Environment Bill — House of Lords, 2021-06-07
Topic: Environment
Desmond Browne (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register, in particular my involvement with the BioRISC initiative at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge The UK has positioned itself as a world leader on environmental issues, and now it must deliver. I welcome the arrival of the Bill, however late, but, like other speakers, I recognise that significant work needs to be done if it is to deliver. Deferring to those with greater knowledge and experience of these matters, I shall restrict my comments to two devolution implications and two other issues that I have raised previously, most recently in the Queen’s Speech debate On the devolution matters, I have the benefit of an excellent briefing from the Law Society of Scotland, a point to which I shall return. Presently, the Bill’s provisions concerning environmental principles extend to England and Wales and apply to England only. Happily, the principles set out in Clause 16 are in line with the guiding principles on the environment set out in Section 13 of the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Act requires reference to the principles themselves, taking account of their interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union, whereas, under this Bill, the reference point is the policy statement to be made by the Secretary of State Differentiation is a natural consequence of devolution and the extent to which consistency is sought is a political matter. However, coherence in the way principles are understood and applied will be essential in ensuring that international environmental obligations are met. Avoiding disparities is particularly significant given the transboundary effects of environmental impacts, and at all costs we must avoid disparities that encourage "environmental regulatory tourism". Given the duties imposed on UK Ministers under the Scottish Act, strong collaboration between the UK Government and devolved Administrations on environmental governance is essential. Some coherence will also be of assistance to UK-wide discussions and forums—for example, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the REACH regime The second issue is the importance of the office for environmental protection working closely alongside environmental governance bodies in the devolved Administrations. Clarification on the reserved functions of UK Ministers relating to Scotland that will be subject to oversight by the OEP is essential. Clause 42(1) provides for a restriction on the OEP in relation to disclosure of information. Clause 42(2)(f) provides an exception for a disclosure "made to a devolved environmental governance body for purposes connected with the exercise of a devolved environmental governance function" This exclusion is welcome but insufficient. The Bill should provide for either a wider power to, or an obligation on, the OEP to share information and work with relevant bodies in devolved Administrations where necessary, including provisions for joint investigations to be undertaken by the OEP and one or more environmental governance bodies in the devolved Administrations where appropriate The Law Society briefing raises many additional issues—too many to cover in the limited time I have. I am sure it has passed a copy to the Bill team for their consideration. If not, I shall forward mine to the Minister’s office. I look forward to seeing the amendments referred to by the Minister in his opening remarks and the extent to which they reflect the issues raised concerning devolution Substantial public money has already been wasted through the failure of many agri-environmental schemes because the best available evidence was not appropriately used to inform their design. How do the Government plan to ensure that the proposals for the restoration of peatlands and planting of trees adopt evidence-based principles in planning, execution and monitoring? In the Queens Speech debate, I asked: "what mechanism will the office for environmental protection deploy to ensure the transparent use of the best available evidence, enabling scrutiny by experts and members of the public, to ensure that taxpayers’ money for our environment is spent cost-effectively?"—[Official Report, 17/5/21; col. 350.] I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, which was: "the Office for Environmental Protection will work closely alongside our world-leading Committee on Climate Change".—[Official Report, 17/5/21; col. 426.] He then thanked it for the guidance it had provided in this regard. I hold the CCC in the highest regard, but I am tempted to ask why the Minister believes that climate experts are the best experts to answer on ecology Finally, I turn to an issue that I know the Minister has supported in the past: banning lead ammunition. On 23 March, six years after receipt of the completed report of the Government’s own Lead Ammunition Group recommending that lead ammunition be phased out, the Environment Minister Rebecca Pow announced plans to do just that, saying in a Defra press release: "A large volume of lead ammunition is discharged every year over the countryside, causing harm to the environment, wildlife and people." Her words accurately summarise the extensive harmful consequences of its use and make a compelling case for action now to protect human and animal health. But, inexplicably, she goes on to announce the commissioning of "an official review of the evidence to begin" that day, "with a public consultation in due course." The impacts of lead ammunition on wildlife, the environment and human health have been known for years. So, I repeat: "Given the Government’s view that extensive harm is being caused today", a view shared by many, "why have they commissioned a further evidence review?"—[Official Report, 17/5/21; col. 350.] I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Minister will have time to respond to the matters I have raised. If not, I hope he will agree to write.