Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

The Government must categorically state to Parliament that the critical regulations listed in my Amendment 37 will be preserved in full and will not be sunsetted at the end of this year, and that any future reform will not be pursued through the powers of the REUL Bill because of its deregulatory intent. I look forward to the debate.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to a number of amendments in this group. I am sure we do not want to repeat the arguments from previous groups, but the reason why we have put these amendments down is that these regulations are the fundamental building blocks upon which our environmental protection is based, and has been based for the past 50 years. If this Government are serious, as I am sure we all hope they are, about meeting the stringent environmental targets they have set and which we need to restore our nature, then we need these protections in order to take that forward. We will not meet our environmental targets if we do not have these building blocks, which have been correctly identified by my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

I do not want to repeat arguments already made and I am sure that others will want to flesh out why these particular environmental laws are so important. I just wish to make two points. First, I am sure that the Minister in his summing up will say that we do not need to worry—we do not need to have anything excluded and taken out of the sunset clause—because the intention, the default position, is to retain. We have heard him say that, and we have heard the Secretary of State on this. We have a number of members of the Environment and Climate Change Committee here. The Secretary of State for Defra came to our committee in November and made that very point: that the default position of the department is to retain. However, in her very next sentence she said that there was an opportunity to “do things differently.” She was talking about the water framework directive.

People in this Chamber, and environmentalists, are not against amending regulations. If the scientific evidence changes or the evidence from business shows they are not working or that consumers are not getting what they need, we are not against amending regulations. The trouble is that what was meant by “doing things differently” is what it is in this Bill: it is not a proper process of scientific evidence with the chance for Parliament to be consulted; it is just given to Ministers to do things on a whim.

What I particularly find offensive about that—this is my second point—is that we in this House spent weeks debating the then Environment Bill in 2021. We all agreed that three directives mentioned today—the habitats, REACH and water framework directives—might need amending. The evidence might change, and we all know there are some problems; developers are saying that there are some issues. Nothing is perfect and we are not against change. We signed up to clear processes in that Bill, which is now the Act, for those three pieces of legislation. It set out that there would be a consultative process—an open process with all stakeholders—which would look at how the legislation could be amended. That is completely ignored in this Bill’s process, which is a closed-door process in Defra.

More importantly, Section 112 of the Act says two things about what should happen were the Government to wish to amend the habitats regulations, which, as we all agree, were one of the foundation blocks for our environmental protection. Subsection (8) says:

“Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (7).”


In other words, Parliament gets a chance to see why those regulations are needed and can have a say on them before they become regulations. I beg the forgiveness of the House; we are going back to a point we discussed in the previous group: that Parliament has absolutely no say before the regulations are laid.

The second, more important, thing in my mind, is with regard to amending the habitats directive, which, again, I think any of us would say is great but not perfect. Subsection (7) says:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations.”


There is a non-regression clause in the Environment Act about the habitats directive.

This Bill is nothing like that; there is nothing about deregulation. My noble friend Lord Fox made the point so well previously in relation to the comment by the noble Lord, Lord True, on the very welcome Statement yesterday about Northern Ireland. If we get deregulation, we will diverge from Europe. With respect to all those people saying that their paints rely on the REACH regulations, and those using all the other directives and laws now being transposed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned—if there is deregulation, there will be divergence. They will not be able to sell their products and that will be to their detriment.

This is not just about the environment. Unlike those of us who are passionate about the environment and want to save the red kite, the bittern and the otter—as the habitats directive has directly done for the last 50 years—if some noble Lords are not fussed about the environment, that is fine. But by not exempting these from the sunset clause, if there is divergence, we will stop British businesses being able to do what they need to do and export. This Bill does not have a clause that guarantees that there will not be a lower level of protection for the environment. That is why I oppose it so much and why it is absolutely right for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell, to say that it should be exempted from the sunset clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Well, not without going through an exhaustive amendment process. I want to see higher environmental standards in this country. I want us to be able to prove that we have higher environmental standards than the rest of Europe. I am ambitious that regulations should be in the right form, effective and pertaining to this country. Most of these regulations were designed for an environment that goes from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. As I shall come on to talk about, there are measures in it, including on animal welfare, for example—the point the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made. One of them relates to not putting ear tags in bulls that are used for “traditional purposes”—which turns out to be a regulation to exempt Spanish bullfighting bulls from the regulations that apply to other cattle. We do not have bullfighting in this country, so it is not a problem for that to sunset. I am sure my noble friend agrees with me.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

We accept that the Minister is ambitious, but the question I raised was specifically about the Environment Act, where we are clearly being ambitious about the future. We talked about looking to amend regulations in future, including, potentially, the habitats regulation. A specific clause was included in the Bill that there will be a non-regression for environmental standards. Why will he not put that on the face of this Bill?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I will of course reflect on the points made today, and we will consider them all in due course. I do want to make some progress, if possible.