King’s Speech

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, what a great pleasure it is to conclude today’s debate. I thank His Majesty for his gracious Speech and all noble Lords for their participation and insightful questions. It is also good to see the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, in their places. I also thank many noble Lords for their warm welcomes to me and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath to this debate.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his fantastic maiden speech. He did himself proud and we look forward to his many further contributions in this House.

We have discussed themes around energy, the environment and housing—matters which are critical to people’s everyday experiences, their homes and the immediate and real world around them, wherever they may live. This Government recognise the opportunity we have to shape the policy landscape in these areas to bring about tangible change to improve outcomes and, ultimately, the quality of people’s lives. We have covered some specific challenges during this debate, but I am also pleased that there has been much support for and interest in our proposed legislation.

I cannot respond to every noble Lord who has spoken, but I will do my best to cover what I can in the time available and will of course write to noble Lords if I am unable to answer their questions today. I shall first speak to the debate on energy. The Government will work with the private sector to double onshore wind, triple solar power, and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. We will invest in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and marine energy to ensure we have the long-term energy storage that our country needs.

Our Great British Energy Bill will establish a new, publicly owned energy company and play a key role in our plan to boost energy security, create new jobs and decarbonise the power sector. It will accelerate the deployment of renewables, reducing the UK’s exposure to volatile global fossil fuel prices, and drive forward our ambition to make Britain a clean energy superpower. There have been a number of questions on this. My noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke spoke about the opportunities that Great British Energy can bring and about CCS—I will very much welcome being pestered by her in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, and others asked for further information about Great British Energy. The cost to the taxpayer of its set-up and investments will be carefully managed and monitored through Parliament, and investments will be subject to safeguards and risk assessments, similar to established public finance institutions. Specific arrangements will be announced in due course. There will also be incentives for energy investment without penalising the consumer, and renewables will continue to be supported through the contracts for difference scheme.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that the energy independence Bill has not been shelved. Legislation relating to our energy independence will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked about subsidies. In contrast to government subsidies, Great British Energy will make revenue-generating investments, which as well as helping to drive our clean power mission will deliver a financial return to UK taxpayers.

The second of the Government’s five missions is to become a clean energy superpower, so it is important that we invest in renewables. We believe that clean power by 2030 is achievable and should be prioritised. Every fraction of a degree by which we can limit global warming will reduce the severity of climate impacts.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, that this Government fully support the nuclear industry, and assure the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, that I understand his concerns around infrastructure development, as for many years I worked on the connections into Hinkley Point C.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about energy from waste. We are going to create a road map to a circular economy, supporting sustainable economic growth by driving up resource efficiency and reducing our emissions and waste. As part of that, we will consider the role of waste incineration and the threat and opportunity it poses for circularity, economic growth and net zero.

Before I turn to the environment, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to animal welfare, which a number of noble Lords asked about. I am sure noble Lords know that animal welfare is a cause very close to my heart, and the Government are going to deliver the most ambitious programme of animal welfare for a generation. I look forward to delivering on the animal welfare commitments in our manifesto, as part of a wider programme of improvements in this area. We are developing plans to enable us to tackle the horrendous crimes of puppy smuggling and puppy farming, to close loopholes on trail hunting and to ban snares and the import of hunting trophies. Not all our ambitions in this area require legislation; we can drive forward significant improvements in animal welfare and species conservation by other means. The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, specifically mentioned livestock worrying, and we completely recognise the distress of this. I would be happy to discuss that with him further.

On the subject of the environment, we are committed to the 13 legally binding environmental targets set out under the Environment Act 2021, covering air quality, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste reduction, tree and woodland cover and marine protected areas. We will work to make the environmental improvement plan fit for purpose, ensuring that there is a clear delivery path to make progress in these critical areas so that we can start to see results.

We have heard loud and clear that change is needed on water. We have heard how water companies have pumped record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas, failing both customers and the environment. We are also aware of the outrage at the amount of money paid out in bonuses to sewage company executives. Water company bosses should not be rewarded for constantly polluting our waterways, and we will not tolerate poor performance. Our water special measures Bill will turn around the performance of water companies and ensure that they and their executives are held firmly to account when their activities harm the environment and are not in line with customer interests. The Bill will strengthen regulation to ensure that water bosses face personal criminal liability for law-breaking and will introduce new powers to bring automatic and severe fines. The Bill will also give the water regulator new powers to ban the payment of bonuses if environmental standards are not met.

There is a lack of public trust in the water industry. We need to strengthen public protection by enabling Ofwat to set a code of conduct for water companies to boost accountability for water executives, so that customers can also summon board members and hold executives to account. We have also already published a Written Statement on water, if noble Lords would like to look that up.

Noble Lords have mentioned that the Bill that we are going to introduce only scratches the surface and that there are many other fundamental issues with the water industry that need addressing. I just want to assure noble Lords that, following the initial Bill, the Government will outline further legislation to fundamentally transform our water industry to restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health. I look forward to working with noble Lords as we develop this further legislation.

On the point from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, about monitoring, we will require water companies to install real-time monitors at every sewage outlet, with data independently scrutinised by the water regulators.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about customer bills. There is no intention for customers to pay for the poor performance of water companies. The money for vital infrastructure investment will be ring-fenced and spent only on upgrades that benefit customers and the environment. Ofwat will ensure that where money for investment is not spent, companies will refund customers.

On farming, a number of people asked about agriculture and the fact that it was not mentioned in the King’s Speech. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for explaining his meeting with my honourable friend Daniel Zeichner MP. We are committed to supporting farmers and to the environmental land management scheme. We will confirm plans for the rollout and our wider approach as soon as possible.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked a number of questions around working with the Northern Ireland Government and organisations, and I am happy to discuss this with her further.

On bovine TB, our objective is to achieve bovine TB-free status in England. There is no simple way to do this; there is no simple tool to eradicate the disease in isolation. We will be setting out more detail in due course.

On land use, I confirm that we will introduce a land use framework. It will consider food security and how we can expand nature-rich habitats such as wetlands, peat bogs and forests.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, asked about sustainable food production. We do not believe that the transition to more climate-friendly practices should come at the expense of food production. I am very happy to continue our previous discussions on this matter.

I turn to housing. The Government promised to put planning reform at the centre of our mission for government and to act decisively and quickly to support our commitment to 1.5 million homes over the new Parliament, to unlock clean energy and to further our wider growth mission. To noble Lords who have said that this is complicated and there are many departments involved in this, I would say that this is why we have a mission approach—in order to bring departments together to deliver for the country.

This Government were elected with a mandate to get Britain building again. We were also elected on a platform of doing so while protecting the environment. We are committed to delivering for nature and we will take urgent action to meet our Environment Act targets. We will accelerate housebuilding and infrastructure delivery using development to fund nature recovery. Our vision is for a better planning system, one that will unlock the housing and infrastructure that this country so urgently needs while improving outcomes for nature. We will work with nature conservation organisations and the development sector to make this vision a reality.

As noble Lords have heard from my noble friend, we have ended the 14-year ban on onshore wind in England. Now development applications for onshore wind will be treated in the same way as any other proposal for renewable energy. We have made it clear that we will consult on bringing large-scale projects into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. Our planning and infrastructure Bill is to play a key role in unlocking a new scale of delivery for housing and infrastructure across the country. It will speed up the planning process for housing and streamline the delivery of major infrastructure projects. We will act in legislation only when we can confirm to Parliament that the steps that we are taking will deliver positive environmental outcomes. At a local level, this Bill will modernise planning committees and increase local planning authorities’ capacity to deliver an improved service.

Through our renters’ rights Bill we will deliver our manifesto commitment to transform the experience of private renting, levelling the playing field between landlords and tenants by providing renters with greater security, rights and protections. We will replace Section 21 no-fault evictions with a modern tenancy system and crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against tenants. We will also act quickly to implement the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, providing home owners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. We will further reform the lease- hold system, enacting remaining Law Commission recommendations relating to leaseholder enfranchisement and the right to manage, tackling unregulated and unaffordable ground rents and removing the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture as a means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement. The Government will take steps to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end, reinvigorating commonhold through a comprehensive new legal framework and banning the sale of new lease- hold flats so that commonhold becomes the default tenure.

Through our English devolution Bill, we will recognise the vital role that local leaders play in our national mission to drive economic growth. We will also deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to transfer power out of Westminster into our local communities and give them more control.

During the debate there have been a number of questions, mainly around housing. For example, my noble friend Lady Warwick and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford asked specifically about social housing. The Government have pledged to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. This new development will also allow us to deliver thousands of affordable homes, including more for social rent. We will support councils and housing associations to build their capacity to deliver homes and make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply.

A number of noble Lords referred to the renters’ rights Bill, and private renting was an issue of particular concern to many. The Government are determined to address the insecurity and injustice that far too many renters experience by fundamentally reforming the private rented sector and improving the quality of housing in it. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, stressed the importance of quality and standards and their relation to health, which we take very seriously. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, asked about a level playing field between tenant and landlord. We want to deliver this decisively. We know that it is important to crack down on unscrupulous landlords, as I mentioned, and we are serious about doing this. We also want to end bad practices such as unfair rent increases and pitting renters against each other in bidding wars. In addition, there will be a new landlord ombudsman service with strong powers, and a private rented sector database will enhance transparency between landlords and tenants, help drive compliance and support amicable redress, reducing the need to go to court. My noble friends Lady Warwick and Lady Kennedy both have huge expertise in this area. They asked a number of very important questions, and I look forward to working with them as we move forward in this area of legislation.

Finally, my noble friend asked about the Vagrancy Act. We will deal with this as quickly as possible. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked about rural housing and support for rural communities, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I assure noble Lords that, as someone who lives in a very rural part of Cumbria, I completely understand their concerns. We have rural communities at the heart of everything we do, as we do urban: this is designed for all communities to thrive, but I will of course be talking about rural matters right across other departments as part of my brief.

The planning experience, expertise and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is invaluable. I certainly look forward to discussing this with him further, although I am not sure that I would want to be Planning Minister with him on my back all the time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, asked about reforms to planning committees and local councils. We want to ensure that planning committees are fit for purpose—that is really important—that their local democratic oversight is focused on development which matters to local communities, and that local councillors and planning authorities are better equipped to do their job properly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for bringing his practical experience forward, which is, of course, of interest.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about SUDS and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, asked about greywater. The Government fully support the use of blue-green infrastructure such as sustainable drainage systems and greywater recycling to manage surface water across existing and new communities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about the balance between development and the environment, and how you release land for development while protecting nature. Defra and the new Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government will work closely together to ensure that new developments are resilient to climate change. The noble Lord asked about the draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill and implementing the reforms; a number of provisions come into force on 24 July, two months after Royal Assent, and the implementation of the remainder of the reforms will require a programme of secondary legislation, so we will look at the timings on that.

I was asked about local councils and funding. We will complete a new burdens assessment to ensure that there is appropriate funding, but that will take a bit of time. I listened very carefully to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, around tax and local authorities. He really knows what he is talking about, so it is important for any Minister to listen carefully to what he says on this. We are committed to the new burdens assessment. I am sure that he will read it with interest, but perhaps my noble friends in the Ministry of Housing should pick those issues up with him in more detail.

A number of noble Lords mentioned nutrient neutrality. We intend to implement solutions to unlock the building of much-needed homes affected by nutrient neutrality without weakening environmental protections. We are working on that and will announce how we intend to deliver it in due course. We take it very seriously.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked about infra- structure levies. We are not looking to implement an infrastructure levy; instead, we intend to focus on reforming the existing system of developer contributions, aiming to ensure that development can continue to come forward while maximising the amount of affordable housing and infrastructure that can be provided. We will also publish the updated growth-focused National Planning Policy Framework by the end of July. The work that the noble Lord and his colleagues have done in Cambridge is very interesting, and I commend them for it.

This gracious Speech was important. We have set out our priorities for legislation that will reform and strengthen critical sectors, such as the water and rental industries, making them more accountable and sustainable in the future. I sincerely thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this constructive and insightful debate. Their perceptive contributions and dedication are important, as we move forward, to ensure that we have the best legislation that we can have. This Government are committed to uniting the country in our shared mission of national renewal. That will not happen overnight—we have debated some of those challenges today—but we are determined and serious about unlocking growth and delivering security, prosperity and justice for everyone in this country. We very much look forward to working with all noble Lords constructively and collaboratively to achieve these aims.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I listened with great interest throughout Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his very reasonable and constructive proposals for protecting our environment. But it is time to move on to UK law, which is more transparent and will save the taxpayer the cost of having to pay for a dual system of EU and UK law. Yes, we are already committed by international obligation to our international treaties, but it is ironic that many of the problems which we hear considered have arisen under this dual system of arrangements. I am afraid that I will not support the noble Lord’s amendment. I hope the Government will get on with it, and we will move to restoring UK law over this vital environmental sector so we can all have the protections we need for the environment and hold the Government to account.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing this amendment forward and assure him of our full support. We heard from him that, in response to comments made by Ministers on Report, the amendment has been altered to focus on enshrining a legal commitment to maintain existing levels of environmental protection, and that he has taken into account much of what was said during that debate.

One of the things that we debated is how much of the Bill has significant implications for environmental law and for many regulations of significant public interest protecting our natural environment and many aspects of our health so, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in his introduction, and others have said, it has been pretty disconcerting to hear the Government describe commitments to maintain existing levels of environmental protection as burdensome. I find that quite shocking. We know that there is wide-ranging support for an environmental non-regression principle. Amendment 15 would give legal substance to what Ministers have been saying they want to achieve. In fact, in his introduction, the Minister said that the Government are committed to maintaining high environmental standards; the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said that; and the Minister in the other place, Trudy Harrison, said that. However, as a matter of law, just because somebody says something provides no assurances or protections and, however welcome it is, it cannot bind the hands of any future Ministers, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned concerns that some regulations that we need may well be lost. I want very briefly to give an example, which is the intention to remove some items relating to the national air pollution control programme—the NAPCP. Removing the obligation to draw up and implement the programme strips away any clear duty on the Government to show how they will reduce emissions in line with their legally binding emissions targets. The Government say that by repealing this item they can better focus on what will help clear the air, such as delivering on the targets set in the Environment Act. In this debate, the Government repeatedly cite the existence of the Environment Act as the reason why such amendments are not necessary, and no doubt the Minister will repeat that shortly. However, if we look at Regulation 10 of the National Emissions Ceilings Regulations 2018 and the associated implementing decision, we see that the Government are clearly required to consult the public as part of the process of preparing and revising the NAPCP. This is in stark contrast with the approach they took with the revised environmental improvement plan earlier this year where there was no public consultation, very limited stakeholder engagement and limited transparency over which stakeholders were contacted—yet the Minister in his introduction held the EIP up as something to which we should aspire. Given that there is currently no provision in the Environment Act to require any public consultation in relation to future revisions of the EIP, how will the Government ensure that the public do not lose their ability to contribute and to have their say?

I also want to look at some of the powers in the Environment Act and how they are constructed. For example, it includes a non-regression commitment in respect of one piece of REUL, the habitats regulations. This empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend part of the habitats regulations

“only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations”.

So I consider it relevant in today’s debate to look at why the Government opted to include this non-regression safeguard in law.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville’s thanks to the Minister for his introduction to this group and also for arranging the meeting with the Bill team last Friday and for the very helpful discussions that we were able to have there. As he knows, we have been asking for data relating to the SIs to be sunsetted right from the start of the Bill’s passage, and I thank the Minister and his team for circulating the spreadsheet, which arrived earlier yesterday.

My amendment follows the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in Monday’s debate, at cols. 19 and 20. She asked about identifying retained EU law, and my concerns relate to the holes in the existing and sunsetting of the regulations. I have tabled Amendment 64ZB, having raised concerns at the meeting with the Bill team about this one SI in the list of 600, mainly because there was not much time to do detailed work on others. It is found in the proposed new schedule, at lines 209-10, entitled Foodstuffs Suitable for People Intolerant to Gluten (England) Regulations 2010—please forgive me if I just refer to such foodstuffs as “gluten” hereafter.

As a coeliac of five decades, as well as having had an interest in health matters for some time, I spent a very large part of Thursday and Friday trying to track back current and former regulations relating to foodstuffs that are suitable for people who are intolerant to gluten and their labelling—it is vital to ensure that people with coeliac disease and intolerances can keep themselves safe. I have to say that I found it almost impossible to do so. Key words were not used consistently and there was no golden thread anywhere to help navigate this. On Thursday afternoon, I approached the Food Standards Agency and Coeliac UK. Both responded swiftly and were extremely helpful. The Government’s spreadsheet that I referred to earlier says, at item 94, that this SI is redundant because

“These Regulations are inoperable. It enforced EU Regulation 41/2009, which was repealed by the EU in 2016 (and replaced by EU Regulation 828/2014, which is being preserved). The equivalent domestic enforcement legislation in Wales, Scotland and NI was revoked and replaced in 2016”.


Unfortunately, this is not entirely correct.

In the helpful briefings from the FSA and Coeliac UK, it transpires that in 2016 there was a consultation to put EU Regulation 828/2014 into a UK regulation to replace SI 2010/2281. This is important because the EU directive sets the composition levels and the labelling rules for gluten-free foodstuffs. However, since that consultation, there has been total silence from the Government about introducing an SI to replace the one listed in the proposed new schedule at lines 209-10. Both the FSA and Coeliac UK told me they have been relying on a workaround, outside of the regulations, found in other legislation, including general food law and the Food Safety Act 1990. These relate to enforcement, not to detailed composition and labelling laws, which are found in EU Regulation 828/2014. Coeliac UK and the FSA have both told me, in briefings that I forwarded to the Minister and his team, that the workaround relies not only on general food law and the Food Safety Act but on the underpinning powers of EU Regulation 1169/2001. However, this regulation mentions gluten only once, on page 51, in Annexe II, paragraph 1, whereas EU Regulation 828/2014 is all about foodstuffs containing gluten and their appropriate labelling.

The FSA and Coeliac UK are both clear that a statutory instrument for England is required to allow direct enforcement of EU Regulation 828/2014, and this will follow in due course. Indeed, the Bill team confirmed this to me in an email yesterday. While I note there is a workaround, I am bemused that such an important matter that relies on the detail of EU Regulation 828/2014 has not yet been brought before Parliament in an SI. Why has there been a seven-year delay to lay that relevant SI since the Government’s own 2016 consultation? I also asked the Minister in an email when we can expect to see this laid, and the reply was that there is a commitment to progress

“at the earliest possible time”

but no possible date. With the greatest respect to the Minister and the Government, it is not down to the FSA, which is constantly referred to as being in charge of the legislative process. It is not.

The email from the Minister also said that this legislation

“remains in force and will be preserved as part of the Retained EU law process”.

But it is not enforced because there is not a regulation. It goes on to say:

“Although there are no direct enforcing regulations in England, there are sufficient powers”—


the ones I referred to. However, as I have said, that does not cover the detail of the relevant recent 2014 regulation.

It may feel to some people that I am dancing on the head of a pin. But those who are intolerant to gluten rely very particularly on the EU directive that covers the composition and labelling of items, and therefore how they are sold, which assures people that they can eat them safely. My broader concerns are how many of the other 599 sunset SIs have similar holes in the legislation.

I note that some MPs have referred to the “blob” and others being at fault for not moving quickly enough. I think that the detail I have just recounted shows that the history of SIs has not been well listed over many years, and it is complex. The government spreadsheet, circulated earlier on, is clearly not aware of it. The government website on nutrition is also not aware of it. The nutrition legislation information sheet, at paragraph 5.8, unfortunately does not refer to the need for this new directive.

Will the Minister assure me that there has been a full tracking of all elements of each SI that is proposed to be removed? If it is discovered that there are holes, such as the one I have just described, what will the Government do, under the terms of this Bill, to ensure that there are no legislative problems in the future?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was very clear that one of the main problems that Parliament has to face, both our House and the other place, is how on earth we can continue with our effective parliamentary scrutiny, given the very broad sweep of secondary legislation that may be made under the provisions of the Bill. This is absolutely one of those cornerstone regulations where we need to ensure that the directive is visible in legislation—it is not.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Baronesses for introducing their amendments as well. I have the final two amendments in this group: Amendments 64A and 64B. These amendments address our concerns about the proposed revoking of the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018, particularly Regulations 9 and 10, and of the Commission Implementing Decision 2018, which lays down a common format for national air pollution control programmes. The Government have justified this revocation by saying that

“we will be removing some items of REUL relating to the National Air Pollution Control Plan (NAPCP). The current format … is long, complicated, resource intensive and duplicative, and does nothing to improve the quality of the air we breathe. By revoking this item, we can better focus on what will actually help clean up our air, such as by delivering on the ambitious air quality targets we have set in statute through the Environmental Act”.

I would like to explain why we believe they should not be revoked.

The National Emission Ceilings Regulations deal with emissions of ammonia fine particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, NOx and other serious pollutants. These emissions are the inputs which mix in the atmosphere to become concentrations or outputs, which are measured for health and regulatory purposes relative to the WHO’s air quality guidelines. The Environment Act 2021 and the air quality strategy of 2023 focus largely on concentrations. The environmental improvement plan of 2023 proposes just vague measures to reduce emissions without providing a robust mechanism to review, plan, consult and implement plans when new breaches of emission ceilings occur.

Regulations 9 and 10, which the Government seek to abolish, provide for the preparation and implementation of a national air pollution programme to limit those harmful emissions in accordance with national emission reduction commitments and, importantly, for full public consultation. Removing the obligation to draw up and implement a national air pollution control plan strips away any clear duty on the Government to show how they will reduce emissions in line with their legally binding emissions targets. To succeed in this, we need rules that require the Government to control emissions of harmful pollutants at their source. Without such measures, all their plans and targets are empty gestures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can absolutely assure him: she would have been delighted to go down a salt mine. I will not name her, but she messaged me to say that she was very keen to do so. Perhaps the noble Lord would want to arrange it for her.

The noble Lord also mentioned several regulations which are good examples of EU-inherited provisions that we may no longer need. He may not realise it, but some regulations perform multiple functions—we want to revoke some and to keep or reform others. To update and improve the regulations, we of course need to keep them for now, so that we can make those changes.

I had a feeling that the noble Lord might ask me about the famous reindeer regulation. Indeed, Regulation 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council includes provisions on reindeer, which we want to revoke because, the last time I looked, there were not many in the United Kingdom for which we need to have responsibility—perhaps even the noble Lord could agree with that. But there are other aspects of the regulation that we want to keep; therefore, in due course, there will be a reform programme which will alter that regulation. Of course, the House will get to see that through a statutory instrument at the time. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will want to engage with the Defra Minister in a meaningful debate on how important it is for the Liberal Democrats to preserve the preservation of reindeer in Lapland.

Finally, I turn to the issue of interpretative effects. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked again for clarity on the Government’s intention. I assure her that the Government’s intentions have not changed in this regard. As she will be aware, the House agreed to Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on Monday, which seeks to replace the sunset of Section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act at the end of each year with a requirement for the Secretary of State to make a statement on the Section 4 rights and obligations which will be sunsetted at the end of this year. The House can be assured that the Government will address that.

Clauses 5 and 6, which relate to the ending of the principle of supremacy, including the principle of consistent interpretation or indirect effect and ending the application of general principles of EU law, will stand part of the Bill, as agreed by the House.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I remind him that I asked a number of questions about areas other than air pollution—for example, on flooding. I wonder if the Minister could look through Hansard and write to me with a response to those questions before we reach Third Reading.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will certainly look again at the noble Baroness’s questions.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 42, 43 and 50 and the Clause 1 stand part debate, to which I have added my name.

What was clear from last week’s debate—we have alluded to it a number of times since then—is that the Government have absolutely no intention of providing a comprehensive list of retained EU law under the jurisdiction of this Bill. It is clear that the decisions taken by departments to retain, amend or revoke will be announced unilaterally via the dashboard. In the case of revoking, it is an act of either commission or omission—we will not know until we see it on the dashboard. However, if there is no list then we will not even know that something has been revoked. The former—the lack of a list—informs the latter: the fact that we will not know whether laws have been revoked or otherwise.

That is why this set of amendments, in the number of forms that we have seen, is so important. Through Amendment 32, we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, my noble friend Lord Beith, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, how the Government should set out in advance what they are seeking to do and give Parliament a chance to overrule the Executive and choose to retain specific named instruments, rather than waiting for the automatic disposal of these laws. The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Kirkhope, in Amendment 44, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in Amendment 141A, set out other ways of seeking to achieve a similar end. The point has been made that there are a number of ways of doing this.

It was a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, set out Amendment 43, to which I have added my name; I was happy to do so because, in the amendment, she sets out very ably a process by which Parliament can retain its control over what is going on in this law. It would avoid the really important issue, to which I and other Peers have already alluded, of the unknown repeal of laws—that is, the accidental revocation or deliberate obfuscation of revocation that may happen as a result of this law. This is a well-drafted amendment that we would be very happy to see go forward.

Amendment 42, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ludford, complements what we have heard already about a process of consultation, about how these laws and regulations should be consulted on. It sets out four objectives for the consultation. The first is to consider whether the legislation under review is fit for purpose. It may not be. Ministers have talked about reindeer and whatnot. I am sure that we do not really need those but there cannot be many of the 4,000 or so laws that refer to reindeer. Let us assume that that the majority of them are addressing areas of concern to the greater public. Are they fit for purpose?

The second objective is to consider whether alternative regulation would achieve different or preferable goals. The third objective is to consider whether alternative regulation would provide greater benefits to consumers, workers, businesses, the environment, animal welfare, and public safety, to name a few. The fourth objective is to consider whether alternative regulation would provide greater legal certainty, and there is a great deal of legal uncertainty coming the way of this Bill if it stays as it is. I cannot see why this approach is unreasonable, and I am sure that the Minister will agree with me and adopt this straightaway.

Much has been said about sunsetting. Some speakers on the Government Benches have set out their view that without sunsetting, departments would somehow be dragging their heels. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said last week to your Lordships that

“the sunset was introduced to incentivise departments to think boldly and constructively about their regulations and to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens.”—[Official Report, 23/2/15; col. 1820.]

Just before lunch, we heard the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, say that the sunset’s purpose is to “incentivise genuine reform”. These confirm that the purpose of the sunset is, in the Government’s view, to get civil servants to get on with it. That may be so, but what is it that are they getting on with, or that the Government would have them get on with? I suggest that they are injecting the largest single slug of legislative uncertainty into national life that any of us can remember. I say to my noble friend Lord Beith that I am afraid that I do not go back to the 1600s, when it last happened—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Neither does the noble Lord, Lord Beith!

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I beg my noble friend’s pardon. Perhaps there is a reason why the departments might favour a slower, stepwise and consultative approach. We have also tabled an amendment that opposes Clause 1 standing part of the Bill. That is to give time to have that stepwise, considered and consultative approach, as many of us believe it should be. It removes the sunset altogether and it gives us time. Clearly, this element of the Bill, if not the others, was the product of the imagination of the Conservative MP for North East Somerset. This Bill is a legacy from his short-lived time in BEIS and, like almost everything produced in that thankfully brief period of administration, it delivers chaos and an unworkable Bill. The Government Front Bench might appreciate our help in removing this very difficult thing, for what will become a very difficult effort.

Finally in this group, my noble friend Lady Ludford and I have tabled Amendment 50, which seeks to deliver a super-affirmative process. I should point out that the dash comes between “super” and “affirmative”; it is the affirmation that is super, not the process. The process is for revoking EU-derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, earlier. Once again, this is about parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment seeks to address the huge democratic shortcomings of this Bill, as outlined by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In the “Bypassing Parliament” section of its report, the committee observes:

“The Bill gives to Ministers (rather than Parliament) the power to decide, in relation to a considerable amount of REUL, what is to be … revoked and not replaced … revoked and replaced with something broadly similar … revoked and replaced with something very different, or … retained.”


That is, in a nutshell, what we are discussing. The committee also noted:

“Parliament will not know, at the time it grants the powers, what the Government intend to do with those powers.”


I will not dwell on this amendment to create the super-affirmative process, except to highlight a couple of features. The first, under proposed new subsection (2), is:

“For each instrument that is proposed to be revoked, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament … a draft of the regulations; and … a document which explains the draft regulations.”


As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, there is a period of 30 days for this process.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation, because I am at a disadvantage from not having been here for day 1 of Committee. I feel that there is an element of Monty Python about this—and now for something completely different.

I will speak to Amendments 10, 11 and 12 in my name and briefly to Amendment 37, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which I have added my name.

There are an estimated 1,700 pieces of legislation that Defra will have to review by the end of December this year. Some will go into the retained, unamended pile; some will go into the likely to be amended pile; and some will be scrapped or abandoned altogether. This is a mammoth task for Defra.

Environmentalists in the country are extremely unhappy about the lack of detail in the Bill. Members of this Chamber are concerned that, given the short timeframe, some essential pieces of legislation will be lost. There is currently little clarity on which pieces the Government are planning to retain, scrap or amend. On all sides of the Chamber, Peers are seeking to exclude legislation that is vital to the environment of our country from this sunset deadline. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, the Bathing Waters Regulations and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations—from Amendments, 10, 11 and 12 respectively—are three such pieces of legislation that must be preserved at all costs.

The habits and species directive is a crucial tool for environmentalists and local authorities attempting to preserve wildlife for future generations. Having sat in planning meetings on major housing developments, I know that it is vital that measures are taken to ensure the protection of habitats of local and nationally scarce species during and after development. The great crested newt, the English dormouse and the various species of bats in England will not survive if their habitat is not considered at an early stage of planning and through implementing developments.

There are developers who will seek to gloss over the presence of rare wildlife, but the wise community-based developer adheres to the planning conditions. If the habitat directive is jettisoned or watered down, biodiversity and wildlife will suffer. Once a species has become extinct or a rare orchid is lost, that is it: there is rarely any coming back. The current law protects them and hundreds of other species, and it is vital that this protection exists into next year and beyond.

There is a danger that we could enter open season for developers. Our biodiversity has already been drastically reduced; it is years since I saw a bullfinch in the wild. We cannot afford any more biodiversity loss. It has to be halted and reversed; otherwise, what were our natural species will suffer the fate of the sabre-toothed tiger and be confined to glass cabinets in museums.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, recently spoke in the Chamber about the bathing water directive, the inadequate quality of bathing water and the ill health that surfers around our shores suffer due to sewage pollution. We have seen professional surfers leaving our shores to resume their sport in Spain. The loss of the income from those who enjoy surfing or wild swimming is significant for our coastal communities, which are often reliant on the summer tourist trade to get them through the winter.

Closely related to Amendment 11 and the bathing water directive is Amendment 12 on the water framework directive. The quality of water flowing through our waters is essential for biodiversity protection. The River Parrett in Somerset flows through several areas of ecological interest and supports various rare and endangered species. It is a favoured leisure venue for recreation and has a long walking trail from source to sea. Eels and other wildlife can be found along its banks. Chemical pollution is a threat not just to the Parrett but to all rivers. The water framework directive currently provides some protection for this area and the iconic Somerset Levels. It is important to have an integrated approach to the protection of our rivers, waterways and canals. A siloed approach may help to protect specific areas, but other areas could suffer.

It is important that these directives appear in the Bill. In her Amendment 37, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has listed those amendments that she believes could be lost in the general Brexit clear-out of legislation, which would have a devastating effect on our way of life and environment. These range from the REACH Enforcement Regulations to the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order. I look forward to the debate on this important amendment and fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

There is currently little information about the costs and impacts of implementing the Bill. The task of filtering 1,700 pieces of legislation is colossal, and many laws could be lost by default. The Minister has indicated that there are some laws that we no longer need and are no longer applicable. It is important that this House knows what these are. Can the Minister say whether Defra is able to provide a list of those laws to be retained unamended, those to be amended and then retained, and those it believes are no longer functional in the UK, as well as the methodology involved? Other noble Lords have raised this issue.

Yesterday, along with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the Minister helpfully provided a briefing in which he emphasised his and the Government’s support for the 25-year environment plan and all the strategies and plans that fall under it and support its implementation. No one can doubt the Minister’s desire and enthusiasm for implementing fully the 25-year environment plan, but unfortunately the noble Lord is unlikely still to be a Minister by 2030—perhaps he would have preferred it if I had said 2050. It is not unknown for Governments to give commitments from the Dispatch Box and for later occupants of posts to reverse those commitments. Sadly, one such case was the promise to provide compensation to the Windrush community, which had long campaigned for and very much welcomed the compensation, only to have this promise reversed under the current Home Secretary.

It is not that we do not have confidence in the Minister. Experience has shown the House that, in order to have full confidence that the Government will do what they say, there have to be clauses in the Bill to ensure legal protection. Will the Minister agree to Amendments 10 to 12 and the request for these directives to be in the Bill?

If the sunset deadline of 23 December is not extended for the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, the Bathing Waters Regulations and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations, I very much fear that the guillotine will fall, quite literally, on the great crested newt, the English dormouse, the blue fritillary butterfly, the water vole and other species. These will then disappear from our landscapes altogether, along with those who used to enjoy surfing and wild swimming. The Bill appears not to be fit for purpose. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to introduce my Amendment 37. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her excellent introduction to her amendments and for leading our debate on this important subject.

Amendment 37 sets out a list of the most significant environmental and animal welfare laws that the Bill currently covers. The regulations listed in the 21 proposed new paragraphs (a) to (u) demonstrate the wide range of environmental and animal welfare protection legislation that comes within the scope of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned the habitats directive, the Bathing Waters Regulations and the water framework directive in particular. We support her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am very happy for the noble Baroness. As a parliamentarian in the UK Parliament, I had no say. However, many of the regulations were very good and we want to retain them.

I am grateful for the words of so many noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Cormack embarrassed and moved me with his nice words, but when such words are said in this House, I know that there is an enormous “but”. I will try to address it.

I count myself an environmentalist. I have been on the boards of different NGOs, I am a member of many and I have campaigned and worked on the environment all my life. I see my role as a Minister as just a small part of that. I would absolutely not be standing here if I thought that we were indulging in some means of trashing the kind of protections that we want to continue and improve in this country. There are opportunities; as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, we have had these regulations but biodiversity continues to decline, as it has done for decades. We now have a commitment to reverse that decline, stop it by 2030 and see it increase as against 2020 data by 2042. No Government will be able to escape that, so the idea that we could get rid of regulations that would make that happen is wrong.

I find at the moment that all roads in Defra lead towards our land use framework. I applaud those Members of this House who wrote a really good report on it, as my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned. I agree with him that if we are going to get this right and achieve anything on environmental regulation, incentives to farmers through ELMS, our water policy, anything to do with air quality, the health of people and the benefits of nature, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, then we need really to understand how, in a finite piece of territory, we will manage all those requirements and our international commitments, some of which I have already mentioned.

As my noble friend said, the powers in the Bill will empower departments to unleash innovation and propel growth across every area of our economy. The Bill is simply an enabling Act. It is up to departments and the devolved Administrations what they will do on specific pieces of policy.

In Amendment 10, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has raised the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. I reassure her that the Government remain committed to the ambitious plans set out in the Environment Act, which sets out legally binding targets to halt nature’s decline by 2030. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that the habitats directive was the jewel in the crown; she is absolutely right that it has been a huge driver in environmental policy, although not an exclusive one. She raised a point about interpretive effects. Interpretive effects are the general principle of EU supremacy as set out in Section 4 rights and do not relate to case law. However, I absolutely assure her of our commitment to 30 by 30. Our commitment to protect 30% of our land and oceans remains fundamental. We will continue to do that—we would not be able to if we damaged our environment in the ways that some noble Lords have suggested.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

To clarify the point about interpretive effects, I point out that the letter says:

“Anything preserved will be subject to clauses 3-6 of the Bill which repeal retained EU interpretive effects.”


Can the Minister clarify what this actually means in practice? How does it affect case law?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Interpretive effects are not case law; they are the principle of EU supremacy—general principles and Section 4 rights. The general principles of EU law directly affecting rights, which end in—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Perhaps the noble Lord could write to us with a detailed explanation.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I will certainly do so; I will then be able to read my own writing. As the Secretary of State reiterated in her speech at the launch of the environmental improvement plan on 31 January, Defra’s default approach will be to retain EU law unless there is a good reason either to repeal it or to reform it. This allows us to keep protections in place, provide certainty to businesses and stakeholders and make reforms tailored to our needs—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

There is a core team of Defra civil servants co-ordinating this but every policy area is involved, so it is impossible to say precisely how many full-time equivalents are being apportioned to this on a weekly or monthly basis or how many will be over the next six months. However, I assure the noble Lord that this is an absolute priority for my department. We have separated the different areas of REUL to suit Ministers’ areas of responsibility; we are working through them and making sure that we rigorously examine whether we have them in the right frameworks for retaining, removing or any other aspect of this process.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Minister says that the sunset can be extended to 2026, but surely we need to know which regulations the department is looking to extend. How do we know that? How is Defra going to go about attending to that? The Treasury managed to take its regulations out; they are exempt. Why does Defra not just do the same and save all the bother?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

If we have to extend, that would be the subject of a secondary legislation measure, so this House would be able to review it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

A delay is reform, because it gives more time to get it right. There may be specific technical issues relating to a regulation that require more work to be done than can be allowed in the timeframe of the sunset.

On the marine issues, which the noble Viscount raised, we are committed to 30% of seas being protected. We have very clear policies on restoring fisheries and fish biomass in the sea, and we have provisions through the marine strategy framework and others to see that achieved.

A number of Peers have raised the issue of resources. We are putting huge resources into this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right to raise this, and I understand the concerns. We want to make sure that we understand each and every one of the more than 1,700 areas of retained EU law. Our default position is to retain. Resources for retained EU law legislation will be needed from a range of policy officials, such as analysts and lawyers, to deliver a significant legislative programme. My officials are working closely with BEIS and the Cabinet Office to ensure that Defra has sufficient resources. Our aim will be to ensure that important work unrelated to retained EU law will continue.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The default position is actually that it falls unless you have this extension. The extension mechanism, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, relies on something specific being identified.

It is no criticism whatever of Defra staff, but if they have to identify extra pieces that need to be carried over, this is a huge amount of work. We do not even have a comprehensive list at the moment so it could increase, plus they have to get all the SIs sorted. All that has to be done by the end of this year before the Government can bring in an extension. As I asked the noble Lord earlier, does he really have confidence that Defra has enough staffing resources to achieve all this? I am really concerned about it. I reiterate that this is no criticism of the staff. This is about figures, numbers and cash.