relinquish from our statute book retained EU laws that do not work in the interests of the United Kingdom

The sunset extension mechanism, found in Clause 2, will allow specified instruments or specified descriptions of retained EU law to continue in force beyond the Column 987is located hereToggle showing location of Column 987sunset date where that is necessary and in our interests. The sunset date cannot be extended beyond the end of 23 June 2026. It is my hope that this clause proves unnecessary, but it would be irresponsible not to include a clause to allow for unforeseen circumstances.

The power

domestic enactment

any retained direct EU legislation,”.

An incompatibility order may (among other things)—

Incompatibility orders

retained general principles of EU law

Abolition of supremacy of EU law

restricts theproper development

After that subsection insert—“(5ZA)35

Role of courts

Sunset

retained EU law without replacing it

Powers to revoke or replace

does notincrease the regulatory burden

(5) In subsection (4) “domestic subordinate legislation” means any instrument(other than an instrument that is Northern Ireland legislation) that is madeunder primary legislation.

Moredetails of meetings can be found in published expert group minutes.

Given the unprecedented scale of planting required, the government will require additionalpolicy levers beyond grants and existing green finance initiatives to encourage morelandowners to change land use in favour of woodland in the future. Potential options couldinclude changes to future regulatory or spending measures. It is not yet possible todetermine which of these options may be required. Whilst some regulatory options mayreduce costs to businesses, others may lead to increased costs. Given the uncertaintyaround the future policy mix, it has not been possible to quantify or estimate these costs.

It is also expected that by 2030 there will be greater certainty about how private financemodels will support afforestation in the long term. The forestry sector is well-placed todevelop private finance models, with the WCC60 a relatively mature standard whichenables forest owners to generate independently verified carbon units. The WoodlandCarbon Guarantee61 then enables these units to be sold to the government at aguaranteed price. The announcement of the Climate Emergency by businesses andgovernment bodies has resulted in a recent upturn in new project registrations under theWCC. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)62 is also expected to support development-fundedwoodland creation. These mechanisms are relatively novel, but by 2030 they are expectedto play a greater role in incentivising landowners to plant trees

analysis uses the upper range standard cost payment rate of £1,375/ha for the WoodlandGrant Scheme and the standard costs cap of £6,800/ha for the Countryside Stewardshipwoodland creation scheme. Through converting both values to 2018 prices to remove theimpact of inflation, the real values of £2,926 and £6,800/ha are calculated

Tree cover outside of woodland is detected through remote sensing by the NationalForestry Inventory Assessment and will be updated every five years. The lastupdate for current modelling was in 2017

Therefore, approximately 7000 ha ofwoodland creation per year will count towards the wider habitats target.

t is worth noting that trees planted through BNG funding may not have full benefit valuesfor biodiversity and carbon depending on habitat loss to development elsewhere. The netimpact of planting must therefore be considered where BNG is applied

• Rural woodland = £24.88• Agroforestry = £33.67• Trees outside woodland = £172.74

these actions alone will not lead to sufficient tree planting to meet thegovernment’s net zero ambitions

The contribution of productive woodland to help achieve the proposed target toresource productivity would be limited over the period to 2050 and restricted to smalldimension (wood) thinnings.After 2050 there would be an increase in the availability of home-grown timberreducing the need for imports

Canopy Cover of 19%

Planting rates are highly ambitious in the short-term, bringing England’s afforestationcontribution to net zero forward from 2035 to 2030. The scenario focuses on planting ahigher proportion of conifers to deliver higher carbon savings, resulting in less deliveryflexibility and the potential for undesirable outcomes. The ability to achieve otherproposed Environment Act targets, particularly water and biodiversity could also benegatively impacted. The rapid acceleration in planting rates would also put additionalpressure on the forestry sector and seed supply in the short term. The option wastherefore rejected as considered potentially unachievable, less flexible than otheroptions and with the potential for undesirable outcomes

current regulatory framework based on the UK Forestry Standard isretained.

Short Rotation Coppice and Short Rotation Forestryare likely to make an important contribution asbiomass feedstocks to the net zero pathway (70).[rejected, subject to consultation responses

Differentiated target: This option would require a rigid statutory definition ofeach type of woodland, the ability to discern between the differentcategories and track changes over time. It would also limit the ability offuture forestry policy to respond to changing societal needs

with the illustrative pathway assuming UK planting rates rise to30,000 ha/yr by 2025, 40,000 ha/yr by 2030 and 50,000 ha/yr by 2035 and aremaintained through to 2050 (13)

The proposed tree and woodland target promotes well-placed woodlands as a way of regulating water flow to reduce flood peaks andimprove water quality by cooling water with their shade and reducing the level ofpollutants draining into watercourses. New habitat for wildlife and migratory corridorsfor woodland species will also be created

Native and mixed woodland will provide wildlife-rich habitat to enhance biodiversity(14; 15). New woodland habitat will also increase the connectivity and size of thewoodland resource, enhancing its resilience to climate change

59Figure 7: Residual waste excl. major mineral waste after existing strategies andambitions, up to 2042. RR = Recycling Rate

England’s material footprint

igure 8: Residual waste excluding major mineral waste after existing strategies andambitions, up to 2042

Residual waste excluding major mineral waste after potential futurepolicies, up to 2042

We also considered the possibility of setting separate targets on individual materials, butruled this out owing to:• The risk of perverse outcomes, such as material substitutions, from capturing toonarrow a range of materials.• The majority of non-major-mineral waste tonnages reported at landfill andincineration sites being one of two “mixed” EWC codes, 20 03 01 (mixed municipalwaste) and 19 12 12 (sorting residues from mechanical sorting of waste), for whichwe do not have up to date or regular estimates of composition. Any material-specificestimates would therefore be based on outdated composition data and wouldsimply reflect the overall trend for total tonnages of these waste codes, rather thanany real changes as a result of policy interventions

Our modelling makes a series of assumptions, which we are seeking further views on atconsultation

For the target ambition, we are proposing a 50% reduction in per capita residual waste(excluding major mineral wastes) by 2042 from 2019 levels. It is proposed that this will bemeasured as a reduction from 2019 levels, which are estimated to be approximately 560kg per capita. This figure is calculated from EA Waste Data Interrogator, incineratormonitoring reports, and international waste shipments data.We also modelled for comparison a 50% reduction by 2050, which lines up withcomplementary Resources and Waste Strategy goals for zero avoidable waste by 2050.Please note that our proposed target does not represent zero avoidable waste

A review to assist in the identification and short-listing of policies to reduce soils enteringlandfill in England. This included an outline of current and possible drivers of topsoil andsubsoil being sent to landfill in England, and the influence of the regulatory landscape

A review of policy options to reduce resource use and waste, and divert waste fromresidual treatment, in England’s construction sector, which aimed to provide an overviewof key drivers and existing regulations that act to influence resource use, waste productionand waste treatment in the construction sector in England

A review into the environmental life cycle impacts of inert/less reactive waste materials, toinclude end-of-life treatment and upstream impacts such as at the point of manufactureand, where possible, the impact of raw material extraction and processing

Accessed 27th January 2022

We think that an overarching residual waste target will provide the most helpful measure ofwaste reduction. We are aware that, as a weight-based target, it could be perceived thatwe are prioritising the reduction/improved recycling of heavier waste materials over lighterones. We will seek to avoid that and any other unintended consequences through themonitoring of waste composition and careful consideration of policy interventionsaccording to environmental impact

The Environment Act 2021enables us to set additional targets in the future, which could include a residual C,D&E ormineral waste target.

To address the significant public concern towards plastic waste, an overarching residualwaste target will align with government commitments to eliminate avoidable plastic wasteby 2042 and reach zero avoidable waste by 2050 (1). The Environment Act 2021 alsoprovides powers to create extended producer responsibility schemes; introduce depositreturn schemes; establish greater consistency in the recycling system; better control theexport of plastic waste; and, building on the success of the single use carrier bagcharge, gives us the power to set new charges for other single-use items made from anymaterial. All these measures, along with public consultations on proposals to ban anumber of single use plastic items, will effectively contribute to reducing plastic pollution

Would you wait to be asked by the Government to advise on something?Dame Glenys Stacey: It has never been my habit to do that and I do not intend to change my habits now.

Presumably you are not saying that you are going to rely on digital marketing to get the message out there to vast numbers of our communities

To what extent, and how do you determine, when another organisation’s complaints process has indeed been exhausted?

Cherilyn Mackrory: In the draft strategy, the OEP defines “environmental protection” to include “the protection of people from the effects of human activity on the natural environment”, as well as protection of the natural environment itself.

Secondl

This remedial tool is being encrusted with so much stuff that it is almost unusable. It really is ridiculous to overwork to this extent the amount of directions being given to the judge. It is not necessary, it is bad legislation and it is extremely dangerous. It is not a remedial tool at all

I make one other general point. We are considering an important Bill and the amendments we are debating this evening are significant. The Minister, as always, is addressing all relevant points in a most constructive and helpful manner, but it is, at least to me, surprising and regrettable that there are now, and have been for almost all of our debate this afternoon, no noble Lords on the government Back Benches.

the remedies in respect of which the presumption applies have always been treated by the courts themselves as suitable for exceptional cases only, not just in this jurisdiction but in other jurisdictions where they are used; in other words, the Government are attempting to reverse a presumption that the judges have themselves developed in the interests of justice.

Amendment 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would at least limit the exercise of the provisions in Clause 1 to powers where the court was satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. I suspect that that amendment will be opposed on the basis that it would introduce an unnecessary fetter on judicial discretion—and I suggest that that is entirely ironic, because the whole of new subsections (8), (9) and (10) are precisely targeted at fettering the courts’ discretion, and it is to that that we object. It is also ironic that, if passed, this would be the only mention of the interests of justice in the clause.

So I respectfully continue to support this clause. I said at Second Reading that I was agnostic or entirely relaxed—I think that was the term used by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—as to whether it is “may” or “must” in new subsection (9), and I remain so

new subsection (8)(c) points in one direction and new subsection (8)(d) in another. If it is the Government’s intention that all prosecutions brought under unlawful regulations or laws will never be prospective only, and if it is their intention that taxation raised under unlawful regulations will never be prospective only, in my respectful opinion—I may be wrong, in which case let me corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson—new subsection (8) does not get him anywhere near that. Indeed, it leaves the judge to decide and the judge has to decide on the basis of new subsection (9).

The traditional method has worked rather well. There are discretionary remedies for the judiciary and the power to legislate for Parliament, including, in extremis, to legislate retroactively. We do not like that, but if anybody is going to do it, it should be Parliament, because it is sovereign and has the democratic legitimacy to do so.

Amendment 3 removes the ability of the court to attach conditions to a suspended or prospective-only quashing order. These are intended to give the court maximum flexibility. For example, a court might want to make an order prospective only to reduce administrative chaos, but only on condition that parties who may have lost out financially are properly compensated. The conditions may not be necessary in every case, but it is an option for the court where appropriate.

The remedy decides what the effects of that unlawfulness should be, because there are cases where the court will declare that something was unlawful but not actually give a quashing order—but the action is still declared unlawful.

Remember, the court has to look at the factors in subsection (8), including paragraph (f), which refers to“any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant.”It also has to look at where subsection (9) says“unless it sees good reason not to do so.”

The suspended quashing order allows courts to suspend the effect of an order for a period of time to allow the decision-maker to prepare for the effect of the quashing. This could give them time lawfully to make a new decision before the unlawful decision is quashed or to implement some other transitional arrangements.The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, which aims to remove the whole clause, would remove this new remedy, which I had thought was broadly supported.

It is a two-pronged attack. I do not believe that the judges should have the power to make lawful what they have already found is unlawful with retrospective effect. That means that prospective-only orders are, in principle, wrong. However, if there were a case for changing regulations or for altering government action so as to bring it within the limits that Parliament wanted, that is for Parliament; that is for legislation, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, argued. It is not for the courts to say, “We find the act unlawful, but it is only going to take effect as unlawful for the future

it might be that the same conclusion is reached if you delay the effect of the quashing order until there is a chance to correct that. That may well do justice in the individual case. I can live with that. What is terrible—the independent review of administrative law by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, supports this view—is the idea that the court should have the power to say, retrospectively, that the fact that this act by the Executive was unlawful shall not have any effect going backwards. D

valuably would add to the judges’ discretion

The Government have approached the whole issue by seeing judicial review as an enemy to good governance rather than as a fundamental part of enforcing good government. Judicial review is a fundamental part of the checks and balances of the UK’s messy constitution, and the idea that public decisions which are either unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair should be left to stand is anathema to good governance.

In those circumstances, you have people who have behaved in good faith and—they thought—lawfully, who, when the court in a judicial review determines that the action is not within the law, are left in a rather difficult position. You may say that nobody is going to prosecute them once it becomes clear that the law had been nullified. The case may already have started. However, in the real world, having been found to have acted unlawfully, even unwittingly, is not a good position to be in and not one that an employee wants to find themselves in. It presents some difficulties which I think Amendment 6, from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, attempts to address in so far as it affects regulations and delegated legislation. I will be interested to hear him set it out more fully and the Minister’s response to it.

he guidance demonstrates which type of genetic changes can result in higher qualifying plants and highlights examples to illustrate how key criteria on natural processes and traditional methods and selection might be applied. The guidance provides further detail for cases that do not fit into that precise description. We make it clear that developers can always seek a view from DEFRA if Column 11is located hereToggle showing location of Column 11they are unsure

Let me turn to the scientific criterion for the “higher plant” equivalent to plants that could have been produced by traditional breeding methods. The composition of genetic material in individual plants of the same species is subject to high levels of natural variation and selection, which plant breeders have exploited for centuries. Our understanding of plant genomes and the accompanying advances in technology have increased significantly since the previous legislation and enabled scientists to utilise variation more efficiently by making precise changes to the plant’s DNA. Such changes are equivalent to those that could have been achieved by traditional breeding methods. That is what we mean by the classification of a “higher plant” in the provision.

ACRE might be struggling to do something that the Royal Society of Biology and others say is simply not possible. Given that much of this is about retaining public confidence, I took a look at ACRE, on whose advice so much of the draft SI depends. They are seven very eminent and experienced people, and I am sure they do an excellent job, but in the declaration of interests, six of the seven record very direct links with companies that might well benefit from the technology—no fewer than three of them quote Syngenta.

submission from the Royal Society of Biology to the consultation run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is lengthy, substantial and raises a number of interesting suggestions—it is in my pile of papers. It includes ways in which short-term improvements could have been made under existing legislation.

Committees in the other place often have comments about statutory instruments, but these are much more substantial than normal. The issue made it into the national print media, and on to national radio. When that level of public interest is generated by a report on the inner workings of this place, it should give the Government pause for thought.

I will make Labour’s position very clear from the outset. We are not going to oppose this SI, but we are not satisfied that the Column 5is located hereToggle showing location of Column 5Government have yet set out the clear and strong regulatory framework that is needed to provide the certainty that investors need, the reassurance that the public need, or the protection that the environment needs.

In a second step, we will be seeking primary powers to review the regulatory definitions of a GMO to exclude certain organisms produced by gene editing and other genetic technologies from GMO regulations. That will be followed by a review of our approach to GMO regulation more broadly.

In addition, our established GM inspectorate, run by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, will continue to act as an inspecting body of GM field trials, including the ones enabled by this SI.

Gene editing can improve sustainability and productivity in agriculture by helping farmers to grow plants that are more nutritious and need less fertiliser.

Last year, we ran a consultation on the regulation of genetic technologies, receiving nearly 6,500 responses

It will help us to adopt a more scientific and proportionate approach to the regulation of gene editing, allowing our bioscience sector to test the benefits and safety of new products by simplifying the system, while ensuring that checks and balances are still in place.

while I have not put my name to Amendments 1, 4 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pannick, I could be driven to support them if the new Sections 29A(9) and 29A(10) remain part of the package.

The decision on whether to validate what a court has found to be unlawful raises all sorts of policy considerations which are not for the judiciary to weigh up and determine. Indeed, to confer such an extraordinary power on our judges is, I suggest, inconsistent with this Government’s repeated expressions of concern that judges have or are exercising too much power.

New Sections 29A(4) and 29A(5) make clear that this would mean that the decision or policy which the court has found to be unlawful is nevertheless to be “upheld” and“treated for all purposes as if its validity and force were, and always had been, unimpaired by the relevant defect.”My Amendments 4 and 5 would remove those provisions.

what my Amendment 1 seeks to remove from this Bill is the power in new Section 29A(1)(b), set out in Clause 1, for the court to remove or limit “any retrospective effect” of a quashing order

monitor our implementation of this enforcement policy. In particular, we will develop approaches to measure and evaluate

relevant time limits have expired without the procedure being commenced

The second element relates to the limits on the scope for remedies in environmental reviews [and review applications] compared to judicial review and statutory review. Generally, in an environmental review a court may not grant a remedy other than a SONC unless satisfied that doing so would not be likely to cause substantial hardship or substantial prejudice to a third party, or be detrimental to good administration. This condition does not apply where the court is satisfied that granting the remedy is necessary to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health, and that there is an exceptional public interest reason for granting it. [These conditions also apply in the context of Northern Ireland review applications.] In considering the urgency condition, we will make our own assessment of the relevant conditions that a court would have to consider to grant a remedy.

We will have regard to the need to act proportionately

Step 3 therefore involves determining if a case that we can act upon is a priority to pursue through enforcement.

Figure

framework

subsequent case brought on the same matter by a third party.

Consequently, court action should only be necessary as a last resort.

Laws concerned with disclosure of or access to information, the armed forces or national security, and taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government are excluded.

recurrent issues,

However, there are outstanding legal questions, such as the WTO compatibility of non-equivalent treatment of ‘like’ products, for example where imports from an MEA signatory country are authorized, but not imports from a non-MEA signatory country. To illustrate, the question at hand is whether a country can refuse a shipment of a waste product from country A (which is not a signatory to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal) while accepting a shipment of an equivalent product from country B that is a party to that Convention

At least five sets of concerns are commonly identified by environmental advocates. First, existing environmental provisions in TAs do not address the full range of relevant issues, are too weak, and are not sufficiently enforceable. Second, to support and incentivize stronger environmental outcomes, more provisions are needed within the core ‘non-environment’ and ‘non-sustainable development’ chapters of TAs. Third, greater attention is needed to ensure that specific provisions in TAs, such as on investment and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), do not undermine or reduce the scope for environmental action. Fourth, market access commitments in TAs can increase trade in ways that exacerbate environment crises of nature, climate and biodiversity loss (such as by boosting trade in unsustainably produced agricultural commodities). Fifth, although most TAs affirm commitments to uphold environmental laws, many countries lack the robust environmental laws and institutions vital for effective environmental protection, especially in the face of the commercial pressures and opportunities associated with international trade.

Investor-state dispute settlement provisions that safeguard space for climate action

key questions shaping international policy discussions include:

review must consider

a civil sanction may not be imposed

n this paragraph “civil sanction” means a sanction of a kind for whichprovision may be made under Part 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement andSanctions Act 2008 (fixed monetary penalties, discretionary requirements,stop notices and enforcement undertakings)

ay issue guidance t

f, before the relevant date, the regulated person gives a notice to the relevantenforcement authority containing the prescribed information, the person isexempt from the Part 1 requirements in respect of their use of the commodity,or the product derived from the commodity, in their UK commercial activitiesduring the part of the reporting period

The EP’s formal competencies in EU trade policy extend beyond the negotiation of FTAs. The CCP also covers measures of the so-called autonomous trade policy: decisions taken by the EU without approval by a third country

5) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify legislative provisions, otherthan devolved legislative provisions, which are, or are not, environmental law(either by describing them or by identifying them)

40 Meaning of “environmental law”(1) In this Part “environmental law” means any legislative provision, other thandevolved legislative provision, to the extent that the provision—(a) is mainly concerned with an environmental matter, and(b) is not concerned with an excluded matter.(2) Environmental matters are—(a) protecting the natural environment from the effects of human activity;(b) protecting people from the effects of human activity on the naturalenvironment;(c) maintaining, restoring or enhancing the natural environment;(d) monitoring, assessing, considering, advising or reporting on anythingin paragraphs (a) to (c).

requires a person to provide the OEP with information that the personwould be entitled, or required by any rule of law, to refuse to providein civil proceedings on grounds of public interest immunity.

The OEP may apply for judicial review, or a statutory review, in relation toconduct of a public authority (whether or not it has given an information noticeor a decision notice to the authority in respect of that conduct) if the OEPconsiders that the conduct constitutes a serious failure to comply withenvironmental law

applying the principlesapplicable on an application for judicial review

where it applies for an environmental review (see section 33),for permission to apply for judicial review or for statutoryreview (see section 34), in relation to the alleged failure tocomply with environmental law

(6) A complaint under this section may not be made after the later of—(a) the end of the 1 year period beginning with the day on which thealleged failure that is the subject of the complaint last occurred, and(b) if the substance of the complaint was subject to an internal complaintsprocedure, the end of the 3 month period beginning with the day onwhich that procedure was exhausted.(7) The OEP may waive the time limit in subsection (6) if it considers that there areexceptional reasons for doing so

2) For the purposes of those sections, a reference to a public authority failing tocomply with environmental law means the following conduct by thatauthority—(a) unlawfully failing to take proper account of environmental law whenexercising its functions;(b) unlawfully exercising, or failing to exercise, any function it has underenvironmental law.

24 Monitoring and reporting on environmental law(1) The OEP must monitor the implementation of environmental law.(2) The OEP may report on any matter concerned with the implementation ofenvironmental law.(3) The OEP must—(a) arrange for its reports under this section to be laid before Parliament,and(b) publish them.(4) The Secretary of State must—(a) respond to a report under this section, and(b) lay before Parliament, and publish, a copy of the response.(5) The response to a report under this section must be laid no later than 3 monthsafter the report is laid

5) In reporting on progress made in an annual reporting period, the OEP mustconsider—(a) the section 8 report for that period,(b) the data published by the Secretary of State under section 15 that relatesto that period, and(c) any other reports, documents or information it considers appropriate.(6) A progress report for an annual reporting period may include—(a) consideration of how progress could be improved, and(b) consideration of the adequacy of the data published by the Secretary ofState under section 15

Monitoring and reporting on environmental improvement plans and targets

) a person exercising a parliamentary function,

(6) The strategy must contain an enforcement policy that sets out—(a) how the OEP intends to determine whether failures to comply withenvironmental law are serious for the purposes of sections 28(1)(b) and(2)(b), 30(1)(b), 31(1)(b) and 34(1),(b) how the OEP intends to determine whether damage to the naturalenvironment or to human health is serious for the purposes of section34(2),(c) how the OEP intends to exercise its enforcement functions in a way thatrespects the integrity of other statutory regimes (including statutoryprovision for appeals),(d) how the OEP intends to avoid any overlap between the exercise of itsfunctions under sections 27 to 29 (complaints) and the exercise by eachrelevant ombudsman of their functions, and(e) how the OEP intends to prioritise cases.(7) In considering its enforcement policy the OEP must have regard to theparticular importance of prioritising cases that it considers have or may havenational implications, and the importance of prioritising cases—(a) that relate to ongoing or recurrent conduct,(b) that relate to conduct that the OEP considers may cause (or has caused)serious damage to the natural environment or to human health, or(c) that the OEP considers may raise a point of environmental law ofgeneral public importance

19 The Office for Environmental Protection(1) A body corporate called the Office for Environmental Protection is established

18 Policy statement on environmental principles: effect(1) A Minister of the Crown must, when making policy, have due regard to thepolicy statement on environmental principles currently in effect.(2) Subsection (1) does not require a Minister to do (or refrain from doing)anything that—(a) would have no significant environmental benefit, or(b) would be in any other way disproportionate to the environmentalbenefit.

The Secretary of State may prepare a revised policy statement onenvironmental principles at any time (and this section applies in relation to anyrevised statement)

(4) The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the statement will, when it comesinto effect, contribute to—(a) the improvement of environmental protection, and(b) sustainable development.

Reviewing and revising plans: interim targets(1) On the first review of the first environmental improvement plan, the Secretaryof State must revise the plan so as to—(a) set at least one interim target in respect of each relevant matter, and(b) secure that there is at all times, until the end of the 5 year periodbeginning with the relevant date, an interim target set by the plan inrespect of each relevant matter

16 Policy statement on environmental principles(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a policy statement on environmentalprinciples in accordance with this section and section 17.(2) A “policy statement on environmental principles” is a statement explaininghow the environmental principles should be interpreted and proportionatelyapplied by Ministers of the Crown when making policy.(3) It may also explain how Ministers of the Crown, when interpreting andapplying the environmental principles, should take into account otherconsiderations relevant to their policy.

15 Environmental monitoring(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for obtaining such data aboutthe natural environment as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for thepurpose of monitoring—(a) whether the natural environment is, or particular aspects of it are,improving in accordance with the current environmental improvementplan,(b) the progress being made towards meeting any targets set undersections 1 and 2, and(c) the progress being made towards meeting any interim targets set undersection 10 and 13

Amendment of REACH legislationSchedule 20 confers powers to amend the REACH Regulation and the REACHEnforcement Regulations 2008

(2) In considering the matters in subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State mustconsider the progress that has been made towards meeting—(a) any targets set under sections 1 and 2, and(b) any interim targets set under sections 10 and 13.(3) In considering the matters in subsection (1)(c) the Secretary of State mustconsider whether Her Majesty’s Government should take further or differentsteps (compared to those set out in the old plan) towards meeting any targetsset under sections 1 and 2

3 Renewing plans: interim targets(1) A new plan prepared by the Secretary of State under section 12 must—(a) set at least one interim target in respect of each relevant matter, and(b) secure that there is at all times, until the end of the 5 year periodbeginning with the relevant date, an interim target set by the plan inrespect of each relevant matter.(2) A “relevant matter” means any matter in respect of which there is a targetunder section 1 or 2.

Before setting or revising an interim target in respect of a matter the Secretaryof State must be satisfied that meeting the target, or the revised target, wouldmake an appropriate contribution towards meeting the target under section 1or 2 in respect of that matter

If as a result of a review the Secretary of State revises the environmentalimprovement plan, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—(a) the revised environmental improvement plan, and(b) a statement explaining the revisions and the reasons for them.(7) If as a result of a review the Secretary of State does not revise the environmentalimprovement plan, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament astatement explaining that and the reasons for it

The first review of a subsequent environmental improvement plan must becompleted before the end of the 5 year period beginning with the day on whichit replaces the previous plan (see section 12(4)).

Environmental improvement plans(1) The Secretary of State must prepare an environmental improvement plan.

(3) The significant improvement test is met if meeting—(a) the targets set under sections 1 and 2, and(b) any other environmental targets which meet the conditions insubsection (8) and which the Secretary of State considers it appropriateto take into account,would significantly improve the natural environment in England.(4) Having carried out the review the Secretary of State must lay beforeParliament, and publish, a report stating—(a) whether the Secretary of State considers that the significantimprovement test is met, and(b) if the Secretary of State considers that the test is not met, the steps theSecretary of State intends to take in relation to the powers in section 1and 2 to ensure that it is met.(5) The first review must be completed by 31 January 2023.

Regulations under section 1 or 2 are subject to the affirmative procedure

(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations under section 1 or 2 which revokeor lower a target (the “existing target”) only if satisfied that

Environmental targets: particulate matter

must exercise the power in subsection (1) so as to set along-term target in respect of at least one matter within each priority area

“long-term” target if the specified date is no less than 15 years after

A target set under this section must specify—(a) a standard to be achieved, which must be capable of being objectivelymeasured, and(b) a date by which it is to be achieved

Environmental targets

Yet, notwithstanding that, the Department for International Development has more staff in Kenya than the Department for International Trade has in the whole of the continent from Egypt to South Africa. This is not to say that our international development efforts are too large, or that they are in competition with our international trade and investment promotion efforts. However, if we want to have greater influence, if we want to sell more goods and services abroad, if we want to encourage more British businesses to invest and operate overseas, and overseas firms to locate and invest in the UK, then we must invest in the capabilities required. And this means striking a new balance between our spending priorities – not just focusing on how we divide our national income, but how we grow that income too. Within whatever spending envelope comes out of the next Spending Review, we must ensure that we prioritise those areas that will generate economic growth and wealth creation for our country in the future.

The Government does notbelieve that any of the proposals set out above require legislation, and, as we embark on our first independent trade negotiations for more than 40 years, we also do not believe that the rigidity of a system set out in statute would be the best approach. In this context we would note that the scrutiny arrangements which exist between the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons and the EU Select Committee in the House of Lords are not set out in statute but in resolutions of each House. As negotiations progress, we would expect that arrangements will develop through dialogue with the relevant committee(s). It also appears highly likely that the committee(s) would report on the effectiveness of arrangements after the first FTA was complete

Open public consultationsin the pre-negotiation phase to inform our overall approach and the development of negotiating objectives;

Present the results of economic (CGE) modelling, giving an indication of the potential impacts on the UK and partner country’s macroeconomy, UK sectoral output and employment, impacts on UK consumers andbusinesses and impacts on countries not party to the agreement, including developing countries;•Provide preliminary assessments of the potential implications for UK nations and English regions, small and medium-sized enterprises, environmental protections, different groups of the labour marketandspecifically whether there are any disproportionate impacts on groups with protected characteristics.

Prior to negotiationscommencing we will publish and lay before Parliament our Outline Approach to each proposed negotiation. This will include the scope of the agreement and our negotiating objectives and be accompanied by a scoping assessment providing an economic analysis of the proposed trade agreement. •During negotiationswe will publish and lay before Parliament a Round Report following each substantive round of negotiations. This will provide an outline of talks by policy area. We will also publish an Annual TradeReport covering progress across the full programme of negotiations. •At the end of negotiationswe will lay the full treaty text before Parliament and publish an Explanatory Memorandum. We will also publish a full Impact Assessment.

Our clear intention is that the Forum willbe a flexible mechanism to enable Ministerial discussion at the key points during trade negotiations. There will also continue to be a programme of official-level technical engagement between the Department for International Trade and the devolved administrations to underpin the Ministerial Forum. Together, these processes willensure that the priorities and expertise ofthe devolved administrations can shape and inform the development of the UKGovernment’s international trade policy and negotiating positions

intention to form a new Ministerial Forum for international trade. This will ensure there is a regular and formal structure to support discussion and engagement between the UK Government and the devolved administrationson trade agreements.

8publish an annual report on trade negotiations in a similar model to that of the United States.

This long-standing constitutional framework was recently reviewed, including through a public consultation, and confirmed by Parliament when CRaG was passed in 2010

Free trade agreements cannot of themselves change domestic law. Until we know the content of a proposed FTA, we cannot say exactly which implementing measures will be required. However, in practice a comprehensive and deep new FTA mayrequire a combination of legislationas well as some non-statutory measures, for instance dialogue betweenregulators. It is the practice of the UK Government always to implement treaties before ratification. Changes to secondary legislation would be made in the usual way. If changes to primary legislation are necessary, we will bring forward a bespoke Bill for the FTA. For each new FTA there will therefore be an opportunity to scrutinise all the legislative changes necessary to implement it before the FTA is ratified.

Where the Committee(s) indicated that the agreement should be subject to a debate prior to the commencement of parliamentary scrutiny under CRaG, the Government would consider and seek to meet such requests

the committee(s) would have the power to produce a detailed report on the agreement that had been reached. This would ensure there was a report, independent of the Government, to assist parliamentarians and the public in understanding the agreement and its potential implications. The Government would commit to ensuring that there was sufficient time between finalising a new FTA and laying it before Parliament under the CRaG procedure so that the committee(s) could make such a report.

able to follow negotiations closely, provide views throughout the process and take a comprehensive and informed position on the final agreement.

to ensure effective scrutiny and two-way dialogue, we propose that the committee(s) could have access to sensitive information that is not suitable for wider publication and could receive private briefings from negotiating teams.

it should draw on the expertise of Parliament throughout negotiations via a close relationship with a specific parliamentary committee in each House. We propose to work with the House Authorities to establish which committee(s) –including the possibility of creating a new one(s) –would be the most appropriate to take responsibility for scrutiny of future FTAs. We are clear that the chosen structure must ensure that both Houses play a role in the scrutiny of FTAs. While the membership of committees is a question for the House itself we would hope that there would be scope to ensure that we could draw on specific expertise in relation to critical issue

At the start of negotiations the Government will publish its Outline Approach which, as described above, will include our negotiating objectives and be accompanied by a scoping assessment which will be informed by economic modelling, setting out the potential economic impacts of any agreement.

committed to providing updates to Parliament throughout negotiations and confirmed that at the end of the process Parliament would scrutinise the agreements under CRaG.

it has long been recognised that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise treaties that are subject to ratification and we remain committed to that principle in relation to FTAs

Each new transitioned Agreement currently going through the CRaG will be laid before Parliament with an Explanatory Memorandum as required by CRaG and an additional Parliamentary report which details any significant differences from the original EU agreement

These proposals do not apply to other international negotiations and treaties, including negotiations on the future relationship with the EU.

the Government is clear that we must have a transparent and inclusive future trade policy

Today’s debate honours the Government’s commitment that was made back in the summer to hold a debate on these future trade agreements, but it does not provide for the much-needed debate on the Government’s outline approach on an amendable, substantive motion, as proposed by the International Trade Committee in our report on trade policy transparency and scrutiny, which is disappointing.

he third principle is preparedness for our future, depending on what happens with Brexit. In the Select Committee’s evidence sessions on the Trade Remedies Authority, I have been concerned about the sense of unpreparedness. I felt that when questioned, the chief executive was not familiar with our current tariff levels with different countries. When questioned on her views about various trade matters, she seemed rather unprepared. ​That suggests that the Department desperately needs to do more work.

my Committee is currently working on an inquiry on trade with Australia and New Zealand

The Committee feels that the Government should publish a trade policy strategy that articulates a vision for the UK as an independent trading nation—if all those things come into being—and outlines the UK’s immediate and future trade priorities at bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral levels. We propose that such a strategy should outline the UK’s key objectives, interests and priorities in respect of its trade policy. Sadly, we have yet to see such a strategy, so I urge the Government to publish one, as it would allow potential new FTAs, such as the ones we are debating today, to be seen in a wider context.

My Committee also recommended that devolved Governments should be consulted on this, as Canada and other countries tend to do.

the Committee published a report in December titled, “UK trade policy transparency and scrutiny,” which made a host of recommendations on Parliament’s role in future free trade agreements. One recommendation is that Parliament should have an opportunity to debate the Government’s negotiating mandate, or “outline approach” to use the terminology that the Department for International Trade favours, on a substantive motion before negotiations begin on the free trade agreements. I think negotiators would find it useful to have such a steer on the will of Parliament as to what they should progress in any negotiation

What steps will the Minister take to address the serious public concerns raised in the consultation? Will there be a further consultation based on the negotiating objectives accompanied by impact assessments? Will this consultation be a model for future consultations on other trade deals?

Current procedures are such that this could be the only opportunity MPs have to debate four major trade deals. That would be woefully inadequate. General debates unaccompanied by objectives, strategies or impact assessments, and lacking a vote or the possibility of tabling amendments, do not provide adequate scrutiny ​and could lead to trade deals being signed that are bad for the UK, contain controversial provisions, or do not have public support. Is this, in effect, the debate on the mandate for these trade deals, or will other debates follow? If they will, how will they be conducted? Will there be a public set of negotiating objectives and comprehensive impact assessments?

we demand a formal, statutory input to trade deals, including the ones being discussed today, at every stage of every trade deal, from setting the mandate for negotiations right through to implementation.

having left the EU, we will be able to have a bonfire of the rules and regulations that the EU have applied to farming

does he recognise that our landscape—I am thinking particularly about the landscape of Northumberland and County Durham and the beautiful landscape of the north of England—is driven by the scale of farming that we have now. Its beauty would be much affected and, in my view, much diminished by the kind of efficiency that we see in New Zealand farms.   Share The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned: This content has already been edited and is awaiting review. Sir Paul Beresford  Share All I can suggest to the hon. Lady is that she gets disc two of “The Lord of the Rings”, and if she does not find that beautiful, she needs to go to Specsavers.

There is protectionist talk of product care and standards matching ours. That is the correct approach, but it is the correct approach for food safety reasons, but not for protection because Australia and New Zealand meet those standards already.

The size and the power of the industry in New Zealand could shatter our farming. If we are going for free trade, we have to wake up.

That is why my party has repeatedly called for a proper consultation structure that would require the formal engagement with affected stakeholders, civil society, trade unions and the devolved nations.Such a process must also ensure that Parliament has a role in the approval of mandates, impact assessments and reviews of trade agreements. The Government voted down every amendment to the Trade Bill to that effect. We have also been clear that consultation alone is not enough. A comprehensive, independent sustainability impact assessment needs to be conducted in advance of the launch of new trade and investment negotiations to establish the potential social, economic and environmental consequences for all sectors and regions of the UK.​

New Zealand has sought, through a series of side letters with other members of that agreement, to disapply the investor-state dispute settlement provisions of that agreement. I would be delighted if the Secretary of State said that he is going to do the same. Will the UK be seeking ISDS provisions in trade agreements with Australia, New Zealand and the United States, despite the fact that, as he said, the Secretary of State believes they should not be necessary“under systems such as the UK’s

The Secretary of State has established a number of trade working groups, including with Australia in 2016, New Zealand in 2017, and the US in July 2017. To date, we have precisely no information about what has been discussed in those working groups, what progress has been made towards a future trade agreement with those nations, what assurances have been sought and concessions agreed, or what representations have been made on those issues.

The farming sector in this country is extremely nervous about the impact on its ongoing viability should the UK open up market access for imported agri-food, particularly from the United States. Concerns over production standards, animal welfare, sanitary and phytosanitary standards have not been put to rest by the Environment Secretary’s repeated assurances that our domestic standards will not be lowered. At no point have the Government ruled out allowing access to our markets for goods produced to lower standards than our own. Indeed, the latest rumour is that the Government will seek to counter the impact of the importation of such goods with tariffs. The Secretary of State did not rule that out in his earlier remarks—again, I would give way to him if he sought to intervene, but he does not.

The Secretary of State has repeatedly welcomed the perceived benefit to UK consumers of cheaper New Zealand lamb, and today he again dismissed—I was glad to hear him be so robust—safety concerns over things such as GMO foods or chlorine-washed chicken from the United States. In response to one of his colleagues, he said that there will be no lowering of either sanitary or phytosanitary standards or of animal health and welfare regulations in this country. I welcome that, and we will hold him to it.

The Government are committed to the established principle that Parliament must be able to scrutinise trade agreements at the beginning, throughout and at the end of negotiations. We must have a mechanism that balances real and meaningful scrutiny with the need to maintain the greatest possible security for sensitive negotiating positions and potentially market-sensitive data. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for their encouragement and the private conversations that we have been able to have on this issue. The Government are considering how best to balance these elements and I will bring forward further proposals very shortly, not least because we need this for the Trade Bill to make progress on Report in the other place. We will of course take account of views expressed on the subject in this debate

An FTA with New Zealand would be an opportunity to set an ambitious precedent for future agreements and to build our relationship with a key ally in multilateral forums. It will give us the opportunity to pioneer modern and enduring trade rules, to update the global rulebook and to identify where we can collaborate to promote free, fair, rules-based trade in markets around the world.

CPTPP, is a key interest for the United Kingdom as we leave the European Union

we want to maintain our high standards of consumer products, our high environmental standards, our high standard of labour law protection and our high animal welfare standards as part of our approach to global trade. I am not sure that I could be clearer

I have already said that we give high priority to those standards, including animal welfare standards.

When we leave the European Union, an ambitious UK-US free trade agreement will be a key priority for the Department for International Trade, and we have ​already been laying the groundwork. The US-UK trade and investment working group has now met five times

One of the most important trade agreements we are considering is, of course, with the United States, which is our largest single-nation trading partner,

To further that agenda, we will also be exploring how those values should be reflected in the design and provisions of future trade and investment agreements. We are absolutely clear in our policy that any future deals must ensure high food safety, animal welfare standards and environmental protections and maintain our excellent labour standards. The Government are committed to ensuring that this House and people across the country will have the opportunity to scrutinise such commitments in any future free trade agreements—a subject on which I will elaborate later.

The United Kingdom has proud and long-standing domestic commitments to protect the environment, to fight against climate change and to uphold high labour standards. We have clear commitments to sustainable development and the protection and advancement of human rights, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is no longer in his place. We have a proud and long-standing tradition of promoting those values throughout the world, and the Government remain determined to meet our international commitments in that regard. That will not change as we leave the European Union.

The Government have been clear that more trade does not and cannot come at ​the expense of the deterioration of our world-class regulations and standards, whether they relate to the recognised quality and safety of our products, our labour laws or our environmental protections.

The UK as well as the EU have been at the forefront of improving the investor-state dispute settlement system and its transparency; in particular we supported the UNCITRAL—United Nations Commission on International Trade Law—rules on transparency that became effective in 2014. We have always seen this as being a necessary part of agreements, but we do absolutely agree that transparency is one of the ways that will give greater public confidence in the system itself.

I would like to see us use outward direct investment to help some of the poorest countries develop the ability to add value to their primary commodities; and I would like then for us to be able to use our freedoms in tariff policy to be able to reduce those tariffs on those value-added goods.

one of the issues that I want to see built into real-time parliamentary scrutiny of our trade agreements so that the House can determine whether the values represented by the United Kingdom are reflected in those agreements.

If a serious breach of air pollution limit values occurred in a Local Air QualityManagement Area, the OEP may wish to commence enforcement proceedings (vianotices) against both the Local Authority in question, which has obligations underPart IV of the Environment Act 1995 to put in place an action plan to deliverpollution reduction measures, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food andRural Affairs, who has a duty under the Air Quality (Standards) Regulations 2010 toensure compliance with limit values

T

bodies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales responsible for implementing environmental law will not be covered by the remit of the OEP in respect of devolved matters. If, however, they were responsible for implementing environmental law in respect of any reserved matters, they would fall under the definition of ‘public authority’ and therefore be within the remit of the OEP in respect of those reserved matters

in the event the UK leaves the jurisdiction of the EU institutions before the OEP is fully established (for instance in a ‘no deal’ scenario), it would still be able to take action against failings which occurred after the UK’s date of exit but before it was fully established.

Subsection (4) sets out certain types of case which the OEP should seek to prioritise when developing and reviewing its complaints and enforcement policy. In particular, the OEP must prioritise those cases that it considers have, or may have national implications. The definition of national implications will be for the OEP to determine, but this provision is intended to steer the OEP to act in cases with broader, or more widespread significance, rather than those of primarily local concern. For example, an individual local planning or environmental permitting decision would not normally have national implications, whereas a matter with impacts or consequences which go beyond specific local areas or regions could have.

Subsection (3) specifies that the first statement setting out how the data for monitoring will be obtained and how improvement in the environment will be assessed must be laid before Parliament within four months of this clause coming into force.

For example, there is no need for Ministers to consider the environmental principles policy statement in the development of pensions legislation, where there is not likely to be any significant environmental impact.