Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Second sitting)

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Some nodding from the panel, which is excellent news. I call Saqib Bhatti.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Sir Gary. We passed the Environment Act 2021, which was a great piece of legislation of which we are incredibly proud, though there may be opinions about how that legislation could go further. Dr Benwell gave evidence when I served on the Bill Committee. There is no indication that we will go back on a major piece of legislation that we passed in this Parliament. The talk of getting rid of environmental laws and regulations is just scaremongering, isn’t it?

Ruth Chambers: It is not, unfortunately. I think you have to see these things in their places. On the Environment Act 2021, you are absolutely right: it was groundbreaking legislation that the Government passed to do many things. It is an enormous Bill, as you know, because you were on the Bill Committee. It sets up the Office for Environmental Protection, and it passed law on resource efficiency and so forth, but in the main, it is new legislation. Part 1 ensured that some protections that we lost after we departed from the EU were put in place—for example, on environmental principles. Other parts are brand new, such as the requirement to set environmental targets.

That is, however, separate from this vast body of law that we are talking about today, which is inherited from the EU. It relates to some of the laws I have just been talking about, but also covers completely different areas—for example, pesticide regulation. The important thing is not to pit one against the other, but to make sure that we have a coherent and functioning statute book, in which primary legislation such as the Environment Act continues to work and to be given priority, and the body of retained EU law is treated with respect and improved in a manner that we can all get on board with. They are part of the same legislative picture, but they are not really in competition with each other.

[Saqib Bhatti]

Q There is a lot of talk about reassurance. At the end of the day, we have passed a major piece of legislation with great targets. It goes a really long way. Surely that is enough of a signal of our intent not to row back on our environmental protections and high standards, not least because our constituents want them.

Ruth Chambers: It is great to hear you say that, but of course every Act of Parliament is only as good as the pace and vigour with which it is implemented. We mentioned that the first statutory deadline on improvement targets has unfortunately been missed. We very much hope and want to work with the Government to address that legal breach at the earliest opportunity. The Act is full of powers. It gives the Government the option to do a great many things, but of course it is only the Government who can decide to do them. We will support you all the way in putting those powers in place in the most ambitious way, but it is not sufficient to say that the Act is testament to the ambition. It has to be implemented, delivered and resourced.

[Saqib Bhatti]

Q Dr Benwell, I wanted to pick up on your testimony. You spoke about how this legislation re-establishes parliamentary sovereignty and takes away the concept of EU supremacy of law. You said that was not a critical part of the legislation. I would argue that it is, because it is a framework piece of legislation that sets out the standards. Do you accept that, as a result of this and previous legislation, Parliament is now sovereign, and that is what the Bill enables? Do you accept that EU law is no longer supreme over our legislation?

Dr Benwell: That is what the legislation enables. I do not have a particular view on that from an environmental perspective.

[Saqib Bhatti]

Q I am asking you. What would you say?

Dr Benwell: I do not have an environmental view on that question. I completely understand the political point, and that is for Parliament to decide.

[Saqib Bhatti]

Q Let me build on that. If Parliament is now sovereign and we are able to make our own laws, free from the shackles of European Union law, surely there is a great opportunity, as the Minister said, to make stronger environmental law. It puts us in a stronger position to do that.

Dr Benwell: Definitely, and things like the Environment Act are a brilliant sign of progress. The promise in the manifesto to have the most ambitious environmental programme on Earth was excellent, and if we can deliver the species target that is in the Environment Act to halt the decline of species by 2030, that will be the first time in the world any country has set and met a target like that—but it does not operate by itself. Delivery of that Act rests on many of the environmental provisions that are put at stake by this Bill, such as provisions on planning rules, species protection and water protection. They do not live in the Environment Act; the Environment Act builds on them.

There is definitely the chance to do things better, and to bring forward lots of the positive things that the Government have already promised in their environmental programme, but they risk being set back as a result of the amount of time that the Bill will take and the potential for mistakes that this Bill introduces. That is why we are worried about it, not because of any of the principles around sovereignty. That is not a question we have a view on. It is more a matter of the practicality and enormousness of the task in front of us.

[Justin Madders]

Q I have a quick question for Ms Clay. Your report from September, which looked at the public’s attitude to protections, suggested that there was not a great appetite out there for deregulation. May I turn that on its head? In your research, were people saying, “Well, actually, we would really like to get rid of this law or that law”? Did you get any sense of a clamour for the removal of any particular rules?

Phoebe Clay: We have asked questions very generically, as you saw in the research that was published in October, and we have asked more specific questions. We find time and again that the majority of the British public opt for strengthening rules, including members of the public who voted to leave the European Union.

We find very little evidence of significant geographical differences. People in the south and north of England, for example, have similar views. Our research has been corroborated by research by others, including by Professor John Curtice after the EU referendum, the Legatum Institute and others, so we can state with a lot of confidence that the British public do not perceive these rules as burdensome. I think there is a real sense that they are protections, including the environmental rules, and there is a general sense that protections are something that we should aspire to, exactly as the Member of Parliament just mentioned. We should be aspiring for stronger standards than we had when we were part of the European Union, rather than weaker ones.