.

 

Regulation 5 confers functions under the EU regulation on transfrontier shipments of waste. These include a power to establish and amend technical and organisational requirements for the practical implementation of electronic data interchange for the submission of documents and information.

 

Regulation 7 confers functions under the EU regulation on the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. These include a power to establish and amend procedures for monitoring user compliance and for recognising best practice.

 

Regulation 8 confers functions under the EU regulation on mercury. These include a power to specify the forms to be used for export and import restrictions, and to set out technical requirements for the environmentally sound interim storage of mercury, mercury compounds and mixtures of mercury.

 

Regulation 9 confers one legislative function contained in an EU directive relating to industrial emissions. The power relates to determining best available techniques for preventing or minimising emissions from activities covered by the directive.

 

Regulations 10 and 11 confer functions under the EU regulations governing the use of leghold traps and the import of pelts and goods. These include a power to grant derogations from the ban on the import of pelts and other products, and to determine the appropriate forms for certification of imported goods incorporating pelts of listed species.

 

Regulation 12 confers functions under the EU regulation implementing CITES. These include a power to establish restrictions on the introduction into the UK of listed species, and to provide for derogations from certain provisions.

 

As I have explained, in future we will exercise these powers through laying statutory instruments before Parliament. However, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the two minor cases where administrative procedures will be used, rather than secondary legislation. These relate to POPs and leghold traps. In the first case, the administrative function being conferred concerns the determination of the format for the provision of information by the competent authority; in the second, it concerns the publication of model forms for use by importers.

 

In addition, the regulations also amend the retained direct EU legislation in the context of the provisions conferring these legislative functions where that is necessary to make it function properly after exit. An example of such an amendment is changing references from “Community legislation” to “retained EU law”.

My Lords, this SI introduces to us a number of important protections which we are presently receiving from the European Union. It is very encouraging that the Government are maintaining parliamentary scrutiny through the majority of SIs. However, I would like just to pick up on the issue of leghold traps.

 

Can the Minister be a bit clearer, and give a bit more detail, about why we will not be going down the route of parliamentary scrutiny on this issue, which is quite controversial? I appreciate that there may be administrative reasons, but if you look at all the pieces of legislation where it is being suggested that we will be maintaining parliamentary scrutiny, leghold traps are an issue that I think that the public would have a particular interest in. They may know very little about mercury or POPs, important though they are, but quite a few people have a view on leghold traps. They might want to know in a little more detail on why they will not be getting the treatment of parliamentary scrutiny through secondary legislation.

 

The other point I wish to make on this SI, which seems entirely proportionate, is that it brings to the fore the issue of how we are going to align our policies with our partners in future. I particularly cite the issue of CITES—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—where it is critical that we have an alignment of regulation, given the huge issue of wildlife crime, to which I know the Government have made some very welcome commitments. I am sure there is nothing in this SI in terms of changing the regulations about how the Government wish to manage that, but it affords me the opportunity to raise the issue of how the Government are going to maintain a very clear alignment with our colleagues in Europe on particularly important issues around wildlife crime.

My Lords, these regulations will allow UK authorities to exercise legislative functions in the UK after exit day in a range of areas, including, as has already been outlined, persistent organic pollutants, importation of timber products and derogations from certain CITES provisions.

 

The Explanatory Memorandum says that this statutory instrument does not make any substantive policy changes, but the UK public authorities exercising these newly transferred functions could immediately make changes that would have significant environmental impacts. So these regulations open up the way for significant policy changes. In view of the scale and importance of the powers being transferred to the appropriate public authority, can the Minister give assurances on the following concerns?

 

Will these powers remain with the Secretary of State and the equivalent in the devolved Administrations and not be delegated further? Bearing in mind the comments made during the debate on a previous SI, on the governance gap and the lack of an oversight and sanctioning body, how will these public authorities be held accountable? How will complaints against their operation of these new powers be handled?

 

The SI does not include mechanisms for enabling access to the necessary expert and technical advice. Do the appropriate public authorities have access to sufficient expert or technical input, and will that be sought and published on every change proposed? How do the Government intend to access the wealth of scientific and technical expertise and data available across the EU which might not be replicable within the UK? What access will the UK have, during the implementation period and after EU exit, to the EU’s systems for tracking and sharing relevant data?

 

Turning to the issue of consultation, what commitment will the Government make for consultation on the future exercise of these powers and proposals for changes by the appropriate public authority? The statutory instrument lays out, at Regulation 9(10), limited consultation arrangements in one specific area under the powers to make decisions on best available technique—BAT—but not on any other powers. Can the Minister assure the House that wide consultation will be the norm, with stakeholders, NGOs and the public?

 

I now turn to devolution. These amending regulations, as the Minister has explained, cover legislation in areas where all four nations are currently bound by the same EU requirements. The Minister very kindly at his briefing session assured us that the regulations have been discussed and agreed with the devolved Administrations, and the degree of devolution in transferring the powers to an appropriate public body has been designed on the basis of whether the matters are reserved matters. That was fine where the policy framework and the standards were EU-wide while implementation was devolved to the four nations. In the future, when policy and implementation are devolved to the nations, divergence in standards could happen quite quickly. This would have an impact on businesses operating across the four nations and on their ability to trade with our EU neighbours.

 

Let me give an example from Part 3 of the statutory instrument. BAT—best available technique—is one of the foundations of environmental regulation covering industrial emissions and is the basis of the regulation of things like cement plants, steel works, power stations and chemical works that create emissions. If we have four different versions, potentially, of best available technique across the four nations, how would UK-wide regulated companies cope? How would they trade their technologies to our European neighbours, which might be regulating against a fifth version of best available technology? This cannot be sensible. That is only one example of how diverging standards across the four nations would not be good for British business and possibly not good for the environment as well.

 

I welcome the confirmation from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 28 January in the other place of the Government’s,

 

“intention to work towards a common framework for a number of different regulations”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 28/1/19; cols. 7-8.].

 

Can the Minister tell the House when this common framework will be published and when it will come into effect? What regulations will it cover?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their contributions to this debate.

 

I hope that I can clarify immediately for the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the issue of leghold traps. Perhaps I should have referred to it, but in my opening remarks I said that Regulations 10 and 11 confer functions under the EU regulations governing the use of leghold traps and the import of pelts. I went on then to talk about the distinct two elements, which are in effect about forms and the format of forms. By way of reassurance, it is not that there will be no requirement for statutory instruments on leghold traps but that, candidly—proportionately—most people would think it unreasonable to have a statutory instrument on the format of a form. I hope that I can immediately take that concern out of the way.

 

On CITES, we are considered a very strong participant in CITES and we take our international obligations extremely seriously. I was at the conference in London during the passage of the Ivory Bill and many countries there recognised what our country is doing. We are a party to CITES in our own right. We have higher protections than mandated by that convention, and we will comply with all international decisions made at the CITES meeting in May this year. Clearly, it is important that there is alignment not only among us in Europe but across the world to ensure the importance of looking after wildlife around the world. Certainly, our commitment in terms of our international obligations is very strong. Whatever arrangements there are, we will want to work very closely with partners in the EU and internationally.

 

To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, if this statutory instrument is passed today, we will be in a position through statutory instruments to make changes. These are distinct technical areas that we are taking forward, but more generally I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness and noble Lords that we wish to enhance rather than retreat. There may be changes, but this particular statutory instrument deals with those technical points that we are drawing back.

 

The issue of expertise is hugely important. The Government rely on the best experts available. We will use our consultation principles requiring relevant expert advice to be sought where appropriate, and those affected by any policy must be properly consulted. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that, in the case of these regulations, Regulation 9(10) explicitly requires the Secretary of State, or DA Ministers as appropriate, to consult bodies and persons likely to be affected. Of course, many of the obligations relevant to these regulations derive from our participation in international conventions such as the Stockholm convention on POPs and the CITES convention and will continue to involve us directly in multilateral expert dialogues. But the noble Baroness is right. Clearly in this area we will want to seek the views of experts and we will want to consult.

 

Access to EU systems will clearly be a matter for negotiation. We are all working for a deal, but I very much hope that, in terms of access, the importance of mutuality across the continent will mean that we continue to work collaboratively together.

 

I do not have in front of me a precise note of timings on the common framework, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The discussions that we have had with the devolved Administrations on this matter and others show that, for all the political knockabout, it makes sense in so much of this to work together on a UK basis. That is why, although some of the matters are devolved, we have worked extremely collaboratively and productively with the devolved Administrations. The whole purpose of the common framework is to acknowledge exactly what the noble Baroness said. We all agree mutually that any divergence should be the exception in something like this because I am sure that we all—in England in the UK Government and in the devolved Administrations—want to work positively for the environment. As soon as I am in a position to clarify anything further about the common framework I will, but all I can say is that I hear very positive signs of what I think we would all suggest was a common-sense way forward on such important matters.

 

I will study Hansard and if there are any particular points that I have not covered, I will of course write. In the meantime, I beg to move.

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 December 2018 be approved.

My Lords, I will speak also to the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, with which this instrument has been grouped.

 

Plant protection products, commonly called pesticides, are currently regulated by means of EU Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and the associated Regulation (EC) 396/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. These two regimes, on plant protection products and maximum residue level regulatory regimes, are closely related to each other and both rely on centralised EU processes and mechanisms.

 

These statutory instruments make technical adjustments. There will be minimal modification of the current EU regime and these represent no changes of policy; nor will they have any significant impact on businesses or the public. Although the regime relies on EU processes to take and implement decisions which need to be corrected, much of the business of the regime already operates at national level. Decisions at EU level are taken on the basis of evaluations and assessments undertaken by member states, such as by our own Health and Safety Executive. In future, these evaluations will inform a national decision, rather than informing UK input into an EU decision. This means that much of the infrastructure and expertise that we need is already in place within the UK. This will provide a good degree of continuity when we implement the UK-wide regime.

 

On the plant protection product regime, the main corrections made by this instrument include the following adjustments. All decision-making functions and powers are repatriated from the EU to national level, including approval of active substances and a number of other related functions. We will be able to continue to draw on the considerable scientific and technical expertise of the Health and Safety Executive, which will continue to operate as our expert national regulator on behalf of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. The Chemicals Regulation Division, or CRD, of the HSE already has around 150 staff working on pesticides—a considerable resource. This means we are well placed to operate a national regime that maintains the highest standards.

 

A mechanism is established to give effect to national decisions by listing approved active substances on a new statutory register, in the form of a publicly available online database. This replaces the EU mechanism whereby these decisions are given effect by a constant flow of EU tertiary legislation. Other EU tertiary legislative powers will be repatriated to national level to convert them into a power to make regulations by statutory instrument, therefore keeping them on a statutory footing, with just minor exceptions where it is more appropriate to undertake very minor or frequent functions administratively.

 

EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in the national context, for instance: consideration of specific technical issues specified in the regulations; public consultation on active substance applications; provision for consultation with independent specialists where appropriate; and final decision-making. National arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place. We already have existing independent advisory committees of experts and academics—the Expert Committee on Pesticides and the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food—which are busy preparing to be ready to meet our changed advice needs after exit day. The EU regime’s power to establish a rolling active substance renewals programme will be replaced with a power to establish a national renewals programme. In the meantime, we will be able to take renewals decisions as necessary.

 

Some elements of the current regime which rely on EU membership will no longer be able to operate; for example, the mutual recognition provisions for fast-tracking product approvals between member states in the same zone are no longer relevant. However, the UK will be able to take account of relevant assessments by other countries’ regulators in our own national assessments.

 

Similarly, parallel trade permits rely on the sharing of information between member states and will no longer be relevant. Current parallel trade permits at the point of exit will remain valid for a period of two years after exit or until the extant expiry date—whichever is sooner. Transitional measures have been put in place ensuring that changeover to the national regime is smooth; for example, ensuring that all current approvals and authorisations remain valid after the point of exit, and making provision for handling applications which are in train at the point of exit.

 

The second instrument makes corrections to the pesticides maximum residue levels regime, and many of the corrections repeat the changes I have just set out for the first instrument. All decision-making functions and powers are repatriated from the EU to national level; for example, the setting of maximum residue levels. A mechanism is established to give effect to national maximum residue level decisions by listing them on a new statutory register in the form of a publicly available online database. EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in a national context, such as evaluation functions specified in the regulations. As I said, national arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place with two highly respected expert committees.

 

The requirement for reviews of EU maximum residue levels to ensure that they are set at appropriate levels has been replaced with a provision for reviews at national level. The power to establish an EU residue monitoring programme has been replaced with an equivalent national power to put in place a national monitoring programme. The current EU programme looks three years ahead, so the UK’s obligations under this programme for the next three years are retained. This will ensure that the same standards of protection are maintained after exit. Again, transitional measures have been put in place, ensuring that changeover to the national regime is smooth; for example, all maximum residue levels in place at the point of exit will be carried over.

 

There has been a constant flow of EU tertiary regulations on plant protection products and maximum residue levels—typically several each month—giving effect to decisions on active substances and maximum residue levels. Within this regulation on maximum residue levels, which was laid before Christmas, two minor transitional provisions relating to Regulation (EC) 396/2005, which converts EU maximum residue levels into our new statutory register, have become redundant, due to amendments made to that regulation by the EU in January.

 

We have today laid the miscellaneous EU exit environment amendments and revocations in draft, which, among other amendments, will revoke these two transitional provisions. Both SIs will be made together once the draft instrument laid today has passed the sifting process. This will ensure that our regulations are linked correctly to retained EU law as it is on exit day. The miscellaneous amendments will deal with the fact that there had been a change in the EU in January. Again, I shall ensure that noble Lords are kept in the picture on that, but I wanted to make that clear, as I heard about it only today and did not want any ambiguity or feeling that there had been any secrecy in these matters.

 

I hope I have expressed sufficiently that the Government take these matters extremely seriously, and that continued levels of protection for human health and the environment, as well as making matters straightforward for businesses to put products on the market, are a given and essential. Without these corrections, the plant protection product and maximum residue level regimes would be inoperable and would not provide a functioning regulatory regime; for example, we would be unable to take action in response to new evidence on environmental or health risks, or to adjust maximum residue levels, approve new active substances or even renew approval of current ones.

 

These instruments will establish a UK-wide plant protection products and maximum residue level regime and ensure that a stable regulatory framework is in place. I am pleased to report that again we have worked very closely with the devolved Administrations to develop the instruments and they have consented to them being made on a UK-wide basis. These statutory instruments will put in place, when the UK leaves, an independent, UK-wide regime enabling us, most importantly, to protect human health and the environment. I beg to move.

My Lords, these two statutory instruments are probably the most important ones we have had from Defra to date. The products are widely used in agriculture and industry and in people’s gardens and homes. As the Minister has rightly acknowledged, they can do serious damage to human health and the environment. It is important that these SIs give people the confidence that, if we are to leave the European Union, the protection is going to be as good, if not better, than what we have at the moment. Reading the statutory instruments, I am not entirely reassured. I have three questions which I will come to in a moment. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer these and to give me more satisfaction, given the importance to the general public of this issue.

 

These SIs show very clearly what we are losing if we leave the European Union. At present, we have a fully formed, established regime which works and protects human health. If we end up with no deal that will be lost. Equally, there will be significant additional costs to businesses if they operate across the European market both in the UK and on the continent. The impact assessment does not include those costs because it looks only at the costs for the UK regime, but there will be significant costs for most of the companies, such as Bayer and Syngenta, which work right across the continent. I found out what the fees are at the moment in a footnote somewhere. Each individual application costs in the region of £150,000 per product, irrespective of the cost of administering the application. Companies will be expected to find not insignificant sums of money if they have to follow the regime in the UK and also stay within the European regime if they wish to sell the products across Europe.

 

What concerns me not quite the most but nearly is that the Government’s proposed regime is somewhat sketchy. In the Explanatory Memorandum, they say that:

 

“The EU regime sets out decision making processes in considerable detail”.

 

 

The EU has done; I only wish that the British Government had done the same in setting out the proposals before us tonight. There is quite a lot to be taken on trust. They talk about setting up a statutory register, but there are no details. They talk about a process for taking independent scientific advice, but again there are no details. They talk about proposals for a renewal and that is where I get particularly worried. Paragraph 7.7(E) of the EM says:

 

“We will … establish the national renewals programme in a way which maintains effective protection but enables the UK to ensure it has a manageable and proportionate workload for one country alone”.

 

 

That is quite open-ended and does not guarantee the protections that we have at present.

 

It is baffling that neither the EM nor the impact assessment sets out how many applications the Government would expect to see per year if we have a no-deal situation. I scoured them in detail and could not find any, and yet it sets out, quite clearly, that the EU has 50 additional regulations a year, so how many applications are the Government expecting to process?

My Lords, I have a fairly fundamental objection to this set of regulations. I am sure that most of the detail is absolutely correct and necessary and I cannot say that I have read every sentence of these two regulations, but I have long held, going back to my days as the Minister in Defra, that the current regime for the regulation of pesticides, both at British and European level, has been inadequate for a number of reasons, some of which have already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I am rather afraid that the “solution” of leaving the European Union is going to aggravate that position.

 

Most of the issues I have approached the department on in recent years have related to human health, but it is a much wider issue than that. I believe that the totality of the approach to pesticide regulation does not take into account the widespread effects of misuse of pesticides, the lack of enforcement of the way pesticides are used and the relative ease with which new pesticides and modified pesticides come on to the market. In some cases, the EU regulation has actually been held back by previous British interventions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I commend the current Secretary of State on neonicotinoids, but in general it is the Brits who have held back and there has been a lot of pressure—corporate pressure, one has to say—on the totality of the system. This could reinforce that tendency.

 

I understand, and I have been in some contact with the department about, the need to introduce provisions on chemicals broadly—on REACH provisions. These regulations tend to mirror, in a sense, the broader regulation structure on REACH. In the main, I think it is very sensible to maintain the success of the REACH provisions, but pesticides are different. They are different because they have a serious and often unacknowledged human health impact. More particularly, I want to emphasise tonight the effect they have on the environment in general: the effect of pesticides on the air, the water and the soil.

 

Soil has been degraded as a result of the overuse of pesticides. Pesticides in the air have affected both human and particularly insect life: this week we have seen very serious effects in the form of the worldwide reduction in insect life, some of which has been caused by pesticides here and elsewhere, and on the water system. One of the successes, to some extent, of the water framework directive has been to reduce that effect; nevertheless, there is still a very serious problem in our water supply, as the effect of pesticides comes through the soil, into the water and has an effect on insect life and on whatever you call those creatures that crawl on the bottom of our rivers—I am sure that my noble friend Lady Young can name them all, but I cannot—and therefore on our diversity. A lot of those are affected by the misuse or overuse of pesticides.

 

It is true that successive Governments have attempted to rationalise and pinpoint the use of pesticides more effectively in terms of agricultural use. However, unlike the industrial chemicals that will be covered by the transposition of arrangements on REACH, the use of pesticides—this particular form of chemical—is a matter not so much of industrial use but of agricultural use: its effect on the environment, on land management, on soil management and on air quality. I therefore find it somewhat surprising that we are to retain the HSE rather than an environmental body to oversee this. I know that the HSE has access to significant scientific information, and the transfer of a separate pesticide arrangement into the HSE probably was an improvement, but would I argue that if we are going to move to a new regime post Brexit, the appropriate body is actually the Environment Agency, because it has responsibility for agricultural practice and land use; for air, water and soil.

 

That is where, together with human health, pesticides have an impact. I am therefore disturbed that the whole rationale for these arrangements is to assign that role to the HSE and not to the Environment Agency and devolved environment agencies. I ask the Minister to think about that; it is not necessary, but we are moving into a new era, and the responsibility ought to be with an environmental body rather than with one which deals with the industrial use of other chemicals.

My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his courtesy in meeting us before this debate. I also thank the two noble Lords who have raised a number of important issues about these SIs, all of which I agree with. They both made very powerful points.

 

These SIs go to the heart of our concerns about the transposition process. This goes right back to our earlier discussions on the amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The use of pesticides is of huge public interest—a point made by the noble Baroness—and they present significant environmental and public health challenges. It is an issue where the use of the precautionary principle is vital—supported of course by strong scientific evidence and detailed scrutiny of the potential impact of the new products.

 

At the moment, we have in the EU a thorough process of evaluation of products. The responsibilities for risk assessments are shared out across member states. There are clear decision-making roles for the European Food Safety Authority, the rapporteur member state, individual member states and the European Commission. All this is supported and backed up by access to the best scientific advice. While no process is perfect, there is considerable assurance that within the EU a detailed assessment of the risks has been carried out and cross-checked.

 

These proposals are intended to replace all of this with an assessment by the Health and Safety Executive and a decision in the hands of one person, the “competent authority” as described in the text—otherwise known as the Secretary of State. Under these proposals, full power to make, amend or revoke guidance, principles and regulations for the UK rests with the Secretary of State and the devolved Ministers. There is a major loss of scrutiny, checks and balances, and audit powers.

 

This really is not good enough. It does not represent an accurate transposition of the current EU provisions into UK law. It also reopens our argument about the need for an independent environment watchdog to oversee the application of these new rules. This is a point other noble Lords have made—my noble friend Lady Young made it very eloquently in the earlier debate. That watchdog clearly needs to be in place from day one. I know that the Minister has said he cannot be precise about the timetable for this, but it would be helpful if he could reassure us again that the watchdog will be in place from 1 April, and that there will be no delay.

 

There is another big issue about what we will lose when we transpose to the UK. How can it be acceptable that the only reporting mechanism on national decisions for new active substances will be to publish the information online, when the previous EU regime required a report to be made to the EU Commissioner and a proper process of scrutiny and approval?

 

It also raises once again the fact that, by leaving the EU, we are cutting ourselves off from access to a huge resource of scientific data and analysis. Should we not be taking urgent steps to agree with the EU that we will continue to share this data for mutual benefit? For example, we will no longer have access to the advice of the European Food Safety Authority and will therefore have to pay considerable sums of money to try to replicate its advice. Would it not make sense to negotiate a mutual recognition agreement with the EU so that decisions taken in the EU and the UK continue to be mutually honoured? Can the Minister say whether discussions are taking place to create a shared register of approved pesticides and a mutual recognition scheme across the EU and UK, and what the timescale is for the outcome for those discussions?

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I do not think that I will be in a position to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in that, in the whole process of bringing these matters back, the HSE is deemed to be the relevant body in this country. However, I obviously note his observations about the UK and the EU, and the concern that he raised about both EU and UK regulation. As far as this SI is concerned, I take his general point, but I am dealing with the fact that the HSE is our regulator.

 

I want to open with the precautionary principle—a matter raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I suspect that, as with a lot of the issues relating to these statutory instruments, one needs a dossier to understand how everything is pitched. However, I reassure noble Lords that the precautionary principle is expressly a part of the plant protection product regime. It is specifically referred to in Article 1 of EU Regulation 1107/2009 as the underpinning basis of the provisions of the regime in protecting health and the environment. This statutory reference will be retained in UK law after leaving the EU. The precautionary principle is not mentioned in this particular instrument simply because it is not being amended, so nothing in our instrument affects it. I am most grateful for the opportunity to give that reassurance.

 

A number of points were made on the issue of decision-making, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised. We will be taking our own independent decisions under the UK-wide regime but the instruments carry across all the statutory requirements on standards of protection unchanged. All the considerable body of EU technical guidance which has been officially noted under the EU regulations, and which sets the standards to be met in informing decisions, is carried across by these instruments and will remain the basis for the national regime.

 

I am parking the point that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made. On the capacity of the regulator, it is important that I should emphasise that the national regulator, the HSE, is recognised across the world as having considerable expertise, and it has a very strong scientific standing. It currently covers a substantial share of the workload under the EU regime and is by some way the best-performing national EU regulator in terms of meeting timescales. For that reason, many international companies have chosen to make their applications under the EU regime via the HSE, due to its excellent record. The HSE’s considerable capacity will be redeployed to deliver the national regime. Much of the scientific work under the current regime already takes place at national level, so there will be a good degree of continuity.

 

I can confirm to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that extra public funding will be required from government for the national legislative framework for pesticides, plus the related policy and regulatory capability to operate a UK-wide regime. While budgets for future years have not yet been finalised, this will vary depending on the exit scenario. However, additional costs will be broadly in the order of £5 million per year, with slightly more in the set-up phase over the first couple of years. The costs relate primarily to additional staff in Defra and the HSE to manage the additional responsibilities that will fall at national level but also—I hope this will please the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—to a lesser extent the Environment Agency.

 

In developing our national renewals programme, we will need to look at issues such as how best to collaborate internationally. Again, I emphasise that obviously so much of these matters may be—we hope it will be—the subject of negotiations and the deal that is achieved, which we also fervently want. But on all these matters, both in the European and UK prisms, collaboration is always best.

 

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised a point about independent scientific expertise. Independent advice and assurance are invaluable; in my experience of dealing with these matters, and certainly when we came to the neonicotinoids issue, we relied on the best scientific assessment available. While I have been at Defra, that has been the mantra for all these matters. Perhaps one of the current Ministers is a scientist by background but certainly I am not, so scientific evidence and independent scientific experience is vital.

 

I emphasise that our existing independent advice arrangements primarily draw on the expertise of the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. The ECP is chaired by Professor William Cushley of the University of Glasgow and has a broad range of important expertise. Its membership includes academics with expertise in ecotoxicology, toxicology, the fate of pesticides in the environment, and pesticide residues in food. In other words, these are experts who are most vital to providing us with the right advice.

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 December 2018 be approved.

My Lords, I raised the same points in the previous debate. I beg to move.