Forgotten your password?
Now booking
September 23
London meeting: Natural Capital Herbert Smith Freehills, Exchange House, Primrose Street, London 6pm (5.30pm registration)
All events >
August, 22 2017

Amending environmental law: Henry VIII and scrutiny

Share this:
Share this blog post on Facebook Share this blog post on Twitter
Posted by Joe Newbigin at 17:30

Committee benchThe summer break has been uncharacteristically eventful for anyone interested in understanding the legal implications of Brexit. If you have spent the last few months under a rock (or on a beach) then this comprehensive collection of legal commentaries on the Withdrawal (European Union) Bill may be particularly useful for you1. The implications of the Bill for environmental law have attracted less attention, although we have seen some interesting comment by Green Alliance, NEF, ClientEarth and WWT (and on this panel discussion from the Guardian).

Here at UKELA the Withdrawal Bill has opened up new lines of enquiry in relation to Henry VIII powers and scrutiny. Henry VIII powers are provisions of a Bill which enable ministers to amend or repeal primary legislation by enacting subordinate legislation, with or without further Parliamentary scrutiny. Henry VIII powers are always controversial, because the constitutional norm is that enacting changes to Acts of Parliament is the role of Parliament, not ministers. The Withdrawal Bill needs to confer on ministers powers to amend ‘retained EU law’ so that it continues to operate effectively after Exit Day. However, the lack of restrictions on these powers and the expectation that they will be relied on to make thousands of amendments mean they have (along with issues of devolution) generated some of the Bill’s most strident critiques.

H8The parts of the Bill attracting attention for England are clauses 7-9 and 17 (for the devolved administrations this includes clauses 10 and schedule 2). Clause 7 illustrates the point. Sub clause (4) provides that a Minister’s power to make regulations “to prevent, remedy or mitigate… any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or… any other deficiency in retained EU law… arising from [Brexit]” can be used to enact regulations that make “any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”. ‘Retained EU law’ encompasses any legislation which continues to be part of domestic law after Exit Day by virtue of clauses 2, 3 or 4, therefore this includes primary legislation. This clause would allow Ministers to amend or repeal Acts of Parliament through secondary legislation, rather than through Acts of Parliament. Sub clause (2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of examples of ‘deficiencies’ which the powers may be used to remedy. These are broad and formidable regulation making powers, which may be used for up to two years after Brexit day.

To help inform the debate on the Bill we are providing some perspective on how much the Henry VIII clauses will likely need to be used to amend primary legislation in the environmental field. We have started to analyse the main Acts of Parliament for ‘failures’ and ‘deficiencies’ which may require amendment. We suspect the number of times this power will be used to change primary legislation may in fact be quite small. For instance, section 8 of the Climate Change Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to set carbon budgets with a view, inter alia, to complying with the UK’s "European and international obligations". References such as these to UK’s ‘European obligations’ will make little sense after Exit Day and may require amendment. We are currently working through other Acts of Parliament with environmental implications looking for similar references.

The second strand of our interest focuses on the scrutiny procedure for statutory instruments made under the Bill in order to correct deficiencies in retained EU law. In the memorandum on delegated powers accompanying the Bill, the Government suggests that the powers under clause 7 alone will be used to enact hundreds of sets of regulations and that most of these will only be scrutinised using the negative resolution procedure. We expect a significant proportion of these regulations will be amending environmental legislation, albeit mostly secondary legislation (as EU environmental legislation has generally been implemented by Regulation) rather than Acts of Parliament. The procedure for scrutinising secondary legislation made under clause 7 is contained in schedule 7, which is elaborated on at paragraph 224 of the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill. This procedure does not usually allow the House of Commons committee which scrutinises a statutory instrument to amend it; instead, it can either approve the SI or reject it. As the Hansard Society have noted, since 1950 the House of Commons has only rejected 11 statutory instruments under the negative resolution procedure and the House of Lords rejected 7, which equates to 0.01% of all negative resolution procedure instruments.

We are looking at the implications of the proposed scrutiny mechanisms for environmental law. Given the potential for these powers to be used to make significant policy changes (for example new arrangements for domestic authorities to carry out functions currently exercised by European institutions) we consider it vital that there is proper parliamentary oversight of the use of these powers, whilst also not restricting the vast amount of legislation which will need to be approved. We were interested by the suggestion of an enhanced ‘sift and scrutiny’ system by the Hansard Society, and we are looking forward to seeing a more detailed proposal from the Society in early September. We are also keeping an eye on the development of the loose alliance of groups working on scrutiny procedures of the Bill under the banner of the Repeal Bill Alliance. If that sounds like something you might be interested in reading about then watch this space.

1: while we are rounding up available resources, the House of Commons library recently published a very helpful (and thorough) reading list of Brexit-related publications from researchers and committees in Westminster and the devolved assemblies.


September, 05 2017

Report on Henry VIII powers and environmental law

Share this:
Share this blog post on Facebook Share this blog post on Twitter
Posted by Joe Newbigin at 12:47

Following on from our previous post on Henry VIII powers, UKELA are pleased to announce the publication of its third report in the Brexit and Environmental Law series: Brexit, Henry VIII Clauses and Environmental Law.

Clause 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill proposes to give ministers far-reaching powers to amend ‘deficiencies’ in the law after Brexit – essentially provisions that would make no technical or practical sense when the UK is no longer a member of the EU. This power would allow Ministers to use regulations to amend existing Acts of Parliament – so-called ‘Henry VIII’ powers.

As a matter of general principle the use of Henry VIII powers should be kept to the minimum necessary for the effective continuance of domestic legislation after Brexit. However, we also believe that any debate on these powers must be informed by an accurate view as to the extent to which they will actually be used.

The purpose of this report is to set out where UKELA foresee these powers being used to amend the UK’s environmental laws after Brexit. UKELA applied its technical expertise to analyse all the Acts of Parliament relevant to the environment in England, identifying any provisions which a Minister might consider ‘deficient’ after Brexit and therefore require amendment.

As the analysis in this report shows the clause 7 power should be used far less than many would expect – at least in the environmental field. Across twenty-nine Acts of Parliament we found six provisions which require amendment, and a further thirty where we have said amendments are advisable, but not necessary. Seventeen Acts of Parliament – the majority – would not require a single amendment.

The report can be downloaded here.

Following up on the other strand of our previous post (relating to scrutiny) we welcome the publication today of the Hansard Society’s paper outlining the sift and scrutiny proposals, which we will be reading in detail. Read the full report here and a summary of the Society’s proposals at the Dispatch Box blog. Also out today is ClientEarth's thorough report on problems with the Withdrawal Bill, and the Land Use Policy Group/Institute for European Environmental Policy report on the potential implications of Brexit for UK agriculture and the rural environment.


About this blog

Welcome to the UKELA Brexit Task Force blog where we consider the impact of Brexit on environmental law, practice and enforcement in the UK
Contact us
This page was printed from the website of the UK Environmental Law Association at www.ukela.org.
Web site powered by Smart Media Intelligent WebCentre™.