Motion A Moved by Lord Callanan That this House do not insist on
its Amendment 15D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their
Reason 15E. 15E: Because the Commons do not consider the Lords
Amendment necessary in order to maintain environmental protection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con) My Lords, with the
leave of the House, I will also speak to Motion B. The House will
be pleased...Request free trial
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15D, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15E.
15E: Because the Commons do not consider the Lords Amendment
necessary in order to maintain environmental protection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to
Motion B. The House will be pleased to know that I can be brief
again today. We have extensively debated these issues on a number
of occasions.
The reality is that the House of Commons has considered this Bill
once more and has come to the same conclusions as previously,
again with significant majorities. This is now the third time
that it has made its will clear. It is the elected House and has
been firm in its position. We have to take that into account,
along with its democratic legitimacy.
I welcome that the noble and learned Lord, , recognises our constitutional
position. I hope that the noble Lord, , will be able to do the same.
The other place would find it extremely difficult to understand
if, on the amendment of the noble Lord, this unelected House sent
a Bill back to it yet again.
Noble Lords have seen that the Government have moved on a number
of issues during the passage of the Bill, both on Report and
subsequently. Crucially, we have provided transparency on our
plans on what retained EU law we intend to revoke this year—I
remind the House that this was a key demand from this House
during the Bill’s passage—by publishing a schedule of retained EU
law that is to be removed from our statute book by the end of
2023. This addressed the concerns raised by many noble Lords and,
of course, provided greater legal certainty.
We have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the
Government will not row back on our world-leading environmental
protections. In reviewing our retained EU law, we want
environmental law to be fit for purpose for the UK’s unique
environment and able to drive improved environmental outcomes, as
we have set out in our Environment Act targets, while ensuring
that regulators can act efficiently. Any changes to environmental
regulations across government will be driven with those goals in
mind.
In addition, I emphasise that it is standard practice to consult
on major policy changes for the environment. It is right that
Secretaries of State may exercise discretion when it comes to
consultation. Any such discretion must be exercised in accordance
with the law and guided by the consultation principles published
by the Government. Those principles ensure an efficient and
proportionate burden on government, while facilitating meaningful
consultation.
Furthermore, it is worth noting the new legal framework created
by the Environment Act 2021, our ambitious environmental plans
created under it and the legally binding targets set under
Sections 1 to 3 of that Act. This is the context in which the
REUL Bill and its regulation-making powers will operate.
Moreover, from 1 November there will also be a legal duty on
Ministers to have due regard to the environmental principles
policy statement when making policies using the Bill’s powers.
This Government use expert advice, including that of many
independent experts, when making provisions that relate to the
environment.
The UK continues to play a leading role on the international
stage, driving increased ambition in environmental international
law. Most recently, at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, UK leadership
was instrumental in securing global agreement to stretching
targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. We will remain a
world leader on the environment. Nothing in this Bill alters that
fact.
Let me now turn to Amendment 42F. I thank the noble and learned
Lord, , and the noble Lord, Lord
Anderson, for their dedication on this amendment. I am sure I
speak for us all in this House when I say that parliamentary
scrutiny is, and always will be, the pivotal foundation of our
democracy. Their commitment and expertise on this matter is, of
course, admirable. As I have said throughout the passage of the
Bill, the Government recognise the significant role that
Parliament has played in scrutinising instruments, including
throughout the EU exit process. I firmly believe that UK citizens
voted to leave the EU to re-establish the sovereignty of our UK
Parliament. At its heart, the Bill seeks to do exactly that. It
is for this reason that we have included the process of sifting
committees for the powers to revoke or replace, among others in
the Bill.
To further reassure the House, let me put it beyond any doubt. On
each and every occasion to date, we have always followed the
sifting committee’s recommendations. We will continue to adopt
the same practice of following the recommendations that the
sifting committee makes to upgrade the scrutiny procedure
attached to instruments made under the powers in this Bill. Where
the committee considers that a statutory instrument should be
subject to the affirmative procedure, we will ensure that it is
laid in draft before Parliament so that it can be debated in both
Houses. This will ensure that Members are able to debate all
reforms which the committee considers merit the highest level of
scrutiny, to ensure that Members have the opportunity to properly
scrutinise those reforms and that Ministers are aware of their
arguments, ideas and recommendations. It will of course be at the
Minister’s discretion, but where significant reforms are planned
on which there is particular interest from the House, Ministers
will be able to publish draft instruments, alongside any relevant
statements and consultation responses, ahead of laying those
statutory instruments.
In addition, I can commit today that, where the Government are
making significant reforms to retain EU law, using the replace
limbs of the powers in Clause 14, we will follow the usual
protocols on public consultation. These will be run in the usual
way, as is already a ministerial duty. I reassure the House that
the results of such consultation will be made available to
Members of both Houses in the established manner.
Finally, as noble Lords will know, we have committed in this Bill
to publish a report on retained EU law reform and the use of the
powers to Parliament every six months. In this report we will
provide Parliament with a six-month forward-look at major reforms
which will utilise the powers under Clause 14. This will provide
Parliament ample time to ask the Government questions on these
reforms through the normal procedures of Parliamentary Questions
and correspondence. It will also provide the relevant Select
Committees with the time to initiate inquiries on reforms where
they deem it necessary and to provide the Government with
recommendations, which as usual we will respond to.
Taken together, these measures will allow parliamentarians, both
in this House and the other place, an additional opportunity to
review our reform plans ahead of any debates. They will provide
an opportunity and time for this House, as well as the general
public and UK businesses, to let their views on reforms be known.
After all, this is the fundamental benefit of Brexit: we will
ensure that our statute book reflects the best interests of the
UK, rather than some of the compromises of all EU member states.
This will allow our citizens, our businesses and, importantly,
our parliamentarians to make their voices heard in this important
reform process.
I hope that I have sufficiently reassured the House of the
Government’s intentions, and that both noble Lords now feel able
not to press their Motions and to allow this Bill to progress to
Royal Assent. This is an important piece of legislation. Let me
repeat once again that the Government have already made
significant amendments in the light of many of your Lordships’
concerns. Frankly, it is now time that the Bill reached the
statute book. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 15F in lieu—
15F: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Environmental protection
(1) Regulations may be made by a relevant national authority
under section 15 only if the relevant national authority is
satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of
environmental protection arising from the EU retained law to
which the provision relates.
(2) Prior to making any provision to which this section applies,
the relevant national authority must seek advice from persons who
are independent of the authority and have relevant
expertise.””.
(CB)
My Lords, the debates we have had on the various amendments that
I have put forward to ensure environmental protection remind me
of the train journey from Oxford to London in recent months, due
to disruption of the Paddington line. The journey takes longer
than you would have wished and you do not end up at the
destination that you had hoped to end up at.
This is the fourth time that my amendment has been debated,
including on Report, and each time I have made concessions. I
have reduced the scope of the amendment and this time I have made
a further concession. The Government are still unwilling to
accept the amendment, which is a source of disappointment to me.
However, I did have a positive meeting with the noble Lord,
, and the noble Baroness, Lady
Neville-Rolfe, last week, when we talked about points that could
be made from the Dispatch Box that would provide a level of
reassurance. For example, my amendment refers to the need to take
independent advice before changing any rules that protect the
environment—and the noble Lord, , indeed said that in his
speech a few moments ago. He made reference to the environmental
principles, which is a very positive step—although I note that
the principles do not come into effect until later this year, so
there will be a gap between the approval of this law, assuming it
goes through, and the application of the environmental
principles. There is a short window of worry there.
15:45:00
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that environmental
protection will be maintained, although he was not prepared to
say that there would be no regression on environmental standards.
Sometimes you look as closely at what people are not prepared to
say as at what they are prepared to say. There is a slight amber
warning light in my mind about why the Government are not
prepared to say, in terms, that they will commit to
non-regression on environmental standards and protections.
Nevertheless, some positive words were said.
Equally important was the Minister’s statement that the question
of environmental protection and standards was not owned by just
one department, Defra. He clearly said that the business of
protecting the environment applies right across government, and
that the commitment to uphold environmental standards is a
government-wide commitment and not just a Defra commitment.
We have travelled on a long journey, as I say, and have made some
progress in the Minister’s speech today. We have not quite ended
up at the destination that I would have hoped to end up at, but,
at this point, I beg to move.
(Con)
My Lords, I echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble
Lord, . In moving the amendment, my
noble friend the Minister referred to the amendments from the
Commons, completely overlooking the fact that there is no
legislative consent. Scottish and Welsh legislative consent has
been withheld, and I understand that the Government have not yet
heard from Northern Ireland. I think that he referred to the fact
that we have now moved on and do not have to rely on the other
member states to pass our environmental laws, but I would feel
more comfortable if the four nations agreed on what the
environmental principles should be. I would be very pleased to
hear from my noble friend what he believes the situation
currently is.
I have just one word of caution. I fear that environmental
protections are not as secure as perhaps we might be led to
believe by this Government. We have just had brought into effect
two ground-breaking free trade agreements with Australia and New
Zealand, both of which have set lower standards for imported meat
and foodstuffs, which do not meet the same requirements of animal
welfare and environmental protection such as our home producers
have to meet. That is another source of concern.
Perhaps my overriding concern is that we have seen
already—despite the fact that they said that they would not do
this—that the Government have overturned primary legislation
through secondary legislation in the form of a statutory
instrument in the past two weeks.
I have outstanding concerns on these amendments, but I respect
the fact that our power is limited to scrutiny in this Chamber. I
believe that the Bill is in a better place than when it was first
introduced to this House, but I have concerns about what will
happen when it leaves this place.
(GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to express great concern about the lack
of any offer on non-regression. I am going to bring this back to
the absolute physical reality of the UK and the England that we
are in today. In the other place, the Science, Innovation and
Technology Committee has started an inquiry into the impact of
insect decline on food security. If anyone wants to see the
practical reality of this, I invite them to go out the back of
the Foreign Office today, where a wonderful wildflower meadow has
been created—they should go and look at it and ask where the
insects are, because there are practically no insects there.
We have insect decline and a decline in our plants. Non-native
plants now outnumber native plants in the UK: that is the state
of the UK today. We have, right now, a huge, category 4 marine
heatwave, which is going to have a huge impact on our marine
world. It is very clear that the protections for the environment
that we have now are vastly not enough, yet we are not promising
even to maintain them. I ask everyone in this House to consider
what people in the future will think when they look at today’s
debate.
of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I think it is appropriate that I speak to Motion B1 in
my name, on the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. That issue
remains as important this afternoon as it has been since the Bill
first arrived in this House and the noble and learned Lord,
, addressed us, with his usual
skill, as to the importance of the issue. I have been doing my
best to secure its place in the Bill at every stage, but each
attempt has been rejected, either as novel and untested, which
happened twice, or as incompatible with the system that the Bill
lays down, on the last occasion. I regret very much that I have
not been able to devise any other way of achieving that object
that would be acceptable to the Government.
However, I did find two words, buried in a long and rather
complicated paragraph in Schedule 5, which I think may at least
open the door to something which is worth looking at more
carefully, and that is the subject of my amendment. I am
particularly grateful to the noble Lord, , for being prepared to speak
to me so that I could explain the purpose of my amendment and ask
him whether he would be prepared to make a statement, in effect,
giving me, in his words, what I was asking for in my amendment:
words of explanation about these two words and reassurance about
how the Government propose to respect the need for Parliament to
be kept properly informed and consulted at each stage as the
process of revocation proceeds.
The two words I am talking about, by way of explanation, are to
be found in paragraph 6 of Schedule 5, which sets out an
elaborate screening process in a case where a Minister is of the
view that these statutory instruments should be subject to the
negative procedure. The protection lies in the hands of screening
committees of both Houses, which can take the view that the
instrument should be subject to the affirmative procedure. If
that is done, the Minister has the opportunity to give an
explanation and perhaps try to persuade the committees to change
their mind.
The important point for my purposes is to be found in
sub-paragraph (12) and the words:
“Nothing in this paragraph prevents a Minister of the Crown from
deciding at any time before a statutory instrument containing
regulations under section 11, 12 or 14 is made that another
procedure should apply in relation to the instrument”.
It is the words “another procedure” that caught my attention,
because there is no further explanation in the schedule as to
what that other procedure might be, except that in the following
sub-paragraph there is a declaration that the statutory procedure
for laying regulations in draft under the 1946 Act is not to
apply, so we cannot have the statutory procedure of the 40-day
period; that has been ruled out. My question to the Minister is:
what is this other procedure that is available? The Minister has
been very good in explaining in considerable detail what he
builds into these words. In effect, he is providing me with
exactly what my amendment is asking for. I welcome very much the
clarity of his statement and we will of course bear it very
closely in mind as the process proceeds.
My concern has always been that we are moving into the unknown.
We have been told many times that the dashboard contains
information. The dashboard sets out a list of names of the
instruments, but it does not tell us, at least at the moment,
what is to be done with them. That is the importance of the
statement that the Minister has made today, because we need to be
told, as everything proceeds, what is going on and what is
planned and be able to express our views as to whether the
proposals are acceptable or sensible or otherwise. I thank the
Minister for his statement and I also express my warm thanks to
all noble Lords who have supported me throughout my campaign and
enabled me to maintain my campaign to the point I have reached
today, but in the light of what the Minister has very kindly
said, I am not intending to press my amendment.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, , and the noble Lord, Lord
Anderson, for their persistence on these issues that they have
brought before the House. I hear with a little disappointment
that the noble and learned Lord does not intend to press further
with his amendment in its current form. From their efforts, it is
absolutely clear that this House strongly holds that, if the Bill
is to become law, it must contain proper parliamentary scrutiny
over the treatment of all EU legislation, whether that treatment
is to revoke, amend or approve it. There are in the region of
4,000 regulations that need to be considered.
I remind the House of the Divisions that have resulted from these
efforts. There have been three Divisions on Report and two more
in our jousts with the Commons during so-called ping-pong. On
each occasion, we have replied not to the Government as a whole
or to the House of Commons as a whole, but to a small caucus of
Government Ministers and parliamentary draftsmen. I ask noble
Lords to look at the substantial numbers in the House—up to 400
Members and sometimes more—who voted on all five of these
amendments. For example, on 6 June no fewer than 439 Members
voted and on 20 June no fewer than 422. The majorities on each
occasion ran between 91 and 60 votes.
The question is what happens now. Sadly, although most
understandably, it appears that the noble and learned Lord,
, and, I imagine, the noble Lord,
Lord Anderson, are saying that this is the time to give up. This
could bring the Parliament Acts into consideration. I will not go
into them, but I have examined their application very carefully.
I have also had good conversations with the noble Lord, Lord
Fox—he need not look so startled; he must remember them—about
their relevance. The serious difficulty with the Parliament Acts
is that, if we held our ground, the House of Commons would have
to present this Bill in its original form to the House of Lords.
As the noble and learned Lord wisely commented to me, “Oh
really?” I took that plainly as a riposte for us not to involve
them. The question of the Parliament Acts must now arise on
another occasion, which may not be far off.
16:00:00
(LD)
My Lords, for the record, my advice was to not apply the
Parliament Acts.
The substantive point of this debate is to look at the two
amendments and, in particular, to listen and understand what the
Minister has said in response to those amendments. I am grateful
for the interpretations of the noble and learned Lord, , and the noble Lord, .
I turn first to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord,
. It is clear that your Lordships
have repeatedly expressed their concern about potential
regression, especially around environmental rules. We have heard
fulsome and completely true undertakings from the noble Lords,
and , and others from the Dispatch
Box in seeking to allay your Lordships’ fears. However, not every
ministry and every Secretary of State has been represented. We
only have to look at what happened over the weekend, when a
Government Minister from the Department for Levelling Up took aim
at pollution rules with a view to development issues, to know
that there are potential problems around this. My noble friend
Lady Parminter talked about canaries in coalmines; that was a
canary. We have to hope and trust that the undertakings made by
the noble Lords, and , are applied right across His
Majesty’s Government. It is clear that, after repeated
discussions, we will not be voting on this today.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble and learned
Lord, . Your Lordships should thank not
just the noble and learned Lord, , and the noble Lord, Lord
Anderson, but the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Hodgson,
who have identified the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and
worked hard to try to resolve it. The Minister himself spoke
about the number of times this has come back. If it had not come
back this time, the Minister would not have given the undertaking
he just gave from the Dispatch Box which satisfied the noble and
learned Lord, . The fact that it satisfied the
noble and learned Lord means that it satisfies me.
We have been through a long journey but I do not think this
journey has been in any way frivolous. It has been worthwhile,
and it has exacted, as the Minister set out, many changes to the
Bill. Your Lordships need to be proud of the work they have done
on this Bill.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we agree with Amendments 15F and 42F from the noble
Lord, , and the noble and learned Lord,
. We are sorry that the Government
take the attitude they do to the involvement of Parliament in the
scrutiny of retained law, especially as this House has been
proved right on these issues. This House has given the Government
good advice that they have largely ended up taking.
The amendment in lieu in the name of the noble and learned Lord,
, simply asks that the Minister
considers how regulations might best be dealt with. We note the
assurances from the Minister; they have been, as the noble Lord,
, rightly pointed out, hard-won.
We thank the noble and learned Lord, , and the noble Lord, Lord
Anderson, in particular for the sterling work they have done over
many months to get as far as we have.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, , would protect law on
environmental standards. We think there are clear and obvious
reasons to want to do this, not least because we want to see the
environment protected. It is worth adding that the Government’s
failure to support this point as fully as they could have done
still leaves further uncertainty for business and potential
investors about the exact nature of the framework that they would
have to comply with. We are sorry about the approach the
Government have taken.
We are very grateful to our Cross-Bench colleagues in particular
for the work that they have put in. The Bill is in a much better
place now than it was when we first encountered it—noble Lords
will remember the sunset clause and the lengthy arguments we had
over that. The Government did listen in the end, though initially
with some reluctance. I hope that in time Ministers will see that
that was the right decision. We have got to a better place this
afternoon.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to today’s debate. I
will respond to some of the points that have been made. First, we
take Dispatch Box commitments extremely seriously. I reiterate
that this Government will not row back on our world-leading
environmental protections, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks.
To respond directly to the point made by the noble Lords, and , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Bennett, on this issue of non-regression, the fundamental problem
is that nobody know what non-regression actually means. We all
think we do, but putting it in primary legislation invites every
change to environmental regulations to be challenged, as they
inevitably would be, in the courts. The courts would then be
asked to take a view on whether a particular change was
regression or not. In effect, we would be transferring the
legislative process from Parliament to the courts, on every
individual regulation. Although we are content to say that we
will not row back on environmental protections, that is the
reason we are unwilling to see such a phrase placed in primary
legislation. I am sure some of the environmental lobbyists and
their lawyers would be very happy about all the work it would
generate for them if we were to do so, but this is not the way to
make legislation. We have to be clear about what we mean in
Parliament. As I have said before, any regulation would have to
be approved by this House and the other place, which is the
appropriate place for these things to be decided. Great though
the courts in this country are, it is not their job to
legislate.
On the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, , paragraph (6)(12) of Schedule 5
to the Bill clarifies that the provisions of paragraph (6), which
sets out processes relating to an instrument proposed as a
negative instrument and subject to sifting, would not prevent a
Minister deciding that another scrutiny procedure should apply to
a particular instrument any time before that instrument is made.
In deciding which other procedure should apply, the provisions of
the Bill give a Minister a choice between the negative and the
draft affirmative procedure, and in practice would give a
Minister the ability to upgrade the scrutiny procedure from the
negative to the draft affirmative procedure. The sifting
committees already have the ability to recommend that regulations
which the Government are proposing to make via the negative
procedure are of such importance in their content that they
should be upgraded to the affirmative procedure, which would then
allow them to be debated as normal in both Houses. As I have set
out today, and I am happy to repeat it again, on each and every
occasion to date we have followed the sifting committee’s
recommendations, and we will continue to do so if utilising the
powers under this Bill.
We have debated these matters long and hard on many different
occasions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, acknowledged. We
have listened to the House; we have amended the Bill quite
considerably in response to some of the concerns raised by noble
Lords. This House has done its job in scrutinising the Bill. This
House has asked the House of Commons to think again on a number
of different occasions. It has thought again and it has
responded. It is now time to let this Bill pass to Royal
Assent.
(CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this
short debate today, and also on the previous occasions when we
have debated these two amendments. I do not want to highlight any
particular contribution, although I thank the noble Lord, , for introducing cricket last
week and canaries this week; sport and birds are two of my
favourite occupations, so I thank him very much for that. I thank
the Minister for his patience throughout the many hours of
debate, with its recursive nature that meant we kept coming back
to the same arguments.
I do not totally buy what the Minister has just said about
non-regression handing this over to the courts, and that the
environmental groups would have a field day. Such groups could
equally have a field day over the words that the Minister himself
used about maintaining our high environmental standards. Surely
the Bill could have defined what non-regression means in this
context.
I do not buy the argument and I remain disappointed. Luckily for
me, when I became head of an Oxford college 15 or so years ago,
somebody bought me a book on how to deal with disappointment;
that has come in very handy this afternoon so I am not going to
throw a wobbly. In accepting the Government’s response, I think
they will be aware, of course, that it is not just Members of
your Lordships’ House who will be watching carefully to ensure
that environmental standards are upheld; it is the wider public.
We have only to look at the number of people who belong to
organisations with an environmental interest, such as the
National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
to realise that a very powerful force is out there.
There will be scrutiny of what the Government do. They will be
held to account on “non-regression” or “maintaining high
environmental standards”. I am sure that Ministers in this
Administration and any future Administration will be fully aware
of the public concern about the state of our environment, which
was so eloquently illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett
of Manor Castle, a few minutes ago. Nevertheless, at this point,
I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Motion A1 withdrawn.
Motion A agreed.
Motion B
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 42D, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 42E.
42E: Because the Commons consider the scrutiny procedure imposed
by the Lords Amendment to be inappropriate.
Motion B1 not moved.
Motion B agreed.
|
