Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs this afternoon and for our helpful conversations this morning. I shall speak first to the hazardous substances and packaging regulations 2020. As we have heard, these draft regulations propose to transfer the legislative functions from the European Commission to the Secretary of State in relation to England, Scotland and Wales after the end of the transition period. The instrument also proposes changes to help ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol.
The Minister referred to paragraph 12.3 of the EM, which states:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no significant impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is foreseen”.
But this is an important transfer of powers. Paragraph 12.1 of the EM states:
“There will be an impact on business.”
So there is an impact on business, but there is no impact assessment because no impact is foreseen. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what assessment has been done of an impact and how severe it is.
Paragraph 2.4 of the EM states that allowing future changes to the list of restricted substances, exemptions and so on by secondary legislation is appropriate because it will enable changes,
“of a technical nature, to be made in a timely and proportionate manner.”
While it may be appropriate for most technical changes to be made in this way, will the Minister commit to ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny of any future SI that may make more substantive changes?
Paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 of the EM mention “regular discussions” between the relevant departments and agencies. How regular have such discussions been? Is there a need for ongoing discussions beyond the end of the transition period and, if so, would they take place regularly or just on an ad hoc basis where necessary?
The department has also stated that it is “the Government’s intention” to carry out public consultation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady McIntosh, both mentioned ClientEarth’s concerns about a potential lessening of consultation requirements and a weakening of the objective to protect human health and the environment. Can the Minister confirm that a public consultation—including seeking the views of environmental groups—will be carried out when the list of substances is amended? Can he provide any information as to when this may start and the length of consultation we are looking at? As others have asked, can he also confirm that the power to amend the list of substances will not be used to weaken environmental protection?
The EM also outlines the cost implications of these changes, which the Minister and others have mentioned, particularly of new labelling requirements. What kind of window will there be for adjustment to the new requirements? In the case of GIs on food products, an earlier SI said that the UK label and logo would not become fully operational for three years. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned the fact that the Covid-19 pandemic has caused many businesses financial difficulties. Could the Minister see whether the Government can provide support to businesses during this transition period to the new system?
The second instrument, the waste and environmental permitting regulations, is much lengthier and amends a variety of existing EU exit SIs, both to correct deficiencies and to bring legislation up to date following recent developments in EU law, and again to implement the Northern Ireland protocol. The Schedule is a lengthy list of revocations—14 in total. These are briefly referenced in the Explanatory Memorandum, but there is no justification or explanation for them. I know that the Minister gave some clarification of the reasons behind these revocations during his introduction, but it would be useful to have more detail in the document as to the reasons. Is it because the measures being revoked are unnecessary in the context of us having left the EU, or, if they are necessary, are provisions being found elsewhere? That is just so we have a proper understanding of the reasoning behind this.
As a final piece of clarification, the third bullet point in paragraph 7.1 of the EM notes that some legislation that provides for EU directives has been superseded by the circular economy package, meaning that
“The opportunity has also been taken, in a few places, to simplify provisions”.
Can the Minister confirm what practical changes, if any, will come through from those changes?
Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs this afternoon and for the helpful discussion that we were able to have beforehand.
I will look first at the ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases regulations. The Minister has explained that their purpose is to implement the Northern Ireland protocol, specifically in relation to restrictions on the use of ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases. As a result of the changes proposed by this instrument, as we have heard, two separate systems will operate in Northern Ireland and Great Britain after the end of the transition period, with controls on the movement of relevant gases, substances and equipment requiring checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked a number of questions in this area, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.
The department says that this approach is necessary to implement the protocol and to ensure that the UK remains compliant with its international obligations and can deliver its wider climate change commitments. What work has been carried out by the department on the potential practical impacts on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
This instrument amends a previous EU exit SI, rather than revoking and replacing it. There is an inconsistency in Defra’s approach to this legislation. Some instruments have provided an element of consolidation, but others have slightly muddied the waters. Look at the SIs in front of us today. Paragraph 3.1 in the EM for the new regulations for the control of mercury states that it is completely replacing the previous SI, whereas others are just adding to them. It would be interesting to get some clarification of the department’s thinking on the latest instruments we have been looking at.
Looking in more detail at the ozone-depleting substances regulations, we see that paragraph 2.8 of the EM notes that current Commission competences will be transferred to England, Scotland and Wales. Can the Minister confirm whether this will be a complete and like-for-like transfer of powers, or whether there are some areas which have been deemed surplus to requirements?
Paragraph 2.10 notes that the devolved Administrations can establish and operate their own systems if they want to, and the Minister referred to this in his introduction. What consultation was carried out with them and has the Minister had any indication of whether this is the direction they would like to take? If so, what kind of timescales are we looking at?
Paragraphs 10.1 and 11.1 mention the detailed technical guidance on how the ODS and F-gas systems will operate in GB after the end of the implementation period. Paragraph 11.1 explicitly states that this was due to be published in October. Can the Minister confirm whether this has actually happened, and, if so, when it was published? Has the promised engagement with industry now also been undertaken?
Finally on this SI, paragraph 14.1 confirms that the EU requirement for a review of the regulation by 2022 will be retained, with the Secretary of State and devolved Administrations to carry out this task, either together or separately. Does the Minister have any idea how long this process is expected to take and when it is likely to commence?
I turn to the control of mercury regulations. We have recently considered a number of SIs to implement the Northern Ireland protocol which have not raised any concerns in relation to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, drew attention to the extreme toxicity of mercury. Paragraph 2.7 of the EM outlines the new procedural requirements for products containing mercury to move between the two, including a prohibition on the movement of mercury-added products in both directions. I draw attention to this because it is a major departure from the current system, where products can move freely between EU members. Can the Minister give further detail about the department’s thinking in drawing up this new system?
Paragraph 10.2 states that the market for such goods is
“small and decreasing in size”
and that data indicates it will affect only a
“small number of imports per year.”
The Minister referenced in his introduction paragraph 10.3, which states that industry engagement suggests
“there is very little movement of any elemental mercury or mercury added products”
between Northern Ireland and Great Britain or between Great Britain and the EU. Does the Minister have an estimate of how many movements we are looking at? Does he see any practical problems that could arise from the approach being taken?
Finally, I turn to the detergents amendment. The Minister has already explained that, among other things, this instrument will allow the continued movement of detergents and surfactants from Northern Ireland to Great Britain after the end of the transition period. Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that while movement will be maintained, so will safeguard measures within Great Britain to protect human health and the environment. The SI also amends a couple of EU-derived regulations, as well as making minor amendments to previous exit SIs to ensure compatibility with the Northern Ireland protocol. We have no real concerns on this SI and are pleased to note that the devolved Administrations were given the opportunity to comment during the drafting of the proposals.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to my earlier questions.
REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations (1) fail to provide an analysis of the costs of the new domestic Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regime, (2) introduce additional costs and administrative burdens for United Kingdom businesses, and (3) create unacceptable risks around the availability of chemicals safety data; notes concerns about the ability of the Health and Safety Executive to fulfil its additional responsibilities when the domestic REACH regime becomes operable on 1 January 2021; and further regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have not addressed concerns raised by Parliament when proposals for a domestic REACH regime were debated in 2019.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. My amendment spells out the deficits and risks that remain in the REACH regulations and our disappointment that the Government have brought forward an amended proposal that fails to address any of the serious concerns that were raised when it was debated last year. It shows insufficient understanding of how chemicals are actually managed in complex supply chains, with analysis neither of the cost of setting up the new regime or the additional costs to business.
The Government have said that these regulations are necessary to ensure that UK REACH will operate domestically and to implement the Northern Ireland protocol. But they will not provide the same level of protection from harmful chemicals that we currently enjoy, and there are huge challenges in trying to replicate EU REACH. The Government have failed to demonstrate that the Health and Safety Executive, as the new regulator, will have the necessary skills and capabilities to match what has been provided by the European Chemicals Agency. When the original SI was introduced, it was indicated that the budget would likely be £13 million a year, and this figure has not been updated. The HSE will have a similar number of chemicals to regulate as the European Chemicals Agency does, with an annual budget of around €100 million. So we have serious concerns about the readiness of the HSE to take on this role and about the lack of staff with the necessary expertise. Despite the Minister’s previous assurances, he needs to set out exactly how the new system will be staffed and resourced to ensure that current levels of protection continue.
Schedule 2 amends the 2019 regulations to extend the date by which companies with EU REACH-registered chemicals must provide full safety data. As explained, the deadline has been extended from two years after exit day to be staggered over six years plus 300 days, so that the full registration dossier will now need to be submitted within two, four or six years. I understand the Minister’s reasoning behind this, which he just explained, but it does mean that the period in which the new regulator will be unable to protect human health and the environment from harmful substances has been extended. Without this data, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the HSE to implement legally enforceable restrictions and authorisations.
According to CHEM Trust, this will make the system considerably weaker. The UK may diverge and fall behind the EU quite quickly, with the result that products that do not meet EU standards could be dumped in the UK market. The Government have acknowledged that this is a possibility, so will they actively match new controls on chemicals implemented at EU level to ensure that this cannot happen?
Defra has said that the regulator could use a substantial amount of publicly available information, but this is not adequate for proper regulation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that it was deeply concerning that HSE
“will not have access to the full chemicals safety data currently held by EU REACH.”
The Chemical Business Association has said that British businesses do not normally own the testing data required for registrations under UK REACH, as it is held by a consortium of European countries. To reuse the data for the UK system, companies might need to obtain permission from the consortium and will likely have to pay for the extension of rights. If that cannot be obtained, tests might have to be redone to establish safety information, which could involve repeat animal testing.
The UK industry estimates that it will cost of £1 billion to comply with UK REACH, including the cost of resubmitting full registration dossiers already available under EU REACH. The Minister mentioned data sharing, but as yet there is no agreement between the UK and the EU on a data-sharing mechanism for these dossiers—and we are days away from the end of the transition period. There must not be any repeat animal tests, so I ask the Minister, who I know feels strongly about this, what guarantees he can give. How confident is he that this can really be ensured and that it is not just an undeliverable promise?
The regulations that this SI amends remove the supporting committees that ensure that decisions are based on scientific advice and that there is proper scrutiny and oversight. In the UK version, they are replaced by a duty for the HSE to seek external advice, with no formal committees of experts and stakeholders established. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has the final decision relating to the status of particular chemicals. While we hope that it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would diverge from HSE recommendations, it is not explicitly prevented.
In conclusion, we need a regulatory system that provides the same levels of protection for human health and the environment as we have enjoyed under REACH. Otherwise, critical decisions will be made by a body with little experience and with layers of accountability and scientific expertise stripped away. My amendment recognises these deficits and risks, and the lack of government action to date. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I tabled my amendment today so that this House could demonstrate to the Government the very real and serious concerns about the proposed REACH regulations and the failure of the Government, so far, to act and listen. I thank noble Lords for their support. It has been an interesting debate and I have been pleased to hear from many Members, including the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his expertise on the whole matter and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on how we are leaving the best system in the world and the huge costs that this will create.
My noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath talked about the problems of the HSE, but also their support for it. Nothing I said was intended to criticise the HSE, rather to demonstrate how it needs to be more prepared for its new role. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, talked about how the changes being made bringing unnecessary risk without adding value. My noble friend Lord Hanworth and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, clearly explained, in some detail, why the domestic system is so difficult. My noble friend Lord Whitty mentioned the need for associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency; it is deeply disappointing that this has not happened.
The Minister really has not answered the many concerns raised. This Administration have their head in the sand. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment today, as this is but a small part of the larger regulations. There will be opportunities to consider the matter further during debate on the Environment Bill.
Waste Prevention Programme
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The International Resource Panel estimates that resource extraction and processing of materials contributes to about 30% of global particulate matter emissions, 50% of total global greenhouse gas emissions and 90% of biodiversity loss and water stress. Industrial emissions from manufacturing are responsible for approximately 21% of UK domestic emissions. The Environment Bill will include a target relating to resources and waste. As I speak, that target is being assessed with a view to being introduced .
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers over 2,000 times last year. The chair of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Philip Dunne, has a Private Member’s Bill and an amendment to the Environment Bill seeking to place a duty on water companies to end that filthy practice. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not supporting his efforts and whether he believes this should be included in the revised waste prevention programme?
Yemen
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Boris Johnson
It was absolutely right to support President Hadi and to recognise the scale of the crisis that Yemen faces. As I have been explaining to the House—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I am laying out the case in a forensic manner—Britain has important interests at stake. By the way, it is right that we should be discussing this subject this afternoon. Furthermore, I can assure the House that, over the past few months, this country has been leading the way in a sustained diplomatic effort to try to settle that conflict.
Boris Johnson
I will give way in just a second.
In my first week as Foreign Secretary, we convened a meeting on Yemen with my American and Saudi counterparts and others at Lancaster House. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, I brought together all of the Gulf Foreign Ministers along with the United Nations Special Envoy, Mr Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. Together with the United States and other partners, we are doing all we can to support the efforts of Mr Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed to mediate a political settlement—and there must be a political settlement. The only way forward is to get a political settlement. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is absolutely right that the first step towards achieving that settlement must be an enduring ceasefire, which is precisely what we are calling for. I welcomed the three-day cessation that occurred last week, and our efforts are now directed at securing a new cessation of hostilities.