(c) rspb-images.com
Todays blog is written by Beccy Speight, Chief Executive of the RSPB, on the Retained EU Law Bill and the deeply concerning implications it could have for UK wildlife protections.
In the UK, we have strong laws that protect us, our wildlife, and businesses. But now, the UK Government’s Retained EU Law Bill (nicknamed the 'Bulldozer Bill') threatens some of these precious and powerful laws, as well as the health of the waters, wildlife and places that rely on them. In leaving the EU we were promised that we would now be free to replace continent-spanning legislation with laws and regulations that would recognise the specific needs of the UK. If done well this could be a real opportunity to tackle the nature and climate emergency and fulfil our international commitments to protecting and restoring nature. However, with at least 1,800 pieces of legislation relating to the environment alone affected by this bill, the scale of this task becomes apparent.
The RSPB, WWF and ClientEarth instructed one of the UK’s most eminent lawyers Sir Jeffrey Jowell KC (Blackstone Chambers) and one of its rising stars, Jack Williams (Monckton Chambers), to give an opinion on the likely constitutional, legal and practical effects of the bill. Counsels’ findings are damning. They conclude that the bill threatens vast swathes of protections, including many of those associated with the environment, and risks undermining fundamental principles of the UK’s constitution, the rule of law and the supremacy of Parliament, with the overriding conclusion being that this bill would, if passed in current form, violate those significant principles. A summary of the opinion is available here.
Counsel were clear that this bill removes an extraordinary level of responsibility from Parliament. This is in part due to the scale of legislation that is covered by this bill (both the numbers of pieces of legislation and the vast areas of law affected by this bill) and the unreasonably short timeframe in which this bill insists it should happen. Counsel also point out that due to the mechanisms in the bill to review, repeal or revoke legislation, this bill shifts the balance of power away from Parliament and into the hands of ministers, at the expense of the vital constitutional balance both between parliament and government and between the devolved administrations and Westminster.
In a nutshell, this bill gives almost unfettered powers to ministers to amend, retain or repeal critically important pieces of legislation without a great deal of input or oversight from either Parliament or devolved administrations and legislatures. And when Parliament does have an opportunity to oversee changes to legislation made by this bill, the timescales and scale of potential amendments make the job virtually impossible to carry out in any truly meaningful way. Particularly alarming are clauses 15 and 16 in the bill. These clauses give a large level of discretion for ministers to make substantial policy and legislative changes with virtually no oversight from Parliament.
Of great concern is that the bill only allows such changes if they do not increase the overall regulatory burden. The bill therefore literally prevents a minister from improving or creating more ambitious legislation, for example to increase environmental protections.
It’s a regression clause in all but name and despite reassurances in Parliament that this bill will allow us to improve and create bespoke environmental legislation, this is almost impossible as the bill so strongly restricts any changes that would increase the regulatory burden for anyone.
The Bill also threatens non-compliance with the UK’s international obligations, with clauses 1 to 3, 15 and 16 putting those obligations at risk. Whilst various UK Government ministers have committed to ensure the operation of the Bill does not jeopardise the UK’s international and environmental commitments, as a matter of law, these statements of commitment provide no assurances or protections.
It is clear that this detailed analysis of the Retained EU Law Bill exposes a deeply concerning picture that the speed, scale and reach of the Bill will strip our decision-makers and representatives of the ability to fully scrutinise the thousands of pieces of legislation that affect each and every one of us in the UK, including important environmental law.
This bill risks a vast swathe of legislation that affects our everyday lives including improving the quality of our rivers and coasts, keeping dangerous chemical use at bay and protecting some of our rarest and important habitats and species. And it puts at risk important parliamentary processes. The role of parliament is invaluable in having the time and space to consider legislation and its impacts. Parliamentary debate and scrutiny should test and improve legislation, ensuring that unintended consequences are spotted and giving democratically elected members an opportunity to have their say and influence. This bill shuts down that process, giving an extraordinary level of power to ministers and rushing a process that needs time, debate and thoughtfulness.
As Baroness Chapman said in the previous Lords debate on this bill:
“It is no mean feat to unify the CBI and the TUC, industry and environmentalists, farmers and factory owners, twitchers and anglers, doctors and lawyers, national parks and the National Trust, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd, and many, many more”
We are deeply concerned about the bill and we believe the wide-ranging implications should be something to which everyone in the UK pays attention. With the fate of at least 1,800 pieces of vital legislation protecting our environment up in the air, we believe democratically elected members of parliament must have a say in what comes next.