This morning, I was part of a panel giving oral evidence* to the Environmental Audit Committee on the subject of “the Future of the Natural Environment after the EU Referendum”. Since we submitted our written evidence, the Brexit process has become a little bit clearer and I was not surprised that we were asked about the implications of the Great Repeal Bill.
The Great Repeal Bill needs to set us on the right track to restore nature in 25 years (Andy Hay rspb-images.com)
Following the Prime Minister’s announcement just over a week ago, there has been a lot written and spoken about what it means. Our job on the panel was to understand ramifications for the environment. We seemed to agree four things:
First, the plan to transpose all current EU laws and regulation into domestic law through a Great Repeal Bill is sensible. Even though we do not yet know the nature of the Brexit deal, the proposed Bill means that existing levels of environmental protection remain in place as we negotiate our new relationships with the EU.
Second, the commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of the Great Repeal Bill is welcome, yet we clearly need reassurance that the same level of parliamentary scrutiny will be given to subsequent legislative reform. In short, if there is a proposal to change existing legislation – let’s say for example, the Habitat Regulations – this must be subject to similar levels of scrutiny. These regulations are deemed ‘secondary legislation’ and theoretically could be changed very easily for example if a general power was granted to the Defra Secretary of State through a single clause inserted into the Great Repeal Bill. We argue that the spirit of the Birds and Habitats Directives – to protect and restore threatened species and habitats - remains even when we leave the EU especially as there is a Conservative Party manifesto commitment to restore biodiversity in 25 years (and UN sustainable development goals and biodiversity targets to which the UK Government is committed). The Habitats Regulations should therefore be treated as primary legislation (with full debate in both Houses of Parliament) and reform should only take place with full parliamentary scrutiny. As I have written previously, losing the power of the Nature Directives, means that 80% of our finest wildlife sites would have reduced protection and we lose the legal drive to recover threatened species.
Third, we need clarity soon on how the UK will develop its own strong oversight to ensure Government is held to account on upholding its own laws and commitments on the environment, in light of the Prime Minister’s announcement that the UK will no longer be subject to the European Court of justice. Clearly, the ECJ has acted as an arbiter in cases pertaining to the application of European law, and the threat of infraction proceedings offered by the European Commission has driven action domestically. We will need to reinvigorate the legal and enforcement framework if we are to retain the full power of the EU laws saved through the Great Repeal Bill.
Fourth, the Westminster Government will have to have good open dialogue with the devolved administrations throughout this process. For example in Scotland, ‘saving’ all EU legislation through a Great Repeal Bill will need sequential changes to the Scotland Act and these need to respect the Sewel Convention established between the UK Government and the Scottish Government following the independence referendum. Under the terms of this Convention, when the UK Parliament legislates on a matter which is normally dealt with by the Scottish Parliament (for example environmental protection or agriculture policy), this will happen only if the Scottish Parliament has given its consent.
While the Environmental Audit Committee inquiry is quite wide-ranging, and today they had a good foray through the future of agriculture and land management policy, getting the Great Repeal Bill right is an essential next step to make sure Brexit works for nature.
I shall, inevitably, return to this subject soon.
*You can watch a recording of the session here.
So glad the RSPB is involved in this legislative work. It is so critically vital that current nature conservation legislation is fully protected. Though having said this what an enormous job all this leaving the EU would seem to involve. What a shame the RSPB will have to devote,it seems,quite a bit of its skilled resources to this "admin" work. As a nation, what a mess we seem to be heading for.
redkite