Enforcement of environmental law: what is not in the Brexit Bill

20 July 2017 by

I posted recently on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and its approach to rolling over EU-derived laws into our domestic law. But a law is only as good as its enforcement makes it, and so we all need to think how this is going to be done post-Brexit. 

NB: there is nothing in the Bill which touches on enforcement; that is for later, if at all.

The issue arises particularly starkly in the environmental field, where there are not so many players with direct legal and commercial interests around (as in, say, equal pay or competition law) to seek consistent enforcement.

A task force within the UK Environmental Law Association (chaired by Professor Richard Macrory and Andrew Bryce, left and right in the pic) has been applying its mind to this enforcement problem, and on 18 July 2017  published a short and powerful report on the issue – Brexit and Environment Law. Its main messages are these.

 

There are two processes which are likely to disappear, the first the requirement for implementation reports to the Commission, and the second the enforcement role of the European Commission.

As to the first, most EU environmental directives require member states to report on the success or otherwise of their implementation. So to give one example, member states must provide the European Commission with the results of the monitoring of bathing waters under the relevant Bathing Water Directive. The reporting frequency will vary, often every three years, but sometimes annually. The information required is standardised (thus – my comment – preventing “bad news” being spun away or lost in clouds of verbiage)

The UKELA team does not advocate a continuation of this reporting system involving the European Commission; similar reporting should be done to the relevant Parliaments or assemblies – environment being essentially a devolved matter. The data has been generated in the past, and there is no reason why it should not be produced so that anyone interested can assess progress in the state of the environment.

As to the second, the current system of enforcement enables the European Commission to take member states to court if they do not properly transpose directives and if they do not ensure that they are implemented in practice. There is a formal three stage process involving a formal notice, followed by a Reasoned Opinion, followed by the institution of proceedings before the European Court, with the prospect of daily penalties in the event of continuing breach. This system has undoubtedly concentrated the minds of Government in meeting the challenges posed by significant environmental problems. And members of the public may complain to the Commission about potential breaches, free of charge, who will then investigate the position by calling for member state’s responses, including the relevant implementation reports and by looking to the results of any studies the Commission may have obtained.  Importantly, many of these disputes are resolved well before the matter gets to the CJEU.

The Government has not made any proposals for filling this enforcement gap. The UKELA team calls for some form of supervision, without being particularly prescriptive as to what that might be. It considers various forms of Commissioners with environmental functions, including the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales already in place under the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The report also asks Government to reflect on improvements which could be made to the current system of deciding environmental cases, whether by a distinct  Environmental Court or by referring more matters to the First-Tier Tribunal which already hears a ragbag (my words) of environmental appeals – the FTT, generally speaking, has a “no order for costs” rule, in sharp contrast to cases coming before the High Court.

The Government envisages that sufficient residual enforcement will be provided by judicial review, which, in measured terms, the UKELA team rejects. The obvious questions are the prohibitive costs of conventional High Court proceedings, and the short time limits in place. Such cases often turn on complex assessments of environmental data for which technical resources may not be readily available. And anyway, not every environmental problem has an NGO diligently following Government’s response to it. Judicial review is also ill-suited to the sorts of processes which lead many complaints to the European Commission being resolved prior to court.

So the message from the UKELA team is for Government (in fact devolved governments) to think carefully about the mixture of reforms which might make our EU-derived law properly enforced in future. As they point out, the loss of the Commission’s supervisory function may affect the UK as a whole:

having in place equivalent and convincing mechanisms could be important in securing effective trade and other agreements between the UK and the EU where equivalence of enforcement and supervision may well be a relevant issue. (para.36)

My conclusion

 

No point in roll-over if you do not enforce what you have rolled over. All of the above are very important considerations as we think about how our EU-derived laws are to be enforced in a post-Brexit world.  As I pointed out in my post here, there are attempts in the Bill to get rid of claims by citizens directly relying on EU law, including Francovich claims, which themselves have amounted to  powerful ways of enforcing against Government. Reliance on judicial review, which itself has been under repeated assault from Governments over the last 5 years or so, does not begin to amount to an equivalent to the current system of Commission enforcement. We need to press for some element of independent scrutiny so that it is not just Government commenting on Government’s own environmental performance.

1 comment;


  1. […] Enforcement of environmental law: what is not in the Brexit Bill (UKHumanRightsBlog, 20 July 2017) […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: