Debates between James Heappey and Matthew Pennycook during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Tue 12th Dec 2017
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Commons Chamber

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between James Heappey and Matthew Pennycook
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes a series of good points. I do not take the Government’s commitment in this policy area lightly and I do not take issue with it. What is at issue is the scope and powers of the watchdog and the timing. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about whether the new watchdog will be up and running in time and whether it will have the powers necessary to carry out the same functions as the institutions and agencies that currently exist.

New clause 63 would ensure that robust new domestic governance arrangements for environmental standards and protections were in place before exit day. It would also ensure that the body tasked with filling the governance gap was established by primary legislation before that date and that its scope, powers, functions and institutional design were shaped by public consultation.

James Heappey Portrait James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I am interested to understand whether the purpose of new clause 63 is a UK-wide set of policies that would apply in Scotland and Wales, which would therefore remove a competency on the application of environmental law from the Scottish Government to Westminster.

Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The scope of new clause 63 is for the environmental watchdog in England, as we have already said. There would have to be agreement between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government about whether they choose to take the same approach.