Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Baroness Altmann

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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