‘Littered with problems’: New analysis warns retained EU Law Bill puts 1,800 environmental laws at risk
Environmental charities join forces to call for controversial Retained EU Law Bill to be axed, after legal analysis confirms huge risk to UK environmental laws
Environmental charities ClientEarth, WWF, and RSPB are calling for the Retained EU Law (REUL) Bill to be dropped, amidst fresh warnings the proposed legislation could put 1,800 environmental laws at risk of being axed at the end of this year.
The charities announced yesterday that they had received a new legal analysis on the impact of the Bill from leading legal experts, Sir Jeffrey Jowell KCMG KC of Blackstone Chambers and Jack Williams of Monckton Chambers, which confirms the scale of the threat to environmental legislation presented by the government’s plans to automatically repeal EU derived rules that have not been reviewed by the nd of the year.
The analysis outlines how the new Bill would impact 3,700 domestic laws retained from the UK’s time in the EU, of which 1,800 relate to the environment including rules covering everything from drinking water and air quality to habitat protection and chemicals safety.
Under the Bill, each piece of legislation would need to be preserved, replaced or amended by the end of 2023, or be wiped from the statute book automatically under a ‘sunset’ clause.
The lawyers argued the process of reviewing retained rules would be left entirely to government ministers, which would effectively hand over the centuries-old responsibility of law-making from Parliament to the executive branch of government.
“The threat the Retained EU Law Bill poses cannot be overstated,” said ClientEarth lawyer Angus Eames. “If passed, it could maim efforts to address the climate and biodiversity crises, put the health of millions at risk and subvert the function of the UK’s political system.”
As such, ClientEarth is calling for the REUL Bill to be dropped entirely, stating that if it were to be passed it “would fundamentally undermine how democracy functions in the UK”.
The analysis warns that scrutiny and debate around existing and future laws that impact “almost all aspects of our lives”, would be avoided if the bill were to pass, undermining the fundamental separation of power within the UK’s democracy.
It argued that elected members of parliament and devolved legislatures would have no say when it comes to the continuation, revocation or replacement of crucial environmental laws that have been in place for years.
The lawyers warned the bill would also lead to huge legal uncertainty for businesses and investors, highlighting how it would be “virtually impossible” to predict which laws would be retained, revoked, or amended, throwing “the UK into regulatory chaos amid the on-going cost of living crisis.”
“Decisions on the health of our environment, the safety of our food and our longstanding protections as consumers cannot be left in the hands of current and future ministers without the input and oversight of parliament – and this legal analysis makes that painfully clear,” Eames added.
His comments were echoed by Beccy Speight, chief executive of the RSPB, who said the new legal analysis “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”.
Speight argued one of the promises of Brexit was that the UK would be free to replace continent-spanning legislation with laws and regulations which would recognise the specific needs of the UK. She suggested that as such there could be a “real opportunity” to review and update existing legislation so as to tackle the climate and nature emergency and ensure the UK fulfils its international commitments to protect nature. But she warned the government’s current plan to impose an arbitrary deadline for reviewing EU laws meant hundreds of effective rules could be scrapped without any democratic oversight.
“With at least 1,800 pieces of legislation relating to the environment alone, the scale of this task becomes apparent,” she said. “We do not know what will replace the EU legislation, but if the government remains committed to their 2023 deadline, there are clearly important questions to be asked about a path that can only be described as unconstitutional.”
Jake White, head of legal at WWF, agreed that the bill is “littered with problems which could represent the single biggest challenge to our environmental law in recent history.” He called the plans “costly and bureaucratic”, adding that “the risk to nature and climate is huge.”
“Nature is in crisis and we live in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world,” he added. “The Government needs to urgently tackle the drivers of climate change and nature loss, starting with a much needed transformation of our food and farming systems which globally contribute to more biodiversity loss and emissions than any other industry combined.”
The government had not responded to a request for comment at the time of going to press.