Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)
Lord Katz Excerpts(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ricketts
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Affairs Committee Unfinished Business: Resetting the UK-EU relationship (1st Report, HL Paper 202).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, before the first debate gets under way, I want to highlight the four-minute advisory time for Back-Bench contributions. This is designed to ensure that the debate can finish within three hours, in line with the usual timings for Thursday debates and so that the House can rise at a reasonable time this evening. I therefore urge noble Lords to keep their remarks within four minutes to meet those aims.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to lead this debate on the report from the European Affairs Committee, which it was my privilege to chair until last month, when I handed the baton to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I am glad to see such a distinguished group of people in the Chamber to debate this report, which shows how salient the issue is right now. I thank the Government for getting their response to us in a timely way, which enables us to hold the debate now in good time and at an important moment.
This was not an entirely straightforward report to produce. We thought it was essential that the House have an overall assessment of what used to be known as the reset, which is, after all, the Government’s flagship policy towards the EU. As the only committee of Parliament conducting systematic scrutiny of the Government’s European policy, we concluded that we were the right people to do it.
It was a long inquiry which covered a wide range of complex issues. We found it quite difficult to get our heads around exactly what the reset covered, since the Government did not produce a White Paper on their negotiating objectives. Initially, we had only the Labour Party manifesto to go on. We also found that we were aiming at a moving target, because in the course of our work, the range of the reset increased. A number of important areas were added at the May 2025 UK-EU summit.
Members of the committee held deep and very different convictions about what the reset should cover, and indeed on whether it was necessary at all. Although we strove to find a consensus, that proved elusive. We therefore took the unusual, although not unprecedented, step of voting on the committee’s report. As a chair, I would always prefer to have a reconciliation of differences, but if that is not possible without a meaningless fudge, I think it more useful to the House to have different views clearly set out. Members will have seen that in appendix 9 of the report there is an alternative summary and the outcome of the voting on it.
Given all those circumstances, I am very grateful to all the members of the committee who contributed through this long inquiry. We all owe a particular debt of gratitude to our committee staff: Jarek Wisniewski, Brigid Fowler, Tim Mitchell, Tabitha Brown and Luisa Jaime Nunez, assisted by our press adviser Louise Shewey. I also want to thank our national parliament representative Jack Sheldon and his assistant Maherban Lidher for the vital work they do in liaising between this House and European parliamentarians.
The Government are right to have dropped the misleading term “reset”. The UK-EU relationship will be a continual process of adjustment and adaptation. There is no end point. Even since we finished our report three months ago, there have been further significant developments, driven largely by the increasingly stark reality that we Europeans can simply no longer depend on the US as our ally.
I will not try to summarise the detail of the snapshot that we gave in our report as of last November. I want to focus on the issues that will arise in implementation of the various agreements now under negotiation, and then to range a bit more widely to consider where we go from here, especially in the light of the Prime Minister’s interesting Munich speech of 14 February.
Let me start with security and defence co-operation with the EU. This is, of course, the area where progress is most urgently needed in the face of Putin’s war in Ukraine, now entering its fifth year, and Trump’s total unpredictability. Our report welcomes the security and defence partnership which the Government concluded at the 2025 summit, but that is only an enabler. Closer consultations are useful, of course, but translating them into real improvements in military capability is much more difficult. That was all too obvious when the negotiations for the UK to participate in the €150 billion SAFE defence investment programme broke down in December. The sticking point, as noble Lords will remember, was a completely unreasonable EU demand for an entry fee running to several billion pounds. This was a remarkably short-sighted EU position, given the geopolitics, and one with which many member states were unhappy. Since then, there have been suggestions in the media that the Government plan to reopen discussions, with the aim of participating in SAFE on more reasonable terms. Can the Minister tell us whether that is the case?
Staying with our report, we also looked at the area of police and law enforcement co-operation. The key here is more automation and streamlining of data sharing between law enforcement communities. A specific example arises when the Government have to decide whether to participate in the updated version of the Prüm database, which will have facial image data as well as the existing database of fingerprints and DNA. That will be an important decision that I am sure Parliament will need to scrutinise carefully.
On the economic issues, most of our witnesses supported the Government’s manifesto commitment to negotiate agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary checks on food and animal products, and on the emissions trading system. Our witnesses were also clear that the electricity trading scheme proposals outlined in the trade and co-operation agreement simply would not work. They therefore supported the idea of exploring UK access to the EU single market for electricity trading. That is now under way, as is a negotiation.
Our report lays out the implications of agreements in these areas of UK access to the single market. In particular, they will require dynamic alignment with EU regulations as they change, subject to any exceptions that are carved out in the negotiations. This will raise important issues for Parliament. We are promised a Bill soon, which will be interesting. The SPS agreement is likely to involve a continuous process of alignment, much of it highly technical, with each change potentially having an impact on businesses across the UK. How will Parliament exercise any useful scrutiny of this constant drip of administrative change? I guess that, at the very least, the European Affairs Committee will need more staff to keep abreast of the constantly changing regulatory landscape.
Agreements with the EU will have other implications as well. In particular, the UK will have to make a financial contribution. In the case of SPS and ETS, the 2025 summit agreed that payments would go towards EU costs in running the schemes, which seems fair enough, but the Commission’s draft negotiating mandate on electricity market trading introduces the idea of “cohesion funding”—in other words, British payments to reduce disparities between EU regions. Norway makes such cohesion payments directly to projects in poorer regions. If the Minister could give us more detail on whether that would also be the UK’s approach to the inevitable demand for cohesion funding when we seek to apply for single market access in other sectors, that would be interesting.
Two aspects of the trade and co-operation agreement were set to expire in June 2026: the arrangements on fisheries, and on trade and investment in energy. The May summit agreed to roll over the existing access for EU fishermen to UK waters for 12 years, but agreed to extend the energy title only one year at a time. That fisheries deal was strongly criticised by many of our witnesses, particularly those from the fishing industry. The committee also had serious doubts about the process. Within one month of the deal being struck, it had been enacted by the Specialised Committee on Fisheries, with no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I should add that the Scottish salmon industry was very pleased at the prospect of an SPS agreement, given its export-orientated business.
On the cultural front, our report welcomed the prospect of the UK associating with Erasmus+ from 2027. Agreement on that has now been reached, which is good news for young people across the UK and the EU. Negotiations are also under way for a youth experience scheme. Is the Minister confident that a deal can be struck on that in time for the next summit, planned for May?
I note that both schemes were EU, not UK, negotiating objectives. I welcome that progress is being made, but it is disappointing that there has been no progress, as far as I can tell, on the UK’s one priority in the cultural field—a deal to help touring artists. That enjoys widespread support in both Houses of Parliament and the European Parliament, given the discussions that we have had in the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. I hope that the Minister can update us on how the Government are planning to break the logjam on touring artists.
In conclusion, I want to spend some time on the wider context for the future UK-EU relationship. My view as we went through this inquiry was that the Government’s level of ambition, even as extended at the May summit, was not nearly bold enough. Our witnesses were unanimous that, even if all the highly technical negotiations now under way were successful, the economic impact would be marginal, if positive. The Government predict a boost of around £9 billion in total by 2040, which is not much for a £3 trillion economy. The reality is, as Mark Carney put it so well in Davos, that we now live in a world where the great powers are using
“economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities”.
In that world, marginal benefits are nowhere near enough.
The Prime Minister, in his excellent Munich speech, seemed to agree. He saw closer UK-EU economic relations as part of the answer, setting the aim of “deeper economic integration” and moving
“closer to the single market in other sectors”.
If the Minister could give us any details on which sectors, that would be interesting. I welcome the aspiration to move closer to the single market, but the EU will need to respond to that. The failure of the SAFE negotiations and the restrictive rules now under discussion around its “made in Europe” initiative remind us that, for the EU institutions, the UK is still a third country. They are tending to apply their rules pretty inflexibly despite a mutual interest in working together.
The reality is that the hard strategic choices facing European nations, including Britain, will not be made in the UK-EU framework. Again, the Prime Minister recognised that in Munich. He talked of the need to step up work with like-minded allies on options for a collective approach to defence financing. He said:
“We must come together to integrate our capabilities on spending and procurement and build a joint European defence industry”.
He added that we should “turbocharge our defence production”. Again, any detail on that important new initiative would be interesting. It sounds as if the idea is to mobilise a wider group of European countries, going well beyond the EU, leap-frogging the stalemate over SAFE. There must be a question over whether there is room for two separate defence financing initiatives, but I welcome the willingness to think big in facing up to the new reality that we will have to take much more responsibility for our own security.
Trump is dismissive of international law and sees no value in allies. His treatment of Denmark over Greenland has broken all the bonds of trust which have kept NATO together for 75 years. New forms of co-operation among like-minded middle powers are therefore urgently needed to deal with a hostile Russia and an indifferent America. Such groupings tend to take shape under the pressure of great events and do not necessarily follow the blueprints set out in foreign ministries. It may be that this coalition of the willing, which has done such interesting work under UK-French leadership in supporting Ukraine, can grow into a load-bearing forum for wider strategic thinking outside NATO. For the moment, it is informal and unstructured, but it has a very interesting membership covering many European countries and Asian allies. I am sure that other noble Lords will have wisdom to bring to bear on this crucial subject.
Whatever the shape of the future, we need a turbocharging of our relationships with our closest neighbours in the EU, who share our values and interests. That will need more vision and more consistent political focus on both sides than we have had so far, but it is an objective that becomes more important every month, given the international situation that we face. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s comments. I beg to move.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on the excellent report he has produced, which is exactly what I would expect of a committee which he chaired. However, our debate today has shown the difficulties he had in producing a consensus, because there are clearly many Members opposite who do not want to move beyond the Brexit debate or see a closer relationship with our friends and allies in the European Union. They seem completely oblivious to the economic cost of what Brexit has brought—virtually every estimate is at least 4% of GDP—and the fact that the public now believes overwhelmingly that Brexit was a mistake.
We need this reset of the relationship and to get closer. I will make three brief points about what I think is necessary if it is going to succeed. First, all the issues to do with a closer relationship with Europe are extremely complex. What you need is a top Whitehall team in every department working on these issues and, at the centre of government, someone bringing all these people together to hammer out differences between departments, and a very strong permanent representation in Brussels. I believe these things have weakened since Brexit. I experienced it for seven and a half years when I was in Downing Street and saw how effective it was, but we must rebuild these institutional capacities if we are going to make a success of the relationship.
Secondly, we must be willing, if we want much greater access to the single market, to make meaningful contributions financially. I am not talking about the nonsense of the €7 billion, which came up in the ridiculous arguments about SAFE, but we have to be prepared to pay more to the budget than simply administrative costs. The French, Germans, Dutch, Swedes and others are significant net contributors to the EU budget. The reason why it is necessary is that in order to get the weaker members of the union to co-operate in the single market there has to be some kind of measure of cohesion, and we will have to pay into that.
Thirdly, the Government have got to make the case to the country much more strongly for why we need to get closer to Europe. It is necessary to convince our European partners of our seriousness. Making the case at home will help convince them of our seriousness. At the same time, for us as the Labour Party, it will help unite at home the opposition to the far-right populism that is such a danger to this whole venture.
In a way, the 2016 arguments for Europe are completely redundant. The world has changed enormously in the last decade. Economically, we have Trump tariffs, the rise of China and a world of greater instability. We need to be part of the EU.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Katz ExcerptsMonday 2nd February 2026
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-XIV(Rev) Revised fourteenth marshalled list for Committee - (30 Jan 2026)
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I would be grateful for clarification—
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I have not quite finished.
I understand exactly what the noble Baroness is saying. I was not a criminal judge; I do not think I ever sent a woman to prison, so I am not qualified to speak on those issues. All I am really asking the Committee to reflect on is that we are principally being asked to change the law to support those who are not guilty of offences, and because the police are not behaving as they should.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, it is Committee. Everyone can have a turn, as long as they stick to the speaking limits, so perhaps we could just take it around the Committee.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I would just be grateful, and I will be brief, to get a clarification—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
Before the Government Whip sits down, could he please remind the Committee that interventions have to be brief and cannot go on into speeches? Can he also remind the Committee that those who have put their names to these amendments should be heard prior to those who have not?
Lord Katz (Lab)
First, there are no points of order in our self-regulating House. Secondly, the noble Baroness makes the point about interventions very ably. Thirdly, as I said, there is time for everyone in Committee to both move their amendments and speak to other amendments, so I suggest we just take it in a reasonable order. I will leave it to the Committee to decide who speaks next.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief—I would just be grateful for a clarification. I strongly believe in women’s rights, including reproductive rights, and I do not want women in distress subjected to criminal investigation, if at all avoidable. But I am struggling to understand why Clause 191 is considered not to amend the Abortion Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, among others, asserts. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said it would be “toothless” if Clause 191 is agreed.
If I have understood it properly, people other than the pregnant woman concerned would still be committing a criminal offence if they gave any kind of assistance. That is why it is considered that the Abortion Act 1967 is not in fact amended. The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, referred to repealed abortion offences, so we seem to be relying on the fact that only the woman herself would be regarded as decriminalised. I am not generally happy about decriminalisation, such as in relation to drugs. I prefer dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s and having legalisation—or not.
Have I understood that correctly? Maybe it is only when we come to the Minister that I will get full clarification as to whether or not we are amending the Abortion Act 1967, which I broadly support, even though it is a compromise. I have never supported the simple but simplistic “a woman’s right to choose”, because there are other considerations. I support the Abortion Act as a compromise on a difficult subject, as I think many people do, but I seek clarification that the Abortion Act is not being amended and that we would simply decriminalise the woman concerned while supposedly leaving the rest of the Abortion Act as it is.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
The noble Baroness has had one intervention, and only one is allowed.
Lord Katz (Lab)
To be clear, the noble Baroness can take as many or as few interventions as she wishes.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Well, that is not the information that was given earlier, but there we are. I think I have answered the question.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
I have not finished. That was an intervention. Sorry; I have nearly finished.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I ask the noble Baroness to conclude her remarks: it is well over her 10 minutes.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Yes, sorry, it is. I will just read the last paragraph. It is the interventions that have taken time.
Some of these examples may sound fanciful or seem extreme, but the worst consequences of a policy rarely announce themselves plainly at first sight; otherwise, we would always pass perfect laws, and we do not. We would be foolish not to learn from evidence in other jurisdictions. I contend that it would be far wiser to reject Clause 191 altogether. Doing so would protect women—both baby girls in the womb and the mothers who carry them.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, and I respect his expertise, but I think there is a debate about how successful scans are and from what stage. We can debate that on another occasion, but there is evidence that scans can be used successfully. I will not take any more interventions, because my time is running out and I have one more amendment to go through after this.
There is evidence that first-trimester scans are generally safe, non-invasive and commonly used to confirm pregnancy, identifying due date et cetera. At the moment, the requirement is that the medical practitioner believes in good faith that the pregnancy will not exceed 10 weeks when the medicine or the first dose of a course is administered. I contend that the condition stretches the idea of belief and good faith unreasonably widely, so the medical practitioner simply accepts what they are told, perhaps by the pregnant woman who may be speaking in perfectly good faith—we have seen tragic cases of this—but is mistaken, or else that it is only after the gestational age of the baby has been reliably ascertained that the medical practitioner is in a position to believe in good faith that the pregnancy meets the conditions stated. My amendment would not change the Act.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I will certainly bring my remarks to a conclusion. I will just briefly introduce my last amendment to Clause 191 if I may because of those interventions and, I have to confess, my loss of notes. Amendment 461K, my last amendment, proposes to—
Lord Farmer (Con)
Well, they are not. Many of us have not been parliamentarians for long, and we have not been at the right schools that have debating societies. If we want to say something important for the good of the common—
Lord Katz (Lab)
Order. We need to return to the debate. I suggest that the noble Baroness concludes her remarks imminently so that we can carry on with the debate.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 461K agrees that the people who support this clause say that they are not trying to legalise abortions that would otherwise be illegal. If that were to happen, it would be extremely important to ensure that proper mechanisms exist for prosecuting the party culpable—that is to say, the abortion provider—so that they are not above the law or beyond the reach of the law. We should not forget that, for the most part, it is non-medical clinics that provide around 80% of abortions, with taxpayers funding the bill. Like all service providers—
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness has had a lot of the Committee’s indulgence. We will take that as her finishing.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was in danger of no longer wishing to be heard. That is where the Committee was moving. When the Whips tell us to conclude, we really should conclude.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking late in the debate and others have made many points. I just want to speak to the amendments in my name in this group and say a few brief words about the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, to which I am a signatory. I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bailey and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stroud, Lady Eaton and Lady Lawlor.
I consider myself very fortunate to have never had an abortion, and I wonder how many of us in your Lordships’ House have actually had one. I want to make it clear that I do not oppose abortion altogether. No woman would choose an abortion lightly, and I fully recognise the points that have been raised about the distress of police investigations for women at that time in their lives. But we owe it to ourselves and to the women affected to be honest about the reality of what we are discussing.
In 2022, 260 abortions in England and Wales took place at or beyond 24 weeks’ gestation. These abortions must be performed in NHS hospitals. The woman is awake—she goes through actual labour, including painful contractions; she will deliver a fully formed infant via a vaginal delivery. We may wonder whether every woman going through this is fortunate enough to be in a bereavement suite with specialist care, or will she be in the next room to someone delivering a healthy baby? At 24 weeks, a baby is 12 inches long, weighing about 1.5 pounds, with a fully formed face. The NHS website tells us that at 32 weeks, an unborn baby is perfectly formed and just needs to put on weight. Once delivered, we wonder what happens to the infant. They are classified as clinical waste to be incinerated; at earlier gestations, women are advised that they can take the remains home, bury them in the garden, flush them down the toilet or place them in household rubbish.
There is no extensive research on the long-term emotional impact on women of late-term abortions, but natural human empathy tells us that this must carry significant emotional impact and distress. My heart goes out to those who are in this position because of foetal abnormalities, but I ask your Lordships whether extending this experience to any point in pregnancy, including up to full term, is truly in the interests of women and girls, many of whom are victims of reproductive coercion, domestic abuse, child rape, trafficking or modern slavery, when we have so little understanding of the long-term effects.
In fact, there is complete silence around late-term abortions. It is a taboo subject associated with complex feelings. There is hardly any information about what it actually involves or how it will impact women and their bodies. Removing any legal deterrent, as this clause does, means that we put more women in a world of scary and unsafe unknowns, and we leave our public services to pick up the pieces without any plan. These are almost certainly not women with significant resources, resilient mental health or strong support systems. We are leaving the most vulnerable at greater risk of exploitation.
I come at this, respectfully, from a totally different perspective from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and others, because we know that abuse often takes the form of reproductive coercion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, explained in the case of Stuart Worby, and we know that this is a pattern for grooming gang victims as well. I fully accept that this is not the design or intent of the policy, but it very much is the unintended consequence. How many of us can genuinely say that we always pass perfect laws without unintended consequences? It is not the case. This situation could happen via the pills by post scheme, or by coercion or other reasons.
Those who support this clause present it as a feminist fight for women’s rights, and accuse those of us on the other side of the debate of ignoring the suffering of women. They tell us this radical law change is necessary because dozens of women are facing life in prison under a Victorian law. But almost every part of this claim is questionable. The law in question, the Offences against the Person Act 1861, may be old, but it is still the basis of our laws today against GBH and manslaughter, and nobody would suggest that they are obsolete. The idea that women are facing life in prison is also fanciful. The one high-profile conviction in recent years under the Offences against the Person Act resulted in a short prison sentence that was suspended on appeal. As for the numbers, the groups who are campaigning for this tell us that six women have been prosecuted over the past three years. Given that there are now almost 300,000 abortions a year, it is hard to see why this justifies such a significant change. Of course, it is regrettable if there are women who have been wrongly investigated, but that is a police matter. We do not disapply other laws simply because people are sometimes wrongly investigated. It is critical that we make the distinction between babies who would and would not be viable outside the womb; that is why we have the 24-week limit.
The Member in another place who tabled Clause 191, Tonia Antoniazzi, is on record as saying in an interview that she was comfortable with women being able to abort at 37 weeks without committing an offence. Are people really comfortable with passing a law that means a woman could abort at full term for any reason without committing an offence, as would be the effect of this clause?
Many have spoken about the dangers of telemedicine, so I will not expand on that, but we discussed that in the assisted dying debate. Under that Bill, two doctors would at least have to make sure that the person applying for an assisted death was actually terminally ill by examining relevant records. But the pills by post scheme permits women to obtain abortion pills with no reliable way of ascertaining whether they are under the limit before which it is legal and safe to take pills or even pregnant at all.
I turn briefly to my Amendments 459B and 461G. While I sincerely hope that this Committee will support the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, in case it does not, I have tabled Amendment 459B to introduce a sunset clause requiring the Secretary of State to renew the legislation after each of the first three years. The related Amendment 502A is to make the regulations in proposed new subsection (3) subject to the affirmative procedure. In so doing, it encourages awareness and scrutiny of the provision and provides an opportunity to reverse the effects of Clause 191, should the consequences be as I fear.
I have also tabled Amendment 461G, which would require an annual report concerning abortion drugs that have been obtained illegally, maybe online, which I worry will become more likely under Clause 191. Of course, this need not relate solely to women considering an abortion themselves—it might relate to third parties or traffickers who obtain pills illegally to coerce an abortion or cover up abuse. It establishes ongoing transparency and oversight concerning what I fear will increasingly become a matter of public health and a safeguarding concern.
I should mention that I was unable to table any amendments to require the Government to collect numbers of pills by post that are issued or to require that this is captured on women’s medical records because those issues are not in the scope of the Bill. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister would look at those issues because I think they are very important.
There is a genuine worry that with the numbers of abortions rising and young women turning to that option more frequently, the future consequences for their reproductive health are simply unknown. We have many noble Lords in this House who practise medicine, yet we could see women coming to them and not disclosing that they have taken pills by post in the past. The cases that have led to the clamour for decriminalisation up to birth have resulted from pills by post and the inability to ensure that safeguards are maintained. Taking these pills outside the 10-week gestational limit is a dangerous course of action. The Department for Health and Social Care consultation found that the risks of this would include an ongoing viable pregnancy, reduced efficacy of abortions and death. I hope the House will consider my amendments as additional safeguards for women and girls, and I commend them to the House.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid it is clear that there are still a number of Back-Benchers who wish to speak on these amendments as well as the Front-Benchers, so I now propose to adjourn the debate on Amendment 455, move to dinner break business and then resume the debate on the Bill. I advise your Lordships’ House that notice has been taken of those who are here for the debate on Amendment 455, so when we resume, we will be able to continue the debate in an orderly fashion.
Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]
Lord Katz ExcerptsFriday 13th June 2025
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 15(Rev)-I Marshalled list for Committee - (11 Jun 2025)
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on his Private Member’s Bill, and thank him and all noble Lords who took part in the debate on Amendment 1. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s remarks shortly. He rightly highlights through his Bill, and his contributions so far during its passage through your Lordships’ House, the intertwined issues of environmental decline and climate change, on which this House must continue to engage.
As my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock has noted, the intention of the Bill to drive and strengthen public authority action towards meeting national, environmental and climate targets and objectives is important. Of this the Government are in no doubt. Encouraging nature’s recovery is a key priority, fundamental to the Government’s approach to economic growth. However, at the risk of repeating my noble friend’s comments at Second Reading, there are already measures in place seeking to realise this Bill’s ambition.
For example, we expect that the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act’s biodiversity duty, strengthened through the Environment Act, will ensure public authorities make conservation and enhancement of biodiversity a core part of the delivery of their functions. Local nature recovery strategies will set the strategic priorities for nature recovery in an area and identify the best locations for land management actions to deliver those priorities. These are progressing well, and we expect most or all to be published this year or shortly after, covering the length and breadth of England.
On climate adaptations, England’s third national adaptation programme, NAP3, summarises the collective actions the Government are taking to address risks and opportunities from climate change and to ensure that adaptation is incorporated into government programmes. Recently, through the Water (Special Measures) Act, this Government introduced a requirement on Ofwat to have regard to the need to contribute to achieving targets in the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008 when carrying out its functions. We intend to strengthen the statutory purposes of protected landscapes, our most iconic and inspiring places, to give them a clear mandate to recover nature and to widen the public’s access to it.
This Government are firmly committed to working collaboratively to improve the natural environment. As we have already heard in noble Lords’ contributions this afternoon, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wasted no time in announcing a rapid review of the statutory environmental improvement plan, and we will publish a revised EIP this year. This revised plan will focus on cleaning up our waterways, reducing waste across the economy, planting millions more trees, improving air quality and halting the decline in species by 2030. To answer the question posed by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone on wider alignment, there are already measures in place to realise the Bill’s ambitions through this collection of actions.
Further, on net zero, the Government will deliver an updated plan that sets out the policy package to the end of carbon budget 6 in 2037 for all sectors by October 2025. This will outline the policies and proposals needed to deliver carbon budgets 4 to 6 and our nationally determined contribution commitments on a pathway to net zero.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, effectively proposes the removal of climate adaptation from the remit of this Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the noble Lord’s speech seemed more focused on net-zero targets than climate adaptation, which is the focus of his amendment.
Climate adaptation is essential for supporting our natural environment and biodiversity, as the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, recognises, as well as protecting our communities and economy. Climate change is now an inevitable part of our present and future, posing many challenges with severe impacts on our lives, health and prosperity. It is therefore essential that we continue to adapt to climate change, not only for the environment’s sake but to reduce its significant economic and growth impacts. As my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock made clear at Second Reading, this Government are fully committed to addressing net zero and the role that climate change plays, as summarised in NAP3.
I will briefly address the points the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, made about net zero. The British people deserve lower-cost, clean and secure power—we are all in agreement on that—and the good jobs that will come along with that. Certainly, it is the role of all Governments to protect us from the long-term threats we face in energy security. The economic case, the national security case and the environmental case all point in the same direction, which is our clean green energy mission that will protect the country from exposure to unstable international markets and give greater security and stability to both family and national finances in terms of energy costs. We will achieve this through delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero. Our mission will bring energy security, protect bill payers, create good jobs and help protect future generations from the costs of climate breakdown.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke with passion and knowledge about the importance of engaging every level of society—local authorities, businesses, individuals and other stakeholder groups—in our mission to tackle climate adaptation and pursue net zero. Defra and DESNZ are working on a public participation strategy. The noble Baroness made some well-observed comments about the importance of engagement at all levels of society and I will take that back to colleagues in both departments.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing this Bill to the House and enabling this debate, and I look forward to hearing his comments.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register—in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, has already mentioned, that I chair the independent advisory group on sustainability for the Drax Group.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for meeting me to discuss the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for discussing it with me just a couple of days ago. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It was heartening to hear support for the Bill from all sides of the House, although there were some voices of scepticism. It is important to recognise that the environment and climate are not partisan issues; they are things that affect future generations. We are concerned about it for the future of our children, grandchildren and future generations in general. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his kind words about me personally.
When I read Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, its purpose was not clear to me. As others have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Coffey, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the Minister, it removes the adaptation element of the environmental recovery objective by deleting lines seven and eight of Clause 1. It also removes the environmental recovery objective itself by deleting lines nine to 11. As others have pointed out, without this objective, the rest of the Bill would make no sense, as it is all about how the listed public authorities deliver the environmental recovery objective. I was therefore tempted to conclude that the noble Lord intended it as a wrecking amendment. However, I now understand that the amendment is based on scepticism about achieving the targets in the Environment Act and, particularly, the net-zero target of the Climate Change Act.
In other words, the amendment is not directed at my Bill, but at these two Acts of Parliament. I could rebut in detail the arguments made about net zero by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but because I believe the amendment is out of scope, I prefer not to engage in the detail. I suggest that if the noble Lord objects to the net-zero target passed by the previous Conservative Government, it would be more appropriate to try to change that Act rather than this Bill.
It is therefore perhaps worth restating what this Bill is about, and some of these points have already been made. It introduces an objective for the many public authorities, regulators, land managers, infrastructure providers, planning authorities and so on to contribute to the specific targets in the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, these public authorities are the bodies that make the daily decisions that affect the state of our environment, our resilience to climate change and our greenhouse gas footprint. In fact, the truth is that, without the contributions of these public authorities, there is no hope of meeting the targets—a point made by a number of noble Lords.
I will briefly allude to local authorities, since they were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, among others. It is worth noting that, in spite of what has been said, on Wednesday this week the LGA published its position on my Bill, in which it said it is in principle in favour of a statutory climate duty. There you have it: the LGA, which represents local authorities, supports the intention of this Bill.
The Minister has said that the Government are not going accept the Bill, although they agree with the principles in it. However, I point out that the Government have recently said that they will
“clarify how the environmental improvement plan will be delivered, including the role of government departments and bodies, environmental NGOs, businesses, farmers, landowners/managers, local government and the public”.
This Bill should be a godsend. It provides the clarity that the Government is seeking on how to deliver the environmental improvement plan.
Furthermore, two recent reports, commissioned by Defra, also point in the same direction as my Bill. The interim Cunliffe report, on the water sector, concludes that
“the sector needs a clearer and more consistent long-term direction—one that aligns environmental ambition, the provision of water supply and wastewater removal, and the expectations of customers … We believe the legislative framework that underpins the sector must be revisited”,
which is what this Bill is in part doing. The report goes on to mention resilience and adaptation.
The Corry review of the regulatory system in Defra states that the system is now
“inefficient and difficult for customers to navigate. It needs to work in a fundamentally different way, to become a system focused on delivering positive outcomes for nature and the environment and to be an aid not an impediment to sustainable growth”.
So there you have it. The Government’s own plans for the environmental improvement plan and the two reviews that Defra, commissioned by Cunliffe and Corry, all point in the same direction as my Bill: make the regulatory regime simpler, clearer and more effective. At the same time, ensure that public authorities are helping to deliver the specific legally binding targets for nature and climate.
During the debate, the Minister and other noble Lords referred to a number of existing initiatives: for example, the biodiversity duty that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned; the local nature recovery strategies that a number of noble Lords referred to; the devolution framework, which has been implicit, although not specifically referred to; and the protected landscapes targets and outcomes framework, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, among others. These initiatives are, without doubt, important, but they could be enhanced by specific guidance on timelines for meeting the targets in the two Acts. The biodiversity duty, for instance, has the rather weak guidance:
“Consider what you can do to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Agree policies and specific objectives based on your consideration. Act to deliver your policies and achieve your objectives”.
There is no link to the Environment Act or the Climate Change Act, so we could strengthen the guidance for those duties.
To summarise, my three asks of the Government in the future, would be—
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, seeks to remove Great British Nuclear, now re-named Great British Energy-Nuclear, from the scope of this Bill. In adding this amendment, my noble friend recognises the unique role of nuclear energy in our national energy strategy. He cautions against implementing duplicative regulatory burdens that could hinder the progress of a key part of the nation’s energy infrastructure.
Nuclear power is already one of the most tightly regulated industries in the UK, subject to the most stringent environmental and safety standards. The existing framework ensures that nuclear development aligns with our broader environmental goals without the need for additional oversight. Imposing further targets through this Bill may simply add another layer of unnecessary obligations, delaying projects that are critical to our energy security and His Majesty’s Government’s net-zero ambitions.
We must confront the reality that nuclear energy is different from other forms of power generation. The upfront costs are substantial, the lead times are long, investors and operators need stability and clarity, not shifting regulatory sands that might deter investment. If we are serious about expanding nuclear capacity, as His Majesty’s Government say they are, we must avoid measures that might make those projects even more challenging to deliver.
We do not believe that this amendment weakens our commitment to the environment. On the contrary, it recognises that nuclear energy is already a low-carbon, reliable baseload power source that will be indispensable as we transition from fossil fuels. By exempting Great British Nuclear from the Bill, we are not rolling back environmental safeguards but ensuring that nuclear can fulfil its vital role to society without the risk of being impacted by well-intentioned but ultimately unnecessary additional regulation.
We urge your Lordships’ House to carefully consider the amendment. A laser focus on delivering clean, secure and affordable energy, which is already highly regulated by experts, will pay dividends for future generations of this country.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for his amendment. He made some points about the new formation of Great British Energy-Nuclear. I am afraid that some of the detail that he asked for regarding the corporate structure of that body is a little beyond my bailiwick, so I undertake to write to him with more detail.
However, let me reassure the noble Viscount that Great British Energy-Nuclear, as it is now called, will continue to drive forward the UK small modular reactor programme as part of this Government’s commitment to net zero and mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower. I agree with the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the amendment and its contribution to the Bill, and I have already spoken at some length in my comments on the previous amendment about the Government’s commitment to making the UK a clean energy superpower.
After the spending review this week and the commitments that we have made not just to the SMR programme but to Sizewell C, we can be in no doubt that this is the biggest nuclear rollout for a generation, and we see nuclear as very much a part of creating that clean energy superpower. For the sake of brevity, I will leave my comments at that.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing forward this amendment and all noble Lords who have taken part in this very short debate. I will not speak at length, because I can make my point very briefly.
At Second Reading, I pointed out that there are two classic objections to the proposals in my Bill: on the one hand, they are unnecessary; on the other, they are too burdensome. Both cannot be true at the same time. Yet it seemed to me that in the debate we have just had, the point was made that the nuclear industry, of which I am in full support, is very tightly regulated, therefore, this additional layer of regulation is unnecessary. On the other hand, we heard that this additional layer of regulation would be too burdensome and impose duties on the nuclear industry that would discourage investment. Both simply cannot be true. If it is doing it anyway, it cannot be burdensome; if it is not doing it anyway, maybe it needs a bit of extra burden.
In truth, when we look at what the Government’s website says about GBE-N, we see that it says that it will deliver the Government’s long-term nuclear energy programme and support the UK’s energy security and contribute to our net-zero targets—so tick the box, job done. It is already contributing to net zero.
One of the other tasks that GBE-N will have, alongside the competition to build up to three SMRs, is, along with Rolls-Royce, to choose the sites where the SMRs are to be built. Those choices will have environmental implications. It seems to me perfectly reasonable, when those choices are made, that they should reflect the targets in the Environment Act. If they were clearly going to be detrimental to the target of reversing the decline in species diversity by 2030, it would be reasonable for GBE-N and Rolls-Royce to be asked to think again.
So, although I have heard an argument for removing GBE-N from the list of public authorities, I am not convinced by it—although I will take it away and think about it further. In the meantime, I very much hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his amendment to include the Canal & River Trust in the list of authorities in Clause 2(2). I also pay some tribute to his creative way of raising concerns about the stewardship of the Canal & River Trust, such as the removal of litter bins and other associated issues relating to its environmental responsibilities. I will certainly bring his comments to the attention of my colleague, Minister Hardy, who has responsibility for the Canal & River Trust in the department.
The Canal & River Trust is an invaluable organisation with which Defra and other government departments work closely. The Government will continue to collaborate with the trust to ensure that its efforts are best directed and realised, to improve and protect the natural environment for the public. For the sake of brevity and the progress of business, I will leave it at that.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, for raising this question and all those who took part in this short debate. I have the good fortune to live in central Oxford, very close to the Oxford Canal. Indeed, when I set off this morning, I did my usual 10-minute walk down the canal towpath from my house to Oxford station. The canal in Oxford, together with its canal banks, forms a wonderful corridor for wildlife, leading right into the city centre. I often see a heron fishing on one of the weirs and occasionally glimpse the iridescent blue of a kingfisher flying past. In the winter, I see groups of goosander that have migrated south for the winter from Scotland or Scandinavia.
I am lucky. Unlike in the examples cited by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, in my neighbourhood the canal towpath is well maintained and litter free. I very much wish that were true of the rest of the canal network. In fact, my only complaint about the canal in Oxford is a rather different one: a number of residential canal boats—already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Evans—are allowed to burn dirty solid fuel, which would not be allowed in other residences. I wish the Government would do something about this. After all, one of the six key targets in the Environment Act is to cut exposure to the most harmful air pollutant to human health, PM2.5. The canal boats could be a good starting point for reducing that pollution exposure.
In principle, I think it would be very good to add the Canal & River Trust to the list. However, this is now above my pay grade because I do not fully understand the position of the CRT. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, and I looked it up myself, it is a registered charity and therefore governed by the Charity Commission and not subject to the same regulations as public authorities. I assume it would have to change its charitable objects in order to comply with the intention of this Bill, so I would like to take it away and understand it. In the meantime, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, will see fit to withdraw his amendment, recognising that it has had a very sympathetic hearing from all around the House.
Before I sit down, I once again thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate this afternoon. I have not mentioned the Wildlife and Countryside Link and Green Alliance, which were very helpful in preparing the material for this Bill. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for agreeing to continue the discussion of how the ideas in the Bill can be taken forward.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter, have already mentioned that there are two routes ahead of us. We all agree with the intention of the Bill, plus or minus some points. I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and we all agree in general with the principle of improving our environment. The two routes that the Government have are either to accept that there will be piecemeal chipping away as Bills come forward and people try to achieve amendments, which is inefficient and time-consuming, or they could do it at one fell swoop very simply by accepting the Bill that I have proposed.