Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but in doing so I want to put on record, as a former member of the Delegated Powers Committee, my objection to the Government’s rejection of Amendments 42 and 42B, which proposed a very reasonable process, enabling both Houses of Parliament to debate, vote and make amendments to regulations, but only if those regulations involved a substantial change to the law. The Government’s reaction to Amendments 42 and 42B is yet another example of their determination to bypass Parliament as far as possible and enable substantial law changes to be made by Ministers through delegated powers without the ability of Parliament to make any amendments.

The new amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is very modest indeed: it applies only to draft Clause 15 regulations, the broadest delegated powers in the Bill. Also, although Parliament will be able to recommend amendments to the regulations, it does not enable Parliament to amend those regulations, only to accept or reject them. Justice takes the view that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is a proportionate and necessary compromise, and should be supported.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to my noble friends on these Benches, particularly my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I have the opposite conclusion from the one at which he arrived. My noble friend suggests that it could be game over if we vote once again to ask the Commons to think again. As far as I can see, if we agree to this, it could be game over for us anyway. The Government’s arguments are that if we do not accept their position, these changes will delay the repeal of retained EU law and have also argued that sufficient scrutiny measures are already in place. We know that is not the case.

Giving almighty powers to Ministers to bypass Parliament upends the norms that have governed our country and given us the international reputation we have built. The possibility of allowing any Minister to revoke secondary legislation, just because it happens to emanate originally from the EU, confuses the issue of leaving the European Union with the issue of parliamentary democracy. A Minister could make, change or repeal laws or rules that they consider appropriate, according to this legislation, regardless of Parliament’s view and regardless of whether that Minister even has any expertise in the areas so well outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, such as public health, agriculture, fisheries and blood safety.

The noble and learned Lord’s amendment gives the House of Commons the last word. This is an existential issue beyond politics, and I urge noble Lords to think beyond this Parliament too. If we set this precedent now for this Government, presumably nothing can stop that precedent being used against these Benches, or in some other unacceptable manner, in the future. That could happen if we give up the idea that Parliament must make the rules, rather than Ministers.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, over the years I have sat in this House, I have become increasingly concerned about the powers which have been taken by successive Governments, particularly this Government, to the detriment of both Houses of Parliament. It seems extraordinary to me that the House of Commons has not yet appeared to realise the extent to which it, quite apart from us, is being marginalised. This is a very concerning matter. It goes, as my noble friend Lord Pannick said, far beyond the politics; this is a constitutional issue about the rights and powers of both Houses. This is just one example—the latest and one of the most disturbing—which this House has seen over a number of years.

I support both amendments, but particularly the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope. We really have to remind the House of Commons, the other place, what is happening to it as well as to us.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, from my perspective, the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, moved and explained his Motion was extraordinarily powerful. My summation is that this is an existential issue—we are way down a slippery slope. I respect the views of the elected Chamber. Had we been subject to a general election or a referendum which asked the British people whether they wanted control given to an Executive, consisting of a number of Ministers, or to each of their elected Members of Parliament equally, and the British people had supported the idea that we become an elected dictatorship of some kind, that would be a different matter. However, I do not believe that that has been put to the British people. I believe that the constitutional safeguards which this House represents, and which are there to protect ordinary citizens, need to be better safeguarded. I will therefore support Motion B1.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak so I shall be brief. This House is not elected—we know that—but that is not to say that it does not have a role, which it does. We heard a speech just a moment ago suggesting that ping-pong, the stage in which we are at the moment, is a game that should have just one exchange and leave it at that. There is no urgency about the time that it might take to ask the elected Chamber to think again. I am in favour of allowing the other place to think again. When you consider the wider history—we have just had reference made to it, quite rightly—we are going to allow a Bill of such magnitude to go through, shifting the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature in such a way, that people later on will look back and wonder why on earth the House did not express some degree of steadfastness in its view that the Government should think again. I shall vote for the amendment for that reason.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for tabling what seems to be an eminently sensible amendment. My noble friend mentioned visibility, and with visibility comes transparency. This would seem to be entirely consistent with His Majesty’s Government’s laudable commitment to transparency. I join with others in hoping very much that my noble friend the Minister will look kindly upon it.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, in principle I do not have an objection to the amendment that has been tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, supported by my other noble friends. The problem I have is in practice rather than in principle. How should Parliament and civil servants be spending their time, and do we trust that what is happening in terms of reviewing retained EU law will be done in the interests of parliamentary sovereignty and the interests of the public? There just seems to be underlying this whole Bill an ideological aversion to any EU-derived regulations. They are automatically considered to be harmful to the public, and that cannot be the case when we are potentially talking about legislation, regulations, public protections and legal rulings which have been relied on by the public and business since 1973.

I congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend’s department for the common-sense change of approach involved in the amendments to this Bill. If I could be assured that Amendment 51A would not divert parliamentary and Civil Service time away from the important changes that are needed in the post-Brexit environment, then in principle I understand the logic and can accept it.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, may I just support what my noble friend has said? The task contemplated by Amendment 51A is immense, and I would have thought there were better uses of the Civil Service’s time.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will approve Amendment 2. I am not sure that the noble Baroness grasped the point I was trying to make, so, if I may, I will finish it.

I accept that the Government were in danger of biting off more than they could chew with their original proposals but those now seem eminently achievable, especially if our civil servants rise to the occasion in identifying the EU laws that we might want to retain—very few, I submit, so the effort should not exhaust them too much. But perhaps the Daily Telegraph was right in its headline on 10 May, which read:

“Whitehall ‘blob’ thwarts bonfire of Brexit laws”.


I support the whole Government wholeheartedly in their endeavours.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

May I clarify something? In his initial remarks, the noble Lord suggested that the problems he believes this Bill is designed to address stem from the fact that laws were imposed on this country. Whether or not one agrees with that statement, his proposal is that laws were imposed on this country without parliamentary scrutiny, and therefore without democratic accountability. If one accepts that that is the case, how is it then right to perpetuate that wrong by trying to get rid of those laws through a process that is itself without parliamentary scrutiny? The amendments are trying to impose parliamentary scrutiny; indeed, one of the reasons for our departure from the EU was to take back control to our Parliament, which is what these amendments seek to do.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben; in the way he has spelled it out, it is clear that there is a huge gap in the energy strategy being presented by the Government. You would not believe that from the size of the Bill and the details within it, but the fact is that, unless we have a strand of policy, properly delivered and enforced, that deals with energy efficiency, we are missing the easiest target: to stop households and businesses spending money on energy when relatively simple adjustments to their homes or to the regulations that cover buildings could change that.

I am lost in admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who raises this issue on every piece of legislation going through the House. I am astounded that the Government have not taken it up.

There is something odd about this. More than 20 years ago, I was sitting where the Minister sits, and I was responsible for policies against fuel poverty and for energy efficiency. At the end of the Labour Government, we were doing roughly four times the number of interventions that the Government have done. So when the Minister turns around, as he did in Committee, and says that they are already doing a very substantial amount of stuff—they are doing some stuff; there is a social housing fund for energy efficiency and the ECO scheme, which is not a particularly efficient way of delivering it but does deliver something—at the end of the day, it does not amount to what we were doing 20 years ago. Had we continued doing that for the last 20 years—maybe we would have had to alter it and to update the interventions—then the energy efficiency of our buildings would be substantially greater. The Minister is required to explain to the House why this glaring omission is not in this or any other Bill.

There are relatively simple things you can do which make a dramatic difference, though it is slightly difficult to do it. Why, for example, do regulations on new builds not universally require new-build houses to approximate to a net-zero position? Why, for example, does the planning system tend to favour demolition of buildings, which itself is carbon-releasing and carbon-inefficient, rather than effective retrofitting? Why, in effect, have the schemes that the Government have come forward with in the owner-occupier sector—the green homes grant and the Green Deal—not worked, despite the fact that industry and campaigners have been very much in support of them? The answer is that they have not been made sufficiently attractive and the delivery has not been made sufficiently attractive to businesses—installers and the workforce—to ensure that we have a massive effort on this front.

I am glad that the Government have established a more effective Energy Efficiency Taskforce, but that task force needs to come up rapidly with a strategy which will address all of these issues and deliver for us a contribution to solving the energy-induced part of the cost of living crisis, and at the same time begin to reduce our dependence on energy use and enhance our contribution towards meeting net zero. It is so obvious that I am astounded, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben is, that the Government have not seized this opportunity.

I hope that, before the Bill finishes its turn in this House, we will see a rectification of that and a real commitment to an energy efficiency strategy which makes sense, is attractive and works.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and the concept of improving energy efficiency. I probably cannot express the rationale for that better than the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Deben.

I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister if there are particular issues in the wording of these amendments that the Government have a problem with. Is it the EPC ratings or the six months? If there are such issues, would the Government consider coming back at Third Reading with their own version of what seems, universally across the House and across the country, to be so sensible? Given the Government’s excellent record and excellent intentions in improving the energy performance and net-zero performance of the British economy and our country, would they consider these measures?

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, these welcome amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, are concerned with energy efficiency in homes and non-domestic premises. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben said, the Government have set statutory targets aimed at reducing carbon emissions, achieving net zero and improving energy efficiency in homes.

There is consideration under way in the Minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Bill to move EPC ratings for rental properties from band E to C by 2025. The original plan was to ensure that all tenancies were in that band by 2025, but after much lobbying by landlords and others, DESNZ decided to scrap the 2025 target and now have until 2028 to achieve that target.

I want briefly to set out some facts: energy-efficiency measures are now 20 times lower than under the last Labour Government; the UK has the least energy-efficient homes in Europe; domestic energy-efficiency measures have fallen 95% since 2012; and the Resolution Foundation estimates that 9 million households are paying an extra £170 a year as a result of these failings. So we support these amendments, and should the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, test the opinion of the House, we will support her in that vote.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I will speak to my Amendment 133. I am grateful for the support of my co-signatories: the noble Lords, Lord Hollick and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.

I also very much support the case for Amendment 1 made by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. One phrase stuck out for me: his advocation of a “coherent, system- level plan”. In so many of the areas around energy efficiency that we will deal with later in the Bill, this is what we have been missing—not individual initiatives but a strategic approach, with time limits, timescales and targets to be met, so that we can see delivery.

I also support Amendment 130 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—which is a different approach to achieving the same goal as my Amendment 133—and Amendment 132 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, which would finally ensure that the long-awaited strategy and policy statement setting out the Government’s priorities would be published within six months. I very much hope that the Minister can respond positively to that and say that that statement is imminent.

Ofgem’s current remit pre-dates the 2050 net-zero target set by Parliament in 2019. Amendment 133 gives Ofgem a specific statutory net-zero objective linked to our climate change targets, in so doing mirroring the remit that the Government are giving the future systems operator. In Committee, the Minister said of similar amendments updating Ofgem’s remit that the Government “agreed with their intent” but did not consider them necessary because of the existing decarbonisation objective, referring to the 2010 change to Ofgem’s remit, which included a non-specific greenhouse gas reduction objective.

However, this existing duty is limited and related to the reduction of electricity and gas supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases only—in other words, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an unspecified amount over an unspecified timescale. It does not link to our net-zero targets and as a result is less specific and ambitious than what the Government are legislating for the future systems operator.

The change advocated in Amendment 133 has broad support, as was recognised by the Government in their consultation on the future systems operator. The Government themselves noted that

“there were several strong calls for Ofgem’s remit to be reformed to focus on enabling net zero”.

The change was recommended in a report by your Lordships’ Industry and Regulators Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, and was also recommended this year by the Skidmore review and the Climate Change Committee. The latter argued that:

“Giving Ofgem a net zero responsibility”


will help it to

“think … strategically about the changes that lie ahead so that we can minimise the cost to the consumer in the long run.”

Just yesterday, the National Infrastructure Commission, in a fairly coruscating report on the Government’s progress towards reaching net zero, recommended the change in its Infrastructure Progress Review.

Support does not end there. The new duty is strongly endorsed by the main industry trade bodies: Energy UK, whose 100 members deliver nearly 80% of the UK’s power generation and over 95% of the energy supply; RenewableUK, which represents 1,000 businesses employing 250,000 people in the UK; and the Energy Networks Association, whose members include every major electricity and gas network operator in the UK and which employs 40,000 people in Great Britain.

This is not just a matter of semantics. The reason all these organisations and bodies support this change is that they believe it essential for increasing the pace and scale of investment in the UK’s electricity grid, which we were hearing about earlier, in order to deliver net zero and ensure that long-term planning happens at the pace needed. As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who cannot be with us today, said when we were debating a similar amendment in Committee:

“Many of our witnesses”


at the Select Committee

“told us that the net zero target should be included explicitly within Ofgem’s strategic duties … If there is no explicit reference to net zero, there is a danger that the decisions will be very short-term in nature, focusing on short-term costs for consumers and not the long-term costs of failing to achieve net zero and invest in the infrastructure necessary to achieve that.”—[Official Report, 16/1/23; col. GC 418.]

The trade bodies that represent the industry have been clear that they consider the lack of a clear duty that specifically refers to our net-zero targets as a reason why there has been historic underinvestment in the grid. Ofgem is not currently empowered to consider the benefit of long-term investments with sufficient weight, meaning that new renewable infrastructure is having to wait years to connect to the grid in some cases. This is not a case of it saving the consumer money, as it will cost more in the long term if we continually, but only slowly and incrementally, improve localised energy grid infrastructure. To put it colloquially, it will mean repeatedly digging up the road many times over, rather than digging it up once and for ever.

As RenewableUK has commented to us, at present

“grid development only takes place when there is overwhelming demand for it”,

rather than in future anticipation. That would make sense in a situation where there were uncertainties, but we are certain that we are going to have vastly increased demand for electricity in the near future and that the grid will be decarbonised. We know that every street in every town is going to need to be able to install EV charging points, and we hope that new developments will need to install solar panels and heat pumps, which will all need to connect to the grid. This is something we all know we need to do, but as things stand, by the time there is what is seen as overwhelming demand for grid expansion, it is very hard for grid development to catch up.

Responding to this amendment in Committee, the Minster also said that Ofgem would be keen to avoid any confusion over the need to balance decarbonisation, affordability and security of supply. I agree: Ofgem has repeatedly made it clear that it would welcome such clarification. My amendment does not alter those other aspects of Ofgem’s remit or weaken them in any way. It is for the Government to clarify to Ofgem how those various trade-offs can be balanced.

As I said, Amendment 132 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, would ensure that the long-awaited strategy and policy statement setting out the Government’s priorities is published within six months—something that is overdue and badly needed. But as all the committees and trade bodies I have cited make clear, doing this does not detract from the need for legislative change to reflect our 2050 targets.

We should not miss the opportunity given by the Bill to update the consumer interests that must be protected when Ofgem carries out its functions to include our statutory responsibilities to achieve net zero by 2050. I end by reminding the House of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, in Committee. He said that it would be ironic if the regulator most responsible for regulating the journey to net zero is one of the only regulators which does not have a specific responsibility in its remit. I hope we can persuade the Minister to agree.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of Peers for the Planet. I am speaking specifically to Amendment 133—so excellently spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—to which I have added my name. I also support the other amendments in this group.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has made clear, the future systems operator, which will regulate under the terms of the Bill in future, will have a statutory net-zero objective linked specifically to our climate change targets. Currently, Ofgem does not have that, and this amendment simply seeks to bring it into line. The consequences of an ill-defined and time-limited free objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that Ofgem is not giving sufficient weight to net zero and focusing instead on near-term energy costs, which do not properly recognise the cost impacts for future consumers of delaying specific action to achieve net zero.

The network companies are therefore currently incentivised not to plan ahead. Instead, they are encouraged to defer investment to the last possible moment, and not to anticipate the increases in long-term demand that we are all aware are coming. This has discouraged future-proofing of our energy infrastructure and left us with an ageing network infrastructure that is not really fit for purpose now, let alone for 2050, with constraints and delayed reinforcements being a barrier to connections for housing developments and to the connection of low-carbon power, transport and heating. The reality is that we will need much more grid infrastructure due to the decarbonisation of heat—which is commendably legislated for in the Bill—and of transport through the increased take-up of electric vehicles.

The Financial Times reported last year that renewable energy developers are being told that they will have to wait six to 10 years to connect to regional distribution networks. RenewableUK has highlighted that, in Scotland, a significant number of offshore wind farms that were granted leases last year by the Crown Estate Scotland will not be able to get a grid connection until the mid-2030s. Clearly, there is not a sufficient sense of urgency. Indeed, part of this is likely to be due to the non-specificity of the timescale for achieving net zero that Ofgem currently has.

There is a specific example of a 3-gigawatt east coast offshore wind farm being developed by RWE. This will be instrumental in meeting the Government’s 2030 net-zero target, but it has a grid connection date of 2032.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I think it is very easy for other people who are not directly engaged in the business of regulation to think that adding a statutory duty will be the magical cause of all the different elements of the energy system that they want to contribute to. But, of course, what we should also remember is that placing a duty in primary legislation also makes it justiciable.

I am sure there are plenty of lawyers in this House, and lots of litigation is already flying around on net-zero duties—the Government, indeed, need to respond to further litigation by the end of the week. If the House wants to give yet more work to their learned friends—of course, all the costs of that are ultimately borne by consumers—then the House is free to do that. We continue to keep the matter under review, but we are very clear, as is Ofgem, that Ofgem feels as though it already has this responsibility. I hope that Peers will think again.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, is there any chance that the Government might reconsider this? Will he consider that the future system operator will have this remit? The FCA, the PRA under the current Financial Services and Markets Bill, the NHS, and the Advanced Research and Invention Agency will all have this specific remit written in. Why do the Government so reject putting it in the Bill for Ofgem?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Because the other bodies do not have the responsibility for regulating the energy system. I do not see why that is so difficult for my noble friend to understand.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I very much agree with the noble Lord. I will simply make two small points at this stage of the debate. The first is about the public resonance of our discussion. In the House of Commons, the Bill went through under the radar; the public did not really notice what was going on. When the public get to hear of the considerations we are discussing, they will pay a huge amount of attention.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was quite right to point out that the environmental laws in the European Union were largely there as a result of British initiative. The animal welfare declaration attached to the Maastricht treaty, the Garel-Jones declaration, was there not actually to annoy the Spaniards, as some said; it was there because the postbag that the Major Government got on animal welfare was enormous. I was Permanent Representative when a lot of the environmental laws were going through, and my postbag was packed with demands for more from Britain. When I was working on the constitutional treaty in 2002-03, the biggest single lobbying on Giscard’s convention was done by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which brought about an immense postbag, largely from Britain.

The issues we are discussing are not arcane matters for lawyers and parliamentarians; they are of real concern to real people out there. The Government ought to think hard about that aspect of the Bill. The public resonance has not started yet but, when it does, I do not think it will be about an obstructive House of Lords resisting the will of the House of Commons; it will be about the protection of birds, animal welfare, the habitats directive, and sewage in the rivers and on the beaches.

I turn to my second point. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, whom I welcome here, will be able to tell us that the Government have absolutely no intention of taking some of these laws off the statute book or watering them down. If he is able to do that, he would be very wise to encourage his colleagues in the Government to accept these amendments. If the Government have no intention of watering down or eliminating particular categories of law, that should be stated in the Bill. It seems to me that the logic of a reassuring response to the debate from the Minister, whom I hope will give a reassuring response, is that he should end by saying that the amendments will be accepted.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I join the tributes to my noble friend the Minister—an excellent Minister who is passionate and knowledgeable about his brief. I also thank him for the briefing yesterday. I have no doubt that he was sincere in his reassuring words that the default position will be to retain, and I have no doubt that that is his intention, but this is not the reality of the Bill. As my noble friend said yesterday on REACH, the water framework directive and habitats, the Environment Act set up a clear process for change, and yet now we find that the Bill overrides all that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, stated.

If a carve-out is possible for financial services, surely this is one of the other areas that must be excluded from the Bill. I am sure that there has been an extensive effort to find all the various regulations involved in protecting the environment and involved in REACH and so on, but the only reassurance we had yesterday was that the department is confident that it has found the vast majority. This is about protecting the public.

We are also told that, if Ministers see fit, or decide that it is in citizens’ best interests, they will make the relevant and necessary changes as they decide. But what if Parliament disagrees? It will have no power. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated, were the public to be asked themselves, they would disagree. They are not consulted and they have no say; this will be happening by default.

In my view, it is not possible to improve environmental protections without tightening regulations in some way, yet the Bill works against all that. If you want cleaner water in our rivers, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, so rightly focused on, will you have to have more dirty water in the sea? How will you offset that? Who will decide where regulations must be relaxed to be able to tighten in other areas as we move forward with the intention we clearly have—and rightly so—to improve environmental protections and protections for the public? If it is discovered that a whole family of chemicals or pesticides are more harmful than previously recognised and need to be banned, will other harmful substances have to be allowed into public circulation because we must not tighten regulation?

The Bill seems to be driven by ideology and politics. I have concerns that the sunset is clearly politically driven, and that it cannot be in the national interest. Surely the ideology that regulations can only be weakened cannot apply to something as precious as the environment and all the issues covered by Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 37.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and to join in this debate, which is obviously about an absolutely core area for the Green group.

I offer a reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who, in this very wide and broad debate round the Committee, was the only one who offered some kind of support for the Government’s position. On protecting wild animals, she said that she wanted to see divergence for the better. Of course, if we threw out the Bill and it disappeared—everyone from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, to many noble Lords opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the 12 Cross-Bench colleagues I counted who have spoken, indicated either implicitly or explicitly that that was their desire—Defra would have vastly more time to work on improving and strengthening existing regulations. That is what the noble Baroness is wishing for, and the best way to do that would be to get rid of the Bill.

Many noble Lords have talked about this, but I shall just pick up on what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said about the reassurances that we heard yesterday and the ones that we are expecting today from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, from the Front Bench. Reassurances are fine, but they must be in the Bill. That in effect in this area is what is done by Amendment 37, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and to which I have added my name to make it cross-party and non-party. This is an authoritative—if not comprehensive—list of the main areas of Green and animal welfare concern. I associate the Green group with almost everything said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Bakewell and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but I shall disagree on one point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that we have high standards in the UK, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that we have stringent targets. I would say that we have a basic inadequate minimum of standards.

To pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and to expand on it a little, there was much discussion in the last debate that we had to wait until we got to debate Clause 15. But let us look at that letter—I am afraid that I am going back to the famous letter. I have hand-transcribed a paragraph from it, because it is so important. The letter says that the Minister would like to

“clarify that it is possible for additional regulations and higher standards to be introduced through the powers to revoke or replace, so long as the package of reforms contained within each statutory instrument does not increase the overall regulatory burden for that particular subject area”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, “What about new scientific discoveries—say about water?” To be concrete about that, let us think about new scientific discoveries that we have experienced just in the last year or two, such as PFASs, or “forever chemicals”, as they known in shorthand. We are coming to understand just how utterly pervasive and dangerous they are. Does that mean that we are going to give up and let a bit more sewage in, so long as we can do something to block some PFASs? That is what that paragraph in the letter means.

Antimicrobial resistance is something else that I am doing a great deal of work on. I must have a discussion about it with the Minister at some stage. We now increasingly understand that pesticides are having impacts in causing antimicrobial resistance. That is something that the Minister may not yet quite grasp, but it is a really important technical area. We are also starting to understand what the impact of microplastics in our water and soils might be on human health, to pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made: we are not just talking about looking after the environment. We are talking about looking after what we actually live in.

I am not sure that even the Benches around me really grasp that our economy and our lives are entirely dependent on the environment. In the UK, we are using our share of the resources of three planets every year—and we have only one planet. So, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, pointed out, we squeezed into the Environment Act—and my recollection is that we had to fight very hard to do this—some non-regression clauses. We absolutely have to strengthen so many things to head us in that one-planet-living direction.

To continue with that focus on biology and thinking of us as human animals in a world on which we are entirely dependent, we have an ecosystem that has developed over decades. We have talked about the importance of case law and how EU and UK approaches have been blended together in regulations. I am still trying to understand what the interpretive effects are, and whether they are or are not reflecting case law. But the model of an ecosystem is perfect for this.

It might surprise the Committee, but I am going to cite a recent article from Current Biology, a peer-reviewed journal, about the Permian-Triassic boundary, a period known as the “Great Dying”. One thing that was found in this period was that one apparently quite insignificant little species had a key role in the ecosystem, and when that died a whole ecosystem fell apart. That works as a metaphor for the risk that we are running with this Bill—however good the list is from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. What is missing, what is the keystone, what is the vital bit that makes everything else fall apart? The Government cannot tell us; they can tell us only that they do not know. That is where we are.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, everybody in this House understands the real and clear evidence out there that women are much more likely to be in low-paid jobs, employed in part-time work and on insecure contracts, whether that is fixed-term, agency or zero hours. Therefore, we know that we have to pay special regard to the Bill’s impact on women and equality. The equality impact assessment for the Bill warns, precisely on this point, that

“the EU law concepts that will be removed by the Bill underpin substantive rights in equality law. While GB equalities legislation is extensive, there is a possibility that the removal of the principle of supremacy of EU law and the sunset of EU-derived legislation may lead to a lowering of protection against discrimination”.

So the risk is very clear, and I have to say that I have not been reassured so far by the Minister’s attempted reassurance on issues such as maternity rights. Many of us fought for those rights—we know exactly what came from EU-derived law and what came from case law, and the way they are entangled with UK law—and there is a risk of pulling the rug from beneath them. My concern is that, even if the intent is not to worsen women’s rights, there appears to be a lack of understanding and expertise that will ensure that they do not just slip off the agenda when the sunset clause kicks in. So I would like to hear precisely how this concern about the disproportionate impact on women of the enabling Bill will be addressed. We have heard that we cannot have a proper impact assessment because it is an enabling Bill—which in itself causes great concern. I would like to hear what measures can be taken to ensure that women do not, yet again, end up losing out.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, across my whole career, I have worked with other women and admired the work of trade unions trying to help the employment protections for women in general, mothers with young children or women with other caring responsibilities, by helping them to keep working and to build their economic and financial resilience. This includes parental leave, the protection of pensions in TUPE and the other areas we discussed in the first group, but it also includes the worker protections for part-time workers, which have resulted in improved working conditions and protections for men, disabled workers and minority groups, not just for women. For those reasons, I wholly support Amendment 2.

Quite frankly, the fact that the regulations and laws which are the subject of the Bill derive from the EU seems to be a red herring. As my noble friend the Minister said, this is an enabling Bill, which will allow Ministers to retain, amend or revoke our laws and public safeguards. That these protections originated from the EU is just not the point: in reality, as my noble friend said, we have higher standards, so, had they not been introduced by the EU, the implication must be that we would have introduced them ourselves. In reality, my noble friend is saying that the fact that they were introduced as a result of EU measures, and were not objected to when they were introduced, is because Parliament itself would have chosen to have them. So we should not be here debating the fact that, because they originated in the EU, we have to tear them up or to assume that they are somehow bad. Vast swathes of long-standing and hard-won protections are under threat—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that they are bad to the extent that they never went through the House of Commons, the House of Lords or any of our democratic procedures? This legislation was imposed on us by Brussels and there was nothing we could do about it, so why are we fussed about removing it?

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I am afraid I absolutely do not agree with the noble Lord on that point. The fact that they came from the EU was because that was the way the law worked at that stage. They were fed into by our own elected representatives there, and the principles being introduced were supported by our Parliament. It is a red herring that they came originally from the EU. Are we saying that we, as a civilised country, would not have had these protections anyway? The idea that this word “regulations” is a negative in some way—and, if it is associated with the EU, it is an even worse negative—is not the point; “regulations” is another word for “protection” or “safeguards”, and we must not forget that.

These hard-won protections are under threat, and our constitutional principles are being undermined—as are, potentially, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy itself. When or if our laws need to be changed, surely that must be approved and debated in Parliament, and not just handed to the Minister of the day, who may have no expertise in the area and who may be under the influence of a lobby group. Giving Parliament no proper say or role in changing the law exposes millions of citizens to harms that our normal constitutional safeguards are there to protect us from.

I fear speaking this way from these Benches and I hope that my noble friend will understand that this is not a direct criticism of this Administration or of this Government. It is a comment and a deeply expressed concern about the potential harms that could result from this legislation and the way in which it is being introduced. The Government may not intend this, but we may have another Prime Minister and a whole new range of Ministers soon. Given recent experience, it is not about whether or not we trust the current Government; it is about the way in which our country operates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I am struggling to understand my noble friend’s comments. If UK law is already stronger than retained EU law, why do we need to get rid of the retained EU law? What is the problem with retaining it on the statute book and going with our stronger protections?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry that my noble friend does not seem able to understand this, but the Bill provides the tools to remove or retain EU law. It also enables the Government—I repeat this point again—to preserve and restate retained EU law. If my noble friend had listened to our debate on the first group, she would know that I made the point to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that there is some retained EU law in this area, and a lot of UK domestic legislation that builds on and intertwines with it. There is also the interpretative effects, which were originally aligned. Therefore, while maintaining the high standards that this Parliament has legislated for, and possibly extending those standards in some areas, it is incumbent on us, in order to tidy up the statute book, to make sure that all our laws work for the best interests of this country.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Let me make the point to my noble friend before I give way to her again. Many of these regulations will indeed be preserved, retained or replaced. If it is the case that the Government come forward with such proposals, those regulations will be consulted on, and debated in the other place and debated here. My noble friend will have the opportunity to comment on them then.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I am still not quite sure what we can say to women, who currently have hard-won protections in the labour market, about where their future rights and protections will end up. We do not have a list of all the things that are going to be changed; the Government themselves have already said they do not necessarily know all the wider ramifications of this. If those protections are, in the view of a Minister, in need of change, and presumably being weakened, Parliament will have the opportunity to look at them. However, as the noble Lord opposite said, if they do not like them, they lose the whole lot.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble friend asks what she can say to women. She can tell them that they have one of the highest minimum wages in Europe as a result of the policies of this Government, that they are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with an EU requirement of four weeks, and that they are entitled to a year of maternity leave in the UK whereas the EU minimum is only 14 weeks—that is what she can say to women workers.