Environmental Principles Policy Statement

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the draft environmental principles policy statement, laid before Parliament on 11 May, and the requirement in Section 17(4) of the Environment Act 2021 that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the statement will contribute to the improvement of environmental protection and sustainable development.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, the environmental principles policy statement is one of the four cornerstones of achieving the Government’s environmental ambitions enshrined in the Environment Act, alongside the long-term targets, the OEP—the independent regulator—and the environmental improvement plan, which will chart and drive progress. It is the means to put the environment at the heart of government decision-making, setting out how internationally recognised principles should be interpreted and, as importantly, showing the Government’s ambition for what its use should deliver.

I called for this debate because I have significant concerns that the draft jeopardises delivering on this potential and on the Government’s environmental ambition, which I think we all share: to leave the environment in a better state than that in which we found it. It is not just me who has those concerns. I am privileged to chair the Environment and Climate Change Committee, which had concerns, as did the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, in his place today. His committee drew this to the special attention of the House in its third report of this Session. This debate and the EPPS—I shall use the shortened form or we shall be here all afternoon—are undoubtedly worthy of the scrutiny that the Environment Act affords the opportunity for.

I am extremely grateful to the Government, first, to Minister Pow and her officials for coming before the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 9 June and for engaging with other parliamentary committees. I am also grateful to the Government for finding time for this debate today and for their commitment, despite our now being beyond the allotted time for parliamentary scrutiny, to consider the responses as they draft the final statement.

I was particularly pleased when we had our meeting with Minister Pow to hear of the steps being taken by the MoD to take forward the intentions of the principles, consistent with its role. The exclusion of certain areas of fiscal and defence policy from the duty to have regard to the EPPS was initially of extreme concern to Members of both Houses during the passage of the Environment Act. I therefore applaud the work of the MoD and Defra, which I am sure has been chivvying the MoD along, to pick this up. I say with some degree of confidence that my committee will be keen to look at the progress the departments are making in due course.

The Government have made some welcome changes in light of the consultation they undertook on the first draft, but significant concerns remain, first, about whether it provides clarity to Ministers to know how to interpret the five internationally recognised principles and in so doing achieve the Government’s ambition; and secondly, about their failure to propose any effective monitoring. In a letter to the Minister of 23 June, my committee highlighted a number of areas where we had concerns and I shall focus on a handful today.

First, what constitutes a proportionate approach in applying the principles to policy-making? There is an extremely strong case that the environment remains insufficiently weighted in the articulation of what is a proportionate response. The concern about encouraging an excessive degree of proportionality was raised in debates on the environmental principles during the passage of the Environment Bill and again by many respondents to the Government’s consultation on the first draft. It is disappointing, therefore, that this latest draft does not sufficiently address this. Indeed, it is arguable that the intent is further weakened in the draft EPPS in its definition of what constitutes a proportionate response by Ministers when considering the potential effects of a policy option. The draft says that it depends on whether

“the environmental effects of a policy … are both a) likely to occur, and b) likely to have a significant effect.”

Surely, if we want to capture the consideration of environmental effects into decision-making, the wording should be if they are “possible”, rather than likely to occur and have serious environmental consequences.

The draft is also far clearer on what policymakers should not do rather than what they should. For example, it says:

“Policymakers are not expected to carry out a ‘deep-dive’ assessment into all environmental effects … Nor are policymakers required to replicate the environmental impact assessment process”,


and goes on to allow policymakers to

“apply the policy statement in a lighter-touch way, where appropriate”.

Without any examples of what policymakers should do, the overriding impression is that the intent is to minimise the effort for policymakers to consider the environmental impacts. It is therefore imperative that the proposed toolkit of resources for government departments, to support them in implementing that duty, makes crystal clear what is required.

Therefore, although I appreciate that the interpretation and application of the environmental principles by the Minister should be appropriately balanced between the environmental, social and economic considerations, it is fair to say that I am not yet confident that the articulation of what constitutes a proportionate response in the draft statement protects environmental concerns from being consistently overridden by economic and social interests.

Secondly, my committee agreed with the OEP, which expressed in its letter from Dame Glenys Stacey to Minister Pow, on 8 June, that the interpretation of the precautionary principle creates a risk of allowing preventable environmental harm. The interpretation of the precautionary principle in the draft is different from its established use as a means to deal with uncertainty. It is usually understood to apply where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage, and where potentially damaging action or inaction should be avoided—this is the crucial bit—even if there is a lack of full scientific certainty. The draft seriously qualifies this, however, by stating that

“there must be sufficient evidence that the risk of serious or irreversible damage is plausible and real, and where choices are considered to prevent or reduce the environmental degradation … they should be cost-effective.”

This worrying reinterpretation of the precautionary principle continues in the new duty given to it to incentivise innovation. Incentivising innovation is an entirely laudable policy objective but not an integral part of the precautionary principle itself. The former is an approach to appropriately weigh up and manage the benefits and risks inherent in the latter.

To me, this reinterpretation exposes the tension in the Government over what post-Brexit Britain means. The battle rages on over whether we are to have a bonfire of regulations, moving to a US proof-of-harm approach, or our own version of the EU regulatory model, which supports environmental and social outcomes while creating a level playing field for business. We have Ministers openly and actively criticising the environmental principles, particularly the precautionary principle. It is therefore arguable that this wording is an attempt to reconcile the unreconcilable and meet the divergent aims of the respective wings of the Tory Party. I will not ask the Minister to comment on that but I ask him whether he accepts that, although promoting innovation is an entirely laudable policy objective, it is not by any stretch of the imagination an integral part of the precautionary principle itself.

Thirdly, there is not a sufficient sense of urgency in the description of the prevention principle. It sets out that it would be preferable for environmental damage to be prevented, but that does not appear to be a priority. The need for timeliness and urgency of action could be more ambitiously worded in the description of when to use the principle.

Concerns were raised during the passage of the Environment Act about the urgent need to tackle the appalling environmental and human health impacts of sewage releases into our rivers and streams. In the absence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who cannot be with us today, I contend—though not as well as he could—that there is an extremely strong case for strengthening the phrase:

“The principle is most effective when it is considered at an early stage”


by the addition of:

“Where environmental harm is already occurring, prevention should be applied without delay and as soon as possible.”


Fourthly, on the implementation and monitoring of the EPPS, clearly it is not just the statement itself that is important; the guidance, support and resources will help Ministers and departments to implement it, making clear what they should do to seize the opportunities for the environment rather than just limiting environmental damage. At the meeting with the Minister and her team, we learned that they are still discussing how to roll this out and implement it, with a team working on producing resources such as training, videos and case studies. That is a really important job—arguably as important as the statement itself—and it is critical that it does the job that we need it to do. To ensure that it does so, will the Government commit to asking the OEP to review those resources before they are finalised?

There is, in addition, a deeply worrying omission: a failure to monitor how departments are taking forward the principles and the impacts of their introduction. We all know that what is measured matters. Here I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I will be brief, given that its chair and other members are here to, I am sure, make the case far more eloquently than I ever could. It is essential that the practical implementation and effectiveness of the policy statement, and indeed the principles themselves, are properly monitored and evaluated. If there is no audit trail, it is hard to assess whether the principles or the policy statement have had any effect. Therefore, it is hard not to conclude that the Government are not sufficiently committed to ensuring that they are implemented and deliver the environmental outcomes that the Government say they want.

Getting this EPPS right really matters. The environmental situation we are in requires urgent attention; consider the health of our rivers, our depleted soils and our crashing insect populations, to name but three problems. Last month the OEP produced its first review of the Government’s plan for environmental improvement. It called for a much sharper focus, spelling out that success rests on all government departments —everyone across Whitehall—working well to deliver those goals. A strong EPPS is critical to making that a reality.

The Government really need to get on with it. Progress on implementing is slower than the urgency of the task to turn this around demands. It is unclear what the timetable is for producing a final statement and how much time is allowed for departments to prepare for the duty. It is not just Greener UK which has been championing this. The business group Aldersgate, with members including BT, Nestlé, Siemens, IKEA and Scottish Power, has been calling for rapid implementation. When do we anticipate that it will come into effect?

The EPPS could have enormous potential to deliver on the Government’s ambitions but, as it stands, it is insufficiently clear to Ministers what they need to do and it lacks a necessary audit trail. The Government need to take the chance to revise it further as it moves to a final version. Without that, it is hard to see how the Secretary of State could meet requirement of Section 17 of the Environment Act—that they are satisfied that this policy statement will

“contribute to … the improvement of environmental protection, and … sustainable development.”

I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think it was worth bringing this to the attention of the Committee. As was mentioned by the Labour Front Bench, if I had not, there would not have been any opportunity to debate it because it is a new process. It was worth while and I am grateful to all noble Lords for speaking and for what they said.

I also thank the Minister for his reply. I would particularly like to respond to his very heartfelt point that this really matters to him. We know that; I do not think anyone in this room would doubt it. His actions show that. We know him and absolutely believe that this matters to him. However, it is important for us to discuss this because, as other noble Lords have made clear, there are Ministers in the current Administration—and there may well be future Ministers—not of the same persuasion and who do not treat this as seriously. That is why the wording matters. It is one way to try to drive the environmental concern right across the heart of government. It is important to discuss this and the text matters.

I heard the Minister’s justifications and responses to a number of the comments made. I note them and will go away and reflect on them. For me, the most galling issue in the policy statement as it stands is the undesirable coupling of the precautionary principle with innovation. It is just not possible to achieve that. I asked the Minister to respond to that and he chose not to. I accept why he chose not to, but that odd coupling stands.

It is not just the text. The text is important but so are the resources. I am grateful to the Minister for expanding further on the very significant work that his department will be doing to try to drive this across government. I wish them well in that task, but the Minister did not respond to my point about whether the Government will let the OEP review that. That would give all of us and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, pointed out, the public confidence in the process. If they could see that the OEP has been part of that, that would really drive confidence, so I urge the Minister to think about putting those key resources to the OEP.

Of course, we are not just here to discuss this policy statement’s impact on driving environmental ambitions across government, important though that is. As the noble Lord said, this is a historic document. It is the first of its type in terms of process. It is really important that the House discusses this as a process. I say as a committee chair that we struggled to find the time, given the very tight turnaround in the Environment Act, which we did not spot. I hold my hands up; I am as guilty as anyone, though I was not a committee chair at that time. In no way is 21 days adequate time to enable a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny. The process as it stands in that Act is deficient, to my mind, and we need to make sure it is not deficient in future Bills.

There will be more of these policy statements in future, given that there are so many framework Bills. I cite one example: the Procurement Bill, which starts its Committee stage on Monday and to which I have drafted an amendment, was not even proposing a draft policy statement. It was proposing just going straight from the framework Bill, saying, “We will produce a policy statement about government procurement” —a business of some billions of pounds. It will go straight to a final statement for parliamentary scrutiny and the timings are again unclear. There needs to be a really serious look at the processes around these policy statements in future.

Finally, I do not need to repeat why this is important. We look forward to receiving the Government’s response, which I hear we will have in the autumn. We hope they will consider a number of the points we have made. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is one of the four cornerstones of environmental protection that this Government will use in the future. I think it is appropriate to say in this Room that if some amendments are not made, those cornerstones will be part of a house built on sand.

Motion agreed.