Formal Minutes
Wednesday 23 March 2015
Members present:
Mary Creagh, in the Chair
|
Peter Aldous |
Mr Peter Lilley |
|
Caroline Ansell |
Caroline Lucas |
|
Geraint Davies |
John Mc Nally |
|
Margaret Greenwood |
Rebecca Pow |
|
Peter Heaton-Jones |
Draft Report (EU and UK Environmental Policy), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Draft Report (EU and UK Environmental Policy), proposed by Mr Peter Lilley, brought up and read, as follows:
EU and UK Environmental Policy
I am submitting this dissenting Report because the draft submitted to the Committee reached conclusions which were mutually contradictory, which were not based on adequate research, and ignored some of the evidence we did receive.
MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY CONCLUSIONS
The official draft report essentially concludes:
a)that the EU has made Britain adopt higher environmental standards than we would have done voluntarily, and
b)that Britain has made the EU adopt higher environmental standards than it would have done without us.
It is possible to argue one or the other—but not both at the same time.
Moreover, both are asserted with little evidence.
The Report opens with the assertion that thanks to EU membership “the UK has transitioned from the ‘Dirty Man of Europe’ to a leader in EU environmental policy”.
This is based on an unsubstantiated quote from a single witness193. It may or may not be true. But no effort has been made to check it.
My own recollection is that Britain was a more environmentally conscious nation prior to joining the EU than many of our partners. Symptoms of that were the National Trust, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, the Clean Air Acts, and the establishment of the Green Belt—all of which antedated our entry. They had few counterparts on the continent. However, that impression may be incorrect and would also need checking.
HAS THE EU INCREASED BRITISH INFLUENCE ON GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY?
If the EU has been making Britain more environmentally friendly, it is hard to argue that Britain has been making the EU take the lead in environmentalism globally. We are either leader or follower, not both.
The Report says “the EU has also given the UK a platform to pursue environmental objectives internationally”. In fact, because we are a member of the EU we have lost our seat and/or vote on a number of international environmental bodies.
For example, because the EU claims exclusive competence over fisheries we no longer have a vote on ICCAT. We risk losing our vote on CITES and others. So, as the EU assumes the role of a single state, it is displacing member states votes and even voices on international bodies.
Indeed the EU already claims member states have a “duty of loyal co-operation”. So we can no longer pursue policies on international bodies which differ from those of the EU. In 2010, the commission went so far as to initiate infraction proceedings against the UK and Holland “for supporting stronger protection for endangered Bluefin tuna than the EU”194. This has had a chilling effect on member states’ willingness to pursue an independent line on environmental issues.
If the UK leaves the EU, we will be able to resume our leadership role on these bodies.
NONE OF THE WITNESSES TO THE INQUIRY MADE AN ENVIRONMENTAL CASE FOR LEAVING THE EU
To be fair, they were not asked to do so. To be frank, the Committee did not invite anyone likely to make such a case.
The majority of our witnesses had a vested interest, and many of their organisations depend on the EU for some of their income.
Christopher Snowden, author of “Euro-Puppets: the European Commission’s Remaking of Civil Society”, spelt out how the EU uses its financial muscle to manipulate opinion.
“Of the ‘Green 10’—the ten largest environmental non-profits—only Greenpeace does not receive EU funding and only because it has refused the offer. Originally, EU funding for these groups was limited to no more than 50 percent of their annual income, but when members of the Green 10 complained that they were unable to attract enough voluntary donations to match the EU’s grants, the limit was raised to 70 per cent.
The very fact that the EU is prepared to fund such groups implies that they are more open to their arguments, even though environmental groups are by no means guaranteed to offer expert impartial advice.
EU grants to the Green 10 are unrestricted and can be used for any purpose. It is the nature of campaign groups not only to persuade legislators but to persuade the public, and the Green 10 spends much of its time on grassroots lobbying. This creates the illusion of grassroots support that helps to justify legislation that, in fact, is of very little interest to the general public.”
Table 2: Full members of the Green 10
(proportion of income provided by the EU shown in parentheses)
|
Birdlife Europe |
€332,163 (35 per cent) |
|
CEE Bankwatch Network |
€836,238 (45 per cent) |
|
Climate Action Network Europe |
€295,022 (33 per cent) |
|
European Environmental Bureau |
€894,000 (41 per cent) |
|
European Federation for Transport and Environment |
€275,516 (16 per cent) |
|
Health and Environment Alliance |
€362,992 (59 per cent) |
|
Friends of the Earth Europe |
€1,195,259 (46 per cent) |
|
Naturefriends |
€365,735 (41 per cent) |
|
WWF European Policy Office |
€599,954 (13 per cent) |
These sums are only a small part of the Euro dependency culture. For example, ‘the RSPB netted over Euro 14 million from Commission controlled programmes between 2007–2012. Typical of these projects was the Euro 1,692,547 scheme … “to raise awareness of the Birds Directive and promote positive land management” with an EU contribution of Euro 846,273’.195
CONFLICTS BETWEEN EU AND UK ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
In its research on this and other matters the Committee has come across a number of issues where UK and EU policy and interests conflict on environmental issues. But these are not mentioned in the draft official report.
i)COP 21: All parties to the Paris COP 21 Conference submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions for emission reductions. EU member states were the only countries not to do so. Instead, the EU itself submitted an overall ‘Intended Contribution’.
EU member states now have to allocate that quantum of CO2 emissions amongst themselves. However, the UK has committed itself by law to a more ambitious path of emissions reduction than any other member state. In round figures, we are committed to reduce CO2 emissions at twice the rate of the EU as a whole.
Unfortunately because we are doing more this simply means the total effort to be distributed among other member states will be less. Our greater effort will not reduce the total global emissions by a single molecule! We are simply making our partners’ life easier and their industry more competitive with ours.
By contrast, were we to leave the EU, other member states would all have to make a bit more effort to meet their INDC and the UK’s extra efforts would contribute to global decarbonisation.
ii)Bio-Fuels: Our witness, George Monbiot, explained how the increasing acreage devoted to maize has contributed to flooding. He has also explained that the reason maize acreage has grown from 1400 hectares in 1970 to 160,000 hectares196 is primarily due to subsidies for biofuel. He has “criticised the maths underpinning the idea that growing biogas maize actually saves any carbon at all; and the ridiculous double subsidies that support its production”197. On a global scale this diversion of land from food production to crops for biofuels has raised food prices, contributed to food riots and increased hunger.
The UK government would probably abandon this policy if not committee to it by EU law.
SUBSIDIARITY/INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION/SUPRANATIONAL CONTROL
The key questions as far as environmental policy and EU membership is concerned are:
- Is there a cross-border aspect?
- Can that be handled by intergovernmental co-operation?
- Does it required supranational legislation?
- Subsidiarity—could it be handled adequately at a national level?
The Committee did not identify these questions, and then only partially, until late in its inquiry. So few witnesses were asked to address them.
Those who were, seemed puzzled by them. Apparently in environmental circles it is generally taken for granted that environmental issues cannot be handled at a national level and, if international, are always best handled supranationally by the EU rather than by inter-governmental cooperation. This may reflect the source of funding of many of the bodies from whom our witnesses were drawn. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
When asked why flooding and river management could not be left to the UK—given that the UK is an island nation with no major transnational rivers (even in Northern Ireland)—one witness extemporised that this was because flooding could increase silt discharge into the North Sea which might affect other countries. It is hard to believe that was more than an ad hoc excuse.
Although it is taken for granted that power over environmental matters cannot be devolved to member states, it is accepted without question that power on environmental issues can be devolved within member states. No-one suggested that devolution to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland caused any problems.
The apparent success of devolution within the UK on environmental issues suggests there must be substantial scope for devolution under the rarely-applied principle of subsidiarity within the EU.
CONCLUSION
Our inquiry failed to examine systematically the scope for devolving powers back to the UK if we remain within the EU or the merits of handling cross-border issues inter-governmentally if we leave. However, given the success of devolution within the UK, there is every reason to suppose that there is substantial scope for devolving power within the EU back to member states. Unfortunately, this is prevented by the doctrine of the ‘acquis communautaire’ which says that once a power has been acquired by the EU it cannot be returned to member states. Likewise, given that most environmental legislation originates through intergovernmental cooperation at a global level, there is every reason to suppose that if the UK leaves the EU environmental issues could be handled by intergovernmental cooperation between the UK and the EU. Moreover, the UK would be able to resume its seat and vote on these international bodies and exert greater influence than it does when its influence is only exerted indirectly, if at all, via the EU Commission.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chair’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.—(The Chair.)
Amendment proposed, to leave out “Chair’s draft Report” and insert “draft Report proposed by Mr Peter Lilley”. —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Chair’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 5 agreed to.
Paragraph 6 read.
Amendment proposed, after line 14, insert “There is no mechanism for devolving power if a particular Member State could handle some policies at a national level (for example, because of its unique geography, the UK—as an island nation—could form its own policy on rivers, beaches and water quality, because it has no land boundary except with Ireland).” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 agreed to.
Paragraph 8 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 2 after “as a whole.”, insert “This was no surprise in light of the IEA study “Euro Puppets: the European Commission’s remaking of Civil Society”, by Christopher Snowdon. This shows the scale of expenditure by the EU on environmentalist groups who are financed to create the illusion of public support by lobbying for environmental policies which the EU itself wants.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraph 8 agreed to.
Paragraph 9 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 5, after “environment” insert “This suggests that British environmental policy would not change significantly were the UK to leave the EU.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 9 to 11 agreed to.
Paragraph 12 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 13, after “the EU.” insert “We do not have such a low opinion of the British electorate, but note the preference many of our witnesses had for overriding democratic processes.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 agreed to.
Paragraph 14 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, after “member states” insert “but a country’s membership of the EU means renouncing its individual vote in some international bodies, thereby greatly reducing its influence.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed, in line 9, after “of its size” insert “though where the EU assumes the role of a single state it may end up with one vote instead of the 28 votes previously held by Member States.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 14 to 17 agreed to.
Paragraph 18 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, leave out from “, providing” to “platform” and insert “. However, UK membership of the EU may deprive the UK of a vote and a platform on many international bodies” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, after “influence” insert “But witnesses did not say what would have been the EU’s position if the UK had not been a member.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 18 and 19 agreed to.
Paragraph 20 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 12, after “of cases.”” insert “This suggests that if the UK were to leave the EU, we would continue to pursue similar environmental policies.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 20 and 21 agreed to.
Paragraph 22 read.
Amendment proposed, after line 9, insert “Even had we not been members, Britain would have been able to innovate in environmental policy in ways in which the EU might have emulated. But, as the EU centralises policy, the scope for innovation by individual members will decline.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 22 to 55 agreed to.
Paragraph 56 read.
Amendment proposed, after line 6, insert “He maintained that EU law has little impact on the UK policy either because of the flexibility it provides or because it accords with our own objectives.”—(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 56 to 58 agreed to.
Paragraph 58 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 5, after “negotiation.” insert “ In practice, this would not be the case as the UK would simply transpose existing EU legislation into UK law and only amend it as and when it felt necessary.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 58 and 59 agreed to.
Paragraph 60 read.
Amendment proposed, after line 9, insert “A lot of what the UK does is actually implementing legislation from international bodies over which we have very little say.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraph 60 agreed to.
Paragraph read, as follows:
“Since we finished taking evidence, the Government has published a document which suggests some alternative scenarios for the UK’s relationship outside the EU. Addressing membership of the European Economic Area as an alternative to EU membership, the Report stated:
Norway is also required to comply with EU legislation in areas not directly related to the Single Market, including […] environmental standards.
It went on to state that UK businesses would have to continue to comply with EU rules on the environment if it wanted to access the Single Market, even under scenarios where it decided not to join the European Economic Area.”
Paragraph disagreed to.
Paragraph 61 read.
Amendment proposed, after line 8, insert “However, all WTO member states have ‘access to the Single Market’ without implementing its environmental legislation.”—(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraphs 62 and 63 agreed to.
Paragraph 64 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 4, leave out “The UK Government’s view is that this would trigger a “long and tortuous” negotiation.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, after “the world” insert “just as there are unanswered questions as to how our relationship with the EU will develop as it becomes a more integrated state.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out “as it becomes a more integrated state” —(Peter Heaton-Jones.)
Question put, That the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be made.
Question agreed to.
Proposed amendment, as amended, made.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, after “EU law.” insert “ This is true and shows that we would have more influence if we regained a direct say in the formulation of these international standards.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, leave out from “Secondly,” to end of paragraph. —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Paragraph 64, as amended, agreed to.
Summary read.
Amendment proposed, in line 5, after “European Union.” insert “However, that reflects who we invited, and the fact that most worked for organisations with a vested interest in EU membership and often dependent on it for grants.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed, in line 30, after “negotiation,” insert “however, in practice, lengthy negotiation would be unnecessary as the UK would simply transpose existing EU legislation into UK law and only amend it as and when it felt necessary.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed, in line 32, after “diminished,” insert “but the committee did not check this assertion.” —(Mr Peter Lilley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Summary amended and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 12 April at 10.00 am
193 Q54 Angus Evers, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust
194 European Voice Jennifer Rankin 28th April 2010
195 A Very European Disaster Richard North 2014.
196 Monbiot. Guardian. 27th December 2015
197 Monbiot. Guardian. 22 January 2016
© Parliamentary copyright 2015
15 April 2016