EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee meeting on post-Brexit enforcement of environmental law, Feb 6

The EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee today heard evidence on post-Brexit enforcement of environmental law.

Committee members: 

Witnesses: 

• Professor Richard Macrory, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Law, University College London 
• Ms Ruth Chambers, Senior Parliamentary Affairs Associate, Green Alliance Professor 
• Charlotte Burns, Researcher, Brexit and Environment Network 
• Ms Debbie Tripley, Director of Environmental Advocacy and Policy, WWF-UK 
• Mr Tom West, UK Environment Lead, ClientEarth 
• Ms Begonia Filgueira, Brexit Task Force Co-Chair, UK Environmental Law Association 
• Mr Martin Baxter, Member, Broadway Initiative

Lord Teverson opened the session by asking if the OEP would fill the vacuum after Brexit. Richard Macrory thought it would. Indeed it would be a useful body to have even if we remained in the EU. Ruth Chambers said the Green Alliance welcomed the bill but thought it was not fit for purpose at the moment. Tom West agreed there was a lack of independence and stressed the need for a bespoke enforcement procedure. Begonia Filgueira said there were several areas in which the bill could be improved. Ruth Chambers said there were flaws which were all fixable. Martin Baxter said it was difficult to comment on the bill because only one part was available. But he agreed one big problem was that the bill focussed only on England and not other parts of the UK. 

Lord Krebs focussed on the independence of the OEP. Charlotte Burns proposed that the body should be closer to parliament than to the government. 

Discussion focussed on the overarching objectives of the OEP, its role and enforcement powers. There was also talk about the role of the Climate Change Committee. There was agreement amongst the witnesses that climate change should fall within the scope of the OEP.  

Martin Baxter talked about enforcement. There was a duty on the government to come forward with a plan in a reasonable time and there was an argument that it hadn’t. The question was who would hold the government to account on such issues. Debbie Tripley agreed that the issue of enforcement was incoherent at the moment. The OEP should have more power over mediation and decision notices should have some bite. 

Concluding the session, Lord Teverson asked the witnesses for ways in which they thought the bill could be improved. Ruth Chambers and Tom West both said the commitment to non-regression should be delivered and enforced by law.

Martin Baxter said the Bill didn’t need to replicate existing bodies and methods but had to ensure environmental standards were met and didn’t regress. Richard Macrory said the Bill went backwards in terms of enforcement and the role of the courts and he advocated abandoning JR and the use of the OEP instead. Debbie Tripley called for more coherent and enforcement objectives. Tom West said both independence and enforcement were equally important for the OEP to be effective. Begonia Filgueira said the UK Environmental Law Association would like to the OEP to be independent with its scope and monitoring provisions extended. Ruth Chambers agreed that independence was vital and called for environmental solutions that worked across the UK. Charlotte Burns stressed the need to have an overall strategic objective that committed the body to a high level of environmental protection.