Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Written evidence submitted by John Ratcliffe. BSc MSc C.Env MCIEEM (REULB3 7 )

to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) public bill committee   .

Credentials:

I am an Ecologist and Chartered Environmentalist. I have worked since 1974 in England, Scotland Wales and Indonesia (the latter as part of the UK overseas aid programme and as an independent consultant) in the fields of town and country planning, ecological survey, nature conservation, statutory regulation, advice and advocacy. I have been an expert witness in numerous Public Inquiries and regulatory hearings. Throughout most of this career I have operated within the framework of European law and have worked with European colleagues on technical matters, both in understanding scientific issues and interpreting these in the context of EU policy and legislation.

Position

The proposal in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (hereinafter referred to as The Bill) to end all EU retained law at the end of 2013 is both dangerous and undemocratic.

Background

When the UK joined the EEC in 1973 it was famously known as the Dirty Old Man of Europe due to its poor environmental performance. We have much to thank EEC and EU regulation for improving such matters. I have specifically worked with the so-called "Habitats Directive" since 1992. The Directive bears a close relationship to the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979) and to the Convention on Biological Diversity (the Rio Convention) of 1991 and helps the UK to meet its obligations under those treaties. It is notable that UK specialists and negotiators were closely involved in the drafting of both the Conventions and the Directive; in the latter case in the person of one Mr Stanley Johnson, The Directive is conveyed into UK law in the Conservation (Habitats and Species) regulations (as amended 2017). This legislation is the backbone of UK conservation. It defines "favourable conservation status" (FCS) of habitats and species and requires us to put in place the necessary measures corresponding to the ecological requirements of the valued features in order to work towards FCS. The ending of this legislative framework would be contrary to the UK's treaty obligations under the Bern and Rio Conventions.

Evidence

It is my professional experience, over the past 48 years as a conservation practitioner, that areas and species which are not specifically protected in law are vulnerable to damage and destruction without recourse to challenge. I know of too many cases where our failure to legally protect a feature has led to its loss or damage. I will refer to one which was particularly instructive, when I worked for the Countryside Council for Wales. An area of rare coastal heath on a military firing range came to my attention in the 1990s for its biological importance, including the rare red-billed chough and a colony of marsh fritillary butterflies; both species of international conservation importance. I informed managers at Defence Estates of these facts. Nevertheless the area was trashed by a neighbouring farmer with 200 cattle and winter silage feeders, turning it to fields of mud. Pleas to Defence Estates to secure and protect their land were ignored. Only when the land was legally notified as SSSI in December 1999 did I received a call, the next working day, from the MoD asking what they needed to do. The long slow road to recovery began. It taught me that no matter how well-meaning and powerful a land manager might be, unless it is a legal requirement, other priorities take precedence. That is why Parliament exists; to ensure that public priorities are enacted.

This Bill is a wrecking-ball; it proposes to scrap 40 years of legislation in a year's time. It is preposterous to suggest that the Civil Service can review and revise thousands of items of legislation in that timescale. I am not suggesting that EU retained legislation should not be subject to review and revision; the world changes and I can hardly point to the Common Agricultural Policy as a resounding success for the UK environment. But clause 15 of the Bill requires that any changes are either neutral or less stringent, a race to the bottom, because it talks explicitly about not increasing burdens on business. However, the CBI has emphasised on many occasions that it is the stability, consistency and clarity of regulation that is far more important. Business needs to know what the rules are. This Bill makes that regulatory environment more uncertain than ever and is therefore a disincentive to investment.

I recollect the long debates in the Commons and particularly in the Lords during the passage of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in which the quality of debate revealed a detailed knowledge and understanding of wildlife and rural affairs. It showed Parliament at its best. Those debates, though I might disagree with many of the points made, strengthened the resulting legislation.

This Bill asks us to place blind faith in the Government, to trust them with a huge range of rights, including our environmental protections and other legal rights. It gives UK Ministers unprecedented power to rewrite and replace almost 2,500 laws on matters including environment and nature, consumer protection, water rights, product safety and agriculture with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. That is the job what we elect and pay our MPs for; to pass this Bill would be an abdication of duty to represent the interests of your constituents. Conveying the power to end or amend legislation without reference to Parliamentary scrutiny is inherently undemocratic; it is the hallmark of dictatorship.

Conclusion

I request that you recommend amendment to this Bill to

1. remove the Sunset clause,

2. permit due time for review and revision to retained EU law and

3. ensure appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny to replacement legislation.

November 2022.

Thank you.