Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Written evidence submitted by Oxford Univesity (REULB 40 )

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

Academic experts from the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery

Prof Nathalie Seddon, Director of the Nature-based Solutions Initiative, University of Oxford

Prof Michael Obersteiner, Director of the Environmental Change Institute (ECI), University of Oxford

Prof Yadvinder Malhi, CBE, FRS, Director of Ecosystems Group ECI, University of Oxford

Prof Pete Smith, FRS, Chair in Plant and Soil Science, University of Aberdeen

Prof EJ Milner-Gulland, Head of Department of Biology, University of Oxford

Dr Mark Hirons, Research Fellow in Environmental Social Science, ECI, University of Oxford

Alison Smith, Senior Research Associate, ECI and NbSI, University of Oxford

1. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is likely to have catastrophic impacts on the UK environment.

2. The ‘sunset clause’ in Clause 1 would automatically revoke all EU-derived laws unless they are reviewed and amended before the deadline of 31 December 2023. This includes at least 2400 laws in total (although there are reports that another 1200 have recently been found). At least 570 are from Defra, including legislation that protects habitats, wildlife, air quality, water quality, fisheries, plant health, animal health and welfare, and food safety (see below), and there are also key environmental regulations in other departments such as DLUHC (planning law). It is clearly impossible to carry out a detailed review of this volume of legislation before the deadline, especially given limited capacity in Defra and the environmental agencies. Reviewing complex legislation in such a short timescale could lead to inadvertent creation of loopholes or unintended consequences. Also, it will not allow time for consultation with affected stakeholders, such as those with interests in farming, fishing and nature conservation. The Bill therefore risks leading to the de facto loss or weakening of much of the UK’s essential environmental legislation.

3. This review would be extremely costly and time-consuming. It would divert government resources that are urgently needed to deliver nature recovery targets, meet net zero, improve water quality and put in place sustainable and climate-resilient food production systems.

4. The Bill contains obstacles to developing replacement laws, through the requirement in Clause 15 that they must not increase the regulatory burden, defined as "a financial cost, an administrative inconvenience or an obstacle to trade, innovation, efficiency, productivity or profitability". It is difficult to understand how the change in the regulatory burden (presumably meaning the difference between new laws and old laws, though this is not clear) will be assessed without an extremely expensive and time-consuming investigation for each law or combination of laws.

5. The Bill would allow Ministers to replace existing legislation without Parliamentary scrutiny, debate, amendments or consent. They could replace existing secondary legislation (including major frameworks such as the Habitats Regulations) "with such provisions as [they] consider appropriate and to achieve the same or similar objectives" or even "make such alternative provision as [they] consider appropriate". This is undemocratic and leaves vital legislation at the whim of Ministers.

6. Undermining the UK’s environmental protection and the integrity of UK ecosystems will be in direct conflict with multiple UK government targets and commitments including the Net Zero target and 25 Year Environment Plan. It would accelerate the destruction of native habitats and loss of species, and lead to further pollution of the UK’s air, rivers and seas, which are already highly degraded. This would make it impossible to deliver the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature and Convention on Biological Diversity targets to protect 30% of the UK for nature recovery and halt the decline in species by 2030.

7. Loss or degradation of the UK’s natural capital caused by this Bill will lead to significant adverse impacts on human health, the economy, food and water security. Expected impacts include:

a. Increased carbon emissions from habitat loss. Loss or weakening of habitats regulations and environmental assessment regulations will accelerate the loss of the UK’s remaining semi-natural habitats to development. This will lead to loss of significant amounts of carbon stored in soils and vegetation, [1] thus increasing emissions of greenhouse gases and undermining the Net Zero target.

b. Adverse impacts on human health and well-being. Removal or weakening of habitat and species regulations and environmental impact assessments is likely to lead to loss or degradation of green spaces and the species they support. It is now well established that access to green space and interaction with nature has benefits for human physical and mental health and well-being. [2] In addition, trees and woodland play a significant role in capturing air pollution. [3] Loss of green space for recreation and loss of woodland will therefore have adverse impacts on human health, leading to economic impacts through increased healthcare costs, [4] reduced workforce productivity, increased time off work or inability to work due to poor health. [5]

c. Reduced resilience to climate change. Nature-based solutions can play a key role in helping communities adapt to climate change cost-effectively. [6] For example, woodlands, parks and street trees help to cool urban areas and prevent flooding of property and infrastructure. However, these services can only be delivered effectively by intact, healthy, biodiverse ecosystems. Weakening of environmental regulation that leads to increased air and water pollution, loss of habitats and increased exposure to plant and animal pests and diseases will increase stress on ecosystems and reduce their resilience to climate change impacts such as droughts and rising temperatures. This means that ecosystems will no longer be able to deiver services to people.

d. Reduced food security. Deteriorating water quality and quantity, increased air pollution and loss of habitats that support pollinators and natural pest predators would be expected to reduce crop yields and undermine the resilience of UK food production systems to climate change.

e. Increased economic costs to water companies. Weakening of regulations on water quality will lead to higher costs to water companies for treating water to reach drinking water standards (assuming that those standards are retained). Ecosystems such as upland peat bogs, grassland and woodland can play a key role in reducing soil erosion and agricultural runoff, helping to improve water quality, [7] but the integrity of these habitats is also at risk from deregulation (see above).

8. We therefore strongly urge that the Bill should be withdrawn. Withdrawing the bill will not preclude careful review and reform of legislation using the conventional Parliamentary procedures, on a realistic timescale. If the bill is retained, then at a minimum:

a. The ‘sunset clause’ in Clause 1 should be removed, or the deadline extended to at least 2027, so that legislation can be reviewed over a realistic timescale that allows proper scrutiny, democratic consultation and sound design of any amendments.

b. Clause 15 and Clause 19, which give ministers the power to revoke or rewrite retained EU laws or make any other changes without consultation or democratic scrutiny, should be withdrawn. Any further review and amendment of retained EU legislation should pass back to the usual transparent and democratic Parliamentary procedures rather than being purely in the control of individual ministers.

c. The requirement in Clause 15 that replacement laws must not increase the regulatory burden should be reviewed to provide clarity on how the difference in burden between old laws and new laws would be assessed in a cost-effective and realistic manner, and amended if this is likely to be a barrier to replacing essential Retained EU Law.

Examples of Retained EU Environmental Laws at risk

9. Examples of Retained EU Laws at risk that are essential for environmental health include:

Water quality

a. Water Framework Directive – requires the UK to ensure that all rivers, lakes and groundwater bodies meet good chemical and ecological status by 2027, and that they are not over-abstracted.

b. Bathing Water Quality Directive - ensures that designated bathing sites on beaches, rivers and lakes are monitored for health hazards such as toxic algal blooms or e-Coli.

c. Urban Wastewater Directive – ensures that wastewater from industry and homes is properly collected and treated to protect human health. Also regulates dumping of sludge from ships.

d. Nitrates Directive – reduces water pollution from runoff of nitrogen fertilisers on farmland, which can lead to algal blooms.

e. Sewage sludge directive – sets limits on toxic metals in sewage sludge spread on farmland.

f. Groundwater Directiv e – sets thresholds for pollutant levels in groundwater.

g. Drinking Water Directive – ensures clean drinking water, free from harmful levels of contaminants such as parasites and bacteria .

h. Environmental Quality Standards Directive – sets standards for pollutants and contaminants that apply in the other directives.

Nature and wildlife protection

i. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations - protects certain high quality sites (Special Areas of Protection and Special Conservation Areas) and certain species of animal, birds and plants from direct harm by people.

j. Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017/402 – protects certain high quality sites (Special Areas of Protection and Special Conservation Areas) from development

k. Marine Strategy Regulations (not on dashboard)

l. Environmental Impact Assessment Directive – sets a requirement for environmental impact assessments to be carried out prior to development, to assess potential damage to landscapes, habitats, species, air and water quality etc.

m. Strategic environmental assessment directive – assesses the environmental impacts of major plans and programmes against viable alternatives.

n. Various regulations on protecting marine ecosystems (e.g. from bottom trawling) and managing fish stocks to prevent over-fishing

o. Various biosecurity regulations to prevent the spread of animal, bird, fish and plant diseases including avian flu.

Air pollution and waste management

p. Large Combustion Plant Directive – sets limits on emissions of pollutants from power stations.

q. Landfill Directive – charges fees or sets limits on the amount and type of waste that can be sent to landfill sites, to encourage re-use, recycling and composting instead.

r. WEEE Directive – regulates the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment so that it can be returned for recovery and recycling of valuable metals.

s. REACH Directive (regulation, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals) – regulates the use of harmful chemicals in manufacturing.

t. COSHH Directive - Control of substances hazardous to health – protects employees from exposure to toxic and harmful substances at work.

Food safety

u. Regulations to set maximum levels for contaminants in food (toxins, metals, pesticide residues, hormones, unlicensed livestock feed additives and other chemicals)

Submitted 11 November 2022.