Whistleblowers

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right, but we have already noted the concerns about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We share his concern, because they are being used to silence whistleblowers and cover up sexual harassment and discrimination. I stress that there are existing legal limits to how NDAs can be used in an employment context, which means they are void and unenforceable in certain circumstances. The use of NDAs is not something we would support and, if there were ways of limiting it, we would do so.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is it possible to ensure with legislation that any company that victimises whistleblowers or trade union members could be banned from taking any public sector work in future?

Biocidal Products: Hand and Body Washes

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about education. We have already established that we need to keep the regulatory framework on these products under review, particularly with regard to new threats and hazards that might occur from them. That is why we have introduced the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will give the Government much more flexibility to look at these new products in future. But, yes, there is a huge job of education to be done about such products, and I thank the noble Baroness for her point.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is it worth the Minister checking with advisers whether they have actually read Dr Fady’s research and are taking that into account?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I hope that they have, because I asked them to look at it—so let us assume that they have done. This is a fast-moving area. We have a Private Member’s Bill coming up, and we will obviously look again at the science behind all this. With any new science coming forward, obviously we want to welcome any new evidence. We are very aware that we need to keep people safe. As I said originally, not only is it about the safety of the individual but if we allow antimicrobial resistance to develop, everybody will be affected—and it will have an adverse effect on all human beings.

Environmental Targets (Biodiversity) (England) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend made a powerful speech setting out why the targets in this SI are inadequate. It follows on from the concerns we raised in the amendment to the Motion on water on Monday and in Grand Committee yesterday.

The fact is that these targets are not the huge strategic targets that we were expecting from the Environment Act. Instead, they have been cherry-picked to comply with the legislation, so that the box can be ticked without worrying the department unduly. As a result, we have weak and unambitious targets, which will underpin the environmental improvement plans due at the end of the month, and the department will continue to coast along without clear drive and focus.

I refer noble Lords again to the excellent report from the OEP published last week, to which my noble friend also referred, which was a stocktake of the Government’s progress on improving the environment. It raised significant concerns, making reference to persistent trends of environmental decline; adverse trends becoming difficult to arrest; and risks of environmental impacts becoming irreversible. It also made the important point that the Government have far too many targets—some voluntary, others statutory—and that it is not at all clear how these targets work together to achieve the overarching goals and objectives. I do not think that the OEP had had sight of these new targets when its report was written, but I am guessing that its concerns will not have been allayed by these statutory targets that we are now considering.

Once again, I am also grateful for the excellent work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the submissions from Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link. They raise considerable concerns about how the targets will be measured and the consequences of unforeseen distortions of data. For example, as has been said, they question whether the use of the red list indicator fluctuations is a credible way to measure extinction risk, which should look across a wide range of species rather than one or two outliers. I ask the Minister: was authoritative scientific advice requested before this statistical model was proposed? Were the Government advised on the best way to set the baseline, so that we could be assured that real progress was being made right across the board?

On species abundance, we already have a target set in the Environment Act to halt the decline of species abundance by 2030. There was a logic in all the debates around this target that a halt in the decline of biodiversity would then be followed quickly by increases in biodiversity as the graph started to go up again. But this expectation is not reflected in the new targets before us today. Instead, we have a huge gap between 2030, when the decline will halt, and 2042, when we might see some measurable progress upwards, according to these proposals. This seems to water down the original, hard-fought deadline of 2030, as we now have to wait 14 more years for signs of progress. Then the target will be met—as we have heard—if, by an insignificant amount, the 2042 level is better than the baseline 2022 level.

Given the current rate of decline, with 41% of species in decline since 1970, this is a ridiculously unambitious target. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that 2030 will see the species decline go properly into reverse and by 2042 a significant, measurable improvement will be achieved?

Finally, my noble friend has made a compelling case for an ambitious target to improve terrestrial protected sites. We know that protected sites have a crucial role to play in delivering the Government’s stated objective of creating 30% of land for nature by 2030, but so far the rate is only 3%. The SSSIs have a particular role to play in protecting our ancient woodland, hay meadows, peat bogs, chalk streams and moorland. How have we allowed them to get in such poor condition that only 40% meet an acceptable standard?

These sites are key to driving nature’s recovery. Can the Minister explain why, after 13 years of Conservative government, the SSSIs have been left to languish in such a poor state? Can he assure us that this latest round of target setting will be more effective than those that have gone before, when we have not been able even to protect our most sensitive and highly prized sites? I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a rabid Green who thinks that these are not just limp targets; they are utterly inadequate. It strikes me that Defra is not doing its homework with scientists. It is not listening to the science; it is not keeping up.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for tabling this amendment and I have really enjoyed the speeches. I am not going to go on for very long, but I would like to mention the whole issue of zoonotic disease. I am quite concerned that at the moment we have caged animals in the UK for all sorts of reasons; they are mainly hens. Such practices can pose a serious risk to human health as well as to animal welfare and biodiversity. Unnatural crowding, poor hygiene, stress, injuries and low genetic diversity are ideal for the creation and spread of novel pathogens, as we have already seen in the past few years. I am curious as to whether the Government are working on this issue or if it is just not part of their thinking at their moment.

I also mention that international zoonotic diseases are particularly prevalent in fur farming and although we have banned such practices in the UK, we still allow imports. Are the Government considering a ban on imported furs?

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I shall speak also to Amendment 13; both are in my name. These amendments tighten up the definition of the ecosystem objective, by removing the get-out phrase of “where possible”. They raise the issue of how we are going to measure what is possible and achievable.

We welcome that the Bill seeks to emphasise the need for an ecosystem-based approach to fishing and aquaculture activities, and to minimise and eliminate incidental catches of sensitive species. This is really important: we have a long way to go in firmly embedding the ecosystem objectives so that we can start to restore the damage that human overexploitation has caused over many years.

For too long fisheries management has been carried out in isolation from other marine management activities, with little consideration of its wider ecological impact. We debated this issue earlier with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which raised marine planning and the need to integrate these policies.

The recent marine strategy review found that the UK is failing to achieve good environmental status in 11 out of 15 indicators. The review went on to state that good environmental status

“may not be achieved for many years, unless there are further improvements to fisheries management measures.”

We need to drive that change as a matter of urgency. This leads us to the question: what are the legal implications of specifying that these measures should occur only “where possible”? I realise that this might be a legal nicety, and it might be necessary to put some of these checks and balances into a Bill, but I am also concerned that this is a loophole through which all sorts of bad practice will slip. We are probing the extent to which the Government are committed to securing the reversal of negative impacts and the elimination of incidental catches, rather than simply minimising them. Of course, we accept that these amendments are not perfectly worded, but we believe that the Government can go further than the current position in the Bill. I hope the Minister will acknowledge our concerns about the extent to which the existing wording waters down what would otherwise be a strong objective.

Amendment 14 takes a slightly different route to defining the ecosystem objective, by specifying the protection of endangered aquatic species and undersized fish. Again, we welcome this amendment as a helpful way of improving the current wording.

Amendment 12, on the catching of incidental species, seeks to impose a deadline on the Government’s delivery. We agree with the spirit behind this, and would be interested in exploring ways of achieving it; for example, having a reporting requirement rather than a hard deadline.

Amendments 126 and 127 deal with the specific definition of sensitive species with regard to cetaceans, or aquatic mammals. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this concern. I am sure she will speak on this in a moment. It is clear that our conservation policies need to be at least as good as those provided by EU law.

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this issue. Again, it goes back how firm the Government are in following through on some of the objectives they have set out, and not having too many loopholes that will enable Ministers or future fisheries management groups to disregard what was intended to be a firm policy. I am grateful for the opportunity to explore that further; I therefore beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 11 and the amendments in my name. I note that the Minister did not ask me to meet him before today, and so I am hazarding a guess that he is happy with all my amendments, which is a thrill for me. I almost think I do not need to argue for them here.

However, the Conservative Party manifesto, from which this Government obtained their democratic mandate less than three months ago, made a very specific promise about fisheries. In the section entitled “A Post-Brexit Deal for Fisheries”, big bold letters promised:

“There will be a legal commitment to fish sustainably.”


At the moment, that is a broken promise. There is nothing in the Bill about a legal commitment to fish sustainably. There are ambitions, powers, objectives, statements and a whole load of other bits and pieces, but no legal commitment. I would like the Minister to explain when that legal commitment will be put into the Bill. If it is because I have tabled my amendment, that is absolutely fantastic. The Government promised this to the people in exchange for their votes, so I do not think there is any way that the Government can say that it is not the will of the people and not put it into the Bill.

My Amendment 12 will eliminate the catching of sensitive species within five years of the Bill becoming law. That is important because the current drafting is very weak. Sensitive species should be protected whether incidentally caught or not, and this should not just be minimised but eliminated altogether. Five years gives industry plenty of time to adapt its methods and equipment to achieve this aim. So this is not a probing amendment; it is obviously going to be picked up.

Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others in this group have similar intentions. Any legal commitment to fish sustainably would contain these provisions, so the Government really need to listen to the Committee on these issues.

My Amendments 126 and 127 refer to the definitions set out in Clause 48. The definition of sensitive species is very curiously drafted, as it refers to

“any species of animal or plant listed in Annex II or IV of Directive 92/43/EEC of the Council of the European Communities on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (as amended from time to time)”.

I read that out in full because it raises another very important point. Unless I am mistaken, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, this is not referring to retained EU law but to ongoing, actual EU law. Can the Minister please clarify that for me? It seems that a decision has been made to impose this little snippet of EU law onto our fisheries policy, which seems slightly strange. I would like to know more about that.

Amendments 126 and 127 seek to improve this definition of sensitive species so that it is not so heavily dependent on EU law, which is amended from time to time. This is particularly important for cetacean species: our dolphins, whales, porpoises and other similar highly advanced marine creatures, which, as we all admit, suffer extremely under the treatment they currently get. It is important to have cetaceans named in the Bill in case the Government later decide to remove reference to the EU directive, perhaps because they do not like it any more. I am in no way suggesting that this is the only way to deal with this issue, but the current decision to base the definition on EU law needs explaining and I think it needs to be improved.

Coming back to the will of the people, I want the Minister to reassure me that the Conservative Party’s manifesto will be delivered on this issue. I hope he can commit to working with noble Lords from across the Chamber, who care deeply about this and bring a great deal of knowledge and expertise. On his earlier point on the meanings of sustainability, the fact is that if you do not have environmental sustainability, neither do you have social and economic sustainability. If you deplete fish stocks, fishers will go out of business.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has explained why these recitals and preambles are so important, and I thought that I would give an example. They are important because of the purposive approach of EU law, which is quite alien to our UK law, which has a literal approach. This is particularly important in the area of environmental law. For example, the European court relied on the recitals and preambles to interpret article 22 of the air quality directive in the ClientEarth litigation, where it successfully forced the Government to publish their air quality plans. This ruling was absolutely crucial for our health and well-being in the UK and without using the preambles the court would not have been able to properly interpret the wording of the substantive article. The courts in our country will have a huge job on their hands of making sense of all this retained EU law that we are going to thrust upon them if they do not have the recitals and preambles; these are essential to understanding the law and their job will be much harder without them. I beg the Government to look at this issue and rethink their position.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, my name is also added to Amendment 58 and I support the very compelling case made by the noble Lord, Lords Krebs, and, indeed, by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

I, too, speak as an environmentalist. As has already been highlighted, the implementation of EU environmental law in the UK is drawn from several sources, all of which, in our application of it, have equal weight. For the most part, it is a welcome and uncontroversial addition to our UK environmental legal framework; it is often uncontentious and applied without legal recourse. Indeed, few people would argue that we should revert to dirty beaches and polluted bathing water and there is a common consensus that we need to adopt the EU regulations and directives.

Though these standards are very much taken for granted they do not always originate from the same legal source, which is why amendments such as Amendment 58 are so important. All the amendment does is to seek to protect what we have now—nothing more than that. The recitals and preambles which preface the formal wording of the legislation are important for explaining, in layperson’s terms, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained, what the legislation intends to achieve. They often include important principles which underpin the legislation. I have referred previously to examples of these preambles, such as article 1 of the environmental liability directive, which includes reference to the polluter pays principle, and article 1 of the habitats directive, which spells out the aim to deliver biodiversity conservation. However, there are many others, some of which have gone on to be tested and captured in UK legal judgments, but others have not.

Very simply, my challenge to the Minister is: if these amendments are not acceptable, what will be the future status of these preambles, and how can we be assured that they will have the same effect as we have previously enjoyed? We regard them as an integral part of current EU law, so if there is no place for them in the transposed UK law, does the Minister accept that this will represent a watering-down of the Government’s promise to enhance, rather than diminish, our environmental standards? I hope he can clarify that.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I would have thought it was clear that when we are incorporating EU law into United Kingdom law, the law in question will not be edited—apart from questions of not working and so on, which are separate—and the whole instrument will be transformed into UK law. Judges always try to understand the legislation as a whole and read the document as a whole. Therefore, I think I can assure noble Lords that the courts here will look with great interest at these recitals and preambles—particularly in view of what the noble Baroness said about the difficulty of some of them—to see if they can help them understand properly and make a proper construction of the instrument in question.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 28, although my colleagues the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, have made the case for it very eloquently. We have rehearsed many times before in this Chamber that 80% of UK environmental law derives from the EU, so we have a particular interest in ensuring that those same environmental protections are fully transposed and are not weakened by either omission or design in the transposition. Our concern is that the current wording of Clause 4 does not give us that guarantee. The tablers of Amendment 26 attempted to address that ambiguity in one way and we have attempted to address it in a different way, but I think we are aiming to achieve the same outcome.

Crucially, the amendment concerns the issue of whether the rights, powers, obligations et cetera derived from EU law are incorrectly or incompletely transposed, and the duty to remedy that deficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave some examples of that. For example, under current directives there is an expectation of reporting obligations, which will cease on Brexit day and are not part of the provisions that will be transposed. Although the Government have promised to create a UK body to oversee future standards and reporting obligations, we have not seen the detail of that, so we are being asked to make a decision blind. We need a substitute for that current arrangement to be spelled out.

Equally, the principles and preambles that underpin EU environmental legislation have an important but amorphous status that needs to be underwritten with guarantees as we transfer. Such provisions set out, for example, the aims and purposes of directives. They include Article 1 of the environmental liability directive, which refers to the “polluter pays” principle, and Article 1 of the habitats directive, which sets out the aim to contribute to biodiversity conservation. These things are important; they are not about to be transposed automatically, and we need extra provision to make sure that they can be followed through, which we believe our amendment does.

Finally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who described matters not having been being dealt with by the courts as a rather odd way of defining what should and should not be transposed. He made the case much better than I could, but he is spot on and I hope that the Minister is able to answer those points.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, first, because it is already past my bedtime and, secondly, because noble Lords have already outlined some of the problems. It was a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, speak on this matter in relation to archaeology. I started a speech about 15 years ago, when he was in the audience, by saying that when I was a trainee archaeologist he was such an icon that I thought he was already dead. I am therefore absolutely thrilled to see that he is still not dead; it is always a pleasure to hear him.

I want to put my comments in simple terms so that Members of your Lordships’ House on the other Benches understand exactly what the problem is with the EU withdrawal Bill on this issue. Amendment 28 —and, by implication, Amendment 26—is designed to make sure that we do not miss out on important parts of EU law; namely, directives. EU directives place obligations on our Government to act in particular ways, such as bringing forward particular legislation. Examples include the working time directive, a social measure, and the habitats directive, an environmental measure. These directives cover a wide span of issues. The wording of the Bill leaves huge gaps that these important directives could fall through. The amendments would plug those gaps and make sure that they are all brought over into UK law. They would also allow or require Ministers to make sure that these directives are properly implemented so that we receive whatever benefits, rights and remedies were intended. As has been said several times, the big problem with the approach set out in Clause 4 is that it will exclude legal rights simply because they have not been litigated on. I do not see the sense in that. I am sure the Government will see that it needs a little bit of fixing and that we will see some positive compromises come forward.