Dear constituent,
Thank you for contacting me about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
In January 2022, the Government announced plans to bring forward a Bill to create a more innovative regulatory regime that would not have been possible were the UK still a member of the European Union. The Bill will abolish this special status given to EU law and will enable the Government, via Parliament, to amend more easily, repeal and replace retained EU Law. You can read my more detailed position on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and the protections it provides here: Brexit/Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill - June 2023 | Richard Fuller
I note your comments about the protection of animals. However, I understand that the Government has stated that there has been no change to any of the legislation related to regulatory testing using animals in the UK as a result of this Bill. This includes and is not limited to, the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Act (2013), UK REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Registration of Chemicals), and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Animal testing may be legally performed, as a last resort, where no alternatives exist, where information is required under UK REACH to protect human or animal health and/ or the environment.
I would like to assure you further that the Government is committed to upholding our world-leading animal welfare standards and to delivering a series of ambitious reforms, as outlined in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare. More information about the Government’s commitment to upholding only the highest standards can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/action-plan-for-animal-welfare/action-plan-for-animal-welfare and in relation to more specific measures most often raised with me about animal welfare and/or the environment, my views are set out here: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | Richard Fuller
The Government remains fully committed to maintaining the UK’s environmental standards and Ministers have made clear assurances not to reduce environmental standards and protections.
The Bill will not weaken environmental protections. Indeed, the Government has acted to significantly increase environmental protection. In 2021, the Government passed a new Environment Act which sets in law a series of environmental targets, enforced by a new Office for Environmental Protection. This landmark Act will clean up the country’s air, restore natural habitats, increase biodiversity, reduce waste and make better use of our resources. The Government has since published the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) which provides full details of the progress to date and the steps being taken to implement the targets set out in the Act - Ambitious roadmap for a cleaner, greener country - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) and outside of the EU, the Government has been able to introduce the Environmental Land Management Scheme which rewards landowners and farmers for the improvements they make to the countryside rather than the old EU approach - Environmental Land Management schemes: overview - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The EIP includes measures such as the Species Survival Fund to create, enhance and restore habitats, as well as plans to support a transformation in the management of 70 per cent of our countryside through incentivising farmers to adopt nature friendly farming practices. The Government is investing more than £750 million in tree planting and peatland restoration through the Nature for Climate Fund.
Further, the Government has driven action to improve nature globally. At the UN Nature Summit, COP15, a new Global Biodiversity Framework was agreed, with 23 targets, including to protect 30 per cent of the world’s land and ocean by 2030.
Stringent targets have also been put in place to reduce storm overflows - Water quality and sewage discharges: May 2023 | Richard Fuller
The above measures are just some of those which have been put in place to build on and enhance environment protections.
I have been contacted about a number of specific amendments relating to the Bill and my views on each of them are as follows:
Lords Amendment 15
The Government did not support Lords Amendment 15, as this amendment would have created significant additional bureaucracy and could have caused legal uncertainty. The amendment would have required the Government to consult on even the smallest technical policy change, adding months to the Government’s efforts to deliver on its environmental goals and applying across the whole of Government.
I understand from my ministerial colleagues that this amendment had a broad range of stipulations and accepting these would have been highly resource intensive and would have had a severe impact on the ability of a Government Department to use a Bill to legislate and deliver on its environmental goals.
Clause 16
I understand that the requirement in Clause 16(1)(b) could have enabled potential claimants to include non-compliance with international treaties in a domestic judicial review claim. The consequences of this were unclear but opening the door to judicial reviews for so many international treaties would have set an unhelpful precedent which, ultimately, could have impacted the UK’s flexibility in international negotiations.
Further, I know that my ministerial colleagues were concerned about the legal uncertainty of these amendments. Clause 16(2) was unclear, as it did not specify that it applied only to retained EU law relating to the environment. It could have been held to apply more broadly, meaning that Departments may have needed to go through this process for any regulation to be reformed under the Bill.
Amendment 48
This amendment would have required that before making changes to environmental or food legislation under the Bill, the Government would have had to consult those independent of it with expertise when making changes that related to the environment or certain aspects of food regulations; seek advice from the Office of Environmental Protection and Food Standards Agency; and also publish a report summarising how this advice has been considered.
This amendment was not needed to maintain our environmental protections and it would have created significant additional bureaucracy and delay to the Government being able to deliver on its environmental goals. Therefore, the Government did not support this amendment.
Thank you again for getting in contact.
Sincerely,
