Brexit Repeal Bill may lead to trashing of marine wildlife, campaigners warn
Some of the most important marine habitats in UK waters could end up being trashed by oil wells and pipelines under the Government’s plans for Brexit, a legal expert and campaigners have warned.
Current EU regulations designed to protect endangered species and pristine ecosystems are enforced vigorously by the European Commission, with countries facing large fines for any breaches. However,
under the terms of the Government’s “Repeal Bill”, which will transfer many EU laws onto the British statute books, this system could effectively be replaced by the judgement of a single cabinet minister. Environmentalists condemned the “woefully inadequate” proposals and warned that “hard-fought environmental standards” could be at risk.
In an example of changes that would be required after Brexit, the Government’s white paper on the Repeal Bill said that post-Brexit Britain would have set up a different system for considering plans by the offshore industry that might affect important habitats and species. It suggested that the Government could “either replace … the Commission with a UK body or remove this requirement completely”. While this example considered a specific EU regulation, the change could also apply to others transferred into UK law.
Dr Sam Fowles of Queen Mary, University of London’s school of law, said it was “unlikely” that the Government would give this power to another body because there was “not necessarily an appropriate agency in the UK” and also because of the costs involved. Abolishing the requirement would mean a cabinet minister would make the decision instead – at a time when the Government’s priority is likely to be trying to safeguard the economy from the shock of leaving the EU.
“The effect of this [likely legal change] will be that the secretary of state can unilaterally approve oil and gas development in endangered habitats and impacting on endangered species in the same way that the secretary of state has approved fracking in areas where the community oppose it,” Dr Fowles told The Independent in an email. “The secretary of state will not be bound by the same pro-environment decisionmaking policies that the [European] Commission has been bound by and, in any case, can also use the [Repeal Bill] to free himself of any such policies without a vote in Parliament.”
He added that the effect of the Repeal Bill on marine habitats was only one example of the kind of changes it will introduce after Brexit. Concern has been expressed generally about so-called “Henry VIII” clauses in the Repeal Bill which give considerable powers to Ministers that are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They were named after a statute issued in 1539 which gave the then-king the power to legislate by proclamation.
Dr Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK, said the Government’s current plans could undermine the level of protection given to important marine areas. “The European Commission plays an important role in the checks and balances that prevent offshore drilling projects causing harm to protected habitats and wildlife,” he said. “As Britain leaves the EU, this role cannot remain vacant but must be replaced with an impartial body or set of rules of equal strength. Michael Gove [the Environment Secretary] promised that our environmental standards will not be weakened as a result of Brexit, and the public will rightly expect him to keep his word.”
Dr Parr added that the Repeal Bill was “woefully inadequate in providing assurance that hard-fought environmental standards will be maintained when we leave the EU”. And, like Dr Fowles, he cited the decision by Communities and Local Government Secretary Sajid Javid to allow fracking for shale gas in Lancashire, over-ruling the county council despite more than 18,000 objections to the planning application from the public.
“The Government has already ignored democracy and approved fracking where communities oppose it, so it’s concerning that they could soon remove scrutiny and accountability from decisions to allow offshore oil and gas development in precious marine environments,” Dr Parr said.
Ben Stafford, head of campaigns at WWF, said the changes would give ministers “law-making powers with no Parliamentary vote and almost no scrutiny”. He added: “That is particularly troubling given that we will lose the functions of the EU bodies that have held the UK Government to account over the environment. On leaving the EU we could be faced with a ‘governance gap’ where ministers would have broad powers they could exercise without a vote in Parliament, and with no governance infrastructure in place to hold
them to account and protect the environment. It’s vital the UK Government ensures an independent domestic body is given the same powers previously exercised by EU bodies to ensure that environmental protections are not a casualty of Brexit.”
A Government spokesperson said: “No changes are proposed to the principles of the existing regulatory regime and the protection measures it offers.”