Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

To make progress, I should make it clear that Clause 15 is the main clause and that there are a number of amendments on that group, on which we can no doubt have a longer discussion, but I should like to make progress on transport.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s impatience, and she has been very generous and helpful. Did I hear her just a few moments ago, in response to an intervention, say that in each and every case, once a ministerial decision has been taken, the statutory instrument being repealed or amended will come to this House—which I assume means it gets the approval of this House and the House of Commons? How does the Bill provide for that in each and every decision, because it seems at the moment to give an enormous amount of ministerial discretion in its text? How can she guarantee that Parliament will have the last say over repeals and amendments in every case?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

There is a sifting process. The regulations will come to this House. There will be some that people are entirely happy with, because they will be taking EU law and, perhaps, changing a date that is out of date. There will be others that are to be extended. There will be others where there is substantive change, where it is necessary to have consideration and debate.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

So it will not be the negative procedure in every case?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

And there will presumably be some that the Government are going to abolish altogether, in which case, nothing will come to this House: we will never have the chance to express a view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but I was prompted by the challenge from the noble Baroness who represents the Greens, who spoke with great erudition, expertise and passion and is a credit to the House for that. It is important that we look at the general principles. Of course, we are talking about environmental regulations amendments, but I sometimes feel that I am the only sane person in the asylum, frankly. We are a sovereign Parliament, yet we are pushing back on the idea of governing and holding the Executive to account, as if we are not able to do that.

If noble Lords look at the preamble to the Bill, it is not about casting aside these regulations; it is not about traducing those regulations and the Great British tradition of environmental protection and health and safety; it is about modifying, restating, replacing and updating. The fact is that even the EU, when developing regulations, was always developing them on an iterative basis; it did not have the regulations ossified 30 or 40 years ago; it was always developing them—even the REACH regulations that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned earlier. Therefore, it is exactly the same process that this Government are going to pursue.

The idea that Ministers are not accountable at the Dispatch Box for bringing forward or updating regulations is clearly nonsense: they will always be. I have to disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, of the idea that this has not been properly debated in the other place. First, it passed Third Reading by 53 votes, and he may not know that there was an enormous campaign from NGOs and charities aimed at wavering Members of Parliament. So the idea that it was sneaked through and disregarded by the greater electorate is absolutely not the case.

There is an idea, too, that we are writing a blank cheque. Having considered the Bill in the other place and here, and having considered other committee reports, including from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Select Committee on the Constitution, there have been hours and hours of debate. To then, when it gets to this House, say “We don’t like the Bill, so let’s just ignore it”, would plunge this House into a very bad place in terms of democratic accountability.

The criticism from the people in this country is that our politicians are not up to the job of governing, and, at the end of the day, that is what we have to do. We have to govern. We have to make a decision. The challenge, as was shown only yesterday in what the Prime Minister brought back in the Windsor agreement, is that we can make Brexit work. It is not ignoble for many Members to take a view that Brexit was a mistake—many Members in this Committee take that view—but, nevertheless, this is a Bill about accountability and keeping that bond of democratic accountability and trust with the electorate. I think some Members of your Lordships’ House need to understand and concede my final point, which is that this Government would be crazy to go into a process of reducing—

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I do admire my noble friend’s defence of the impeccable parliamentary democracy which lies behind the Bill, but I think the author of it was Jacob Rees-Mogg, and I think his principal aims were to make sure that all law was British law and none of it was foreign law, for ideological reasons. I think he thought of it as deregulatory, producing lower and, in his opinion, less costly standards, which is why a rule was put into the Bill that it could not actually raise any of our standards. My noble friend’s present passion in defending it does not actually reflect the motives behind the Bill, and yesterday’s triumph was an abandonment of an otherwise similarly absurd approach, epitomised by the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for making that point, but mea culpas go both ways. Some of us were saying four years ago that some of those technical solutions could have been tried then, and we were accused of magical thinking. In fact, we were actually right. So just to wind up—because I know the Minister, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, is staring at me—I think the Bill should go through. It would be offensive to democracy for it not to go through, and I look forward to a position where it gets Royal Assent eventually.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, as I expected, the Minister is giving a very satisfactory list of assurances that he has not the slightest intention of lowering any standards. I am quite sure that he is sincere and that the Government actually believe that they are not going to lower any of those standards. I cannot understand what the argument is against ending this whole ridiculous debate by just putting a statement in the Bill which lists key directives—such as the habitats directive and the bathing water directive—and emphasises that they are going to remain totally unchanged, so that if any future Government decided to start deregulating in this area, it would need a proper parliamentary process before they had any chance of doing so. What is the positive argument against putting these undertakings, which are wholly reassuring, in the Bill? The last hour and a half would have been quite unnecessary if that had been done.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Before the Minister stands up, he will know that one of the continuing problems in this country is not lack of law but the lack of enforcement. That is very obvious in the sewage discharges, and, at the moment, the only reason that the urban wastewater directive is being enforced in London is that the European Commission took infringement proceedings, subsequent to a petition that I took to the European Parliament. That is why we are getting the Thames super sewer. I am sorry for rivers everywhere else, including the Thames in its higher reaches, but we are getting the very expensive Thames super sewer because the European Commission took enforcement proceedings which ended in a judgment in the European Court of Justice. Elsewhere, UK enforcement has been dire.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness and my noble friend for those remarks. We will be providing a clear list of regulations in due course, but we are working through them, and I make no apology: we want to get it right and we have a lot of work to do on that front.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

Will it be in on the face of the Bill and put into law, so that we have protection against future Governments setting some rather less high standards?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I just say to my noble friend that the direction of travel of this and future Parliaments that will be elected over the coming years will not be for a reduction of these things. There is a yearning in this country for higher environmental standards. People will not put up with politicians of any party who seek to remove them. We should take comfort that the direction of travel that this Government have taken through the Environment Act, the environmental improvement plan, the 25-year environment plan we are promoting and what we are doing on water is just the starter course. For a main course, we will continue to see environmental standards improve in future.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

The argument is that it may not be necessary, because the Minister is confident that we are going in that direction. Why is that an argument against being absolutely reassuring by putting it on the face of the Bill, so that if an extraordinary, strange Government of protest emerged—some President Trump-type Government—they would have to go through the proper parliamentary and legal procedure before disappointing me and my noble friend?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Because if it is in the Bill, you cannot improve it, as has been said in very eloquent terms—