The new Environmental Bill: what does it have in store?

13 March 2020 by

Landscape Of The Beautiful Rolling Scottish Borders Countryside At Sunset


On 26th February, parliament held its second reading of the government’s revised Environment Bill 2020, setting out its agenda for environmental reform and governance post-Brexit. It would provide the secretary of state with powers to create new regulations on air quality, water usage, waste disposal and resource management, biodiversity, and environmental risk from chemical contamination, and would create a new non-departmental public body, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), as an environment watchdog. The government describes it as the most “radical” environmental legislation to date, and sees the bill as paramount to ensuring both its 25 Year Environment Plan and its Net Zero Carbon Emissions by 2050 goal. 

The bill faced criticism both from parliament and from environmental groups. Greener UK, a coalition of 13 major environmental organisation, has said that as it stands, the bill “[would] not achieve what is has promised”, criticising it for lacking ambition and including no legal requirements for the government to prevent backsliding on EU environmental regulation. MPs, both Conservative and Labour, specifically criticised the lack of ambition in air quality. Others criticised the proposed structure of the OEP as being insufficiently independent of the government to match the ambitions of the bill to create “a world-leading environmental watchdog that can robustly hold the Government to account”. 

The Bill in Brief

The bill, as it stands, is divided into eight sections, which can be grouped into three major areas: giving the secretary of state the power to amend regulations in areas of environmental concern, legally enshrining biodiversity targets, and creating an environmental watchdog called the Office of Environmental Protection. All three are intimately tied to Brexit, with the government intending to use the bill to “transform our environmental governance once we leave the EU”.

New Powers

The bill would give new powers to create legislation to the secretary of state on air pollution, waste and resource efficiency, water management, and chemical controls (updating EU REACH legislation). 

Addressing air pollution, specifically fine particulate matter (PM2.5s), is a central concern of the bill. Clause 2 would require the secretary of state to set legally binding air quality targets:

Secretary of State must by regulations set a target … in respect of the annual mean level of PM2.5 in ambient air. (Clause 2(1) of the Queen’s speech). 

It would amend the Environment Act 1995 with a duty to report on air quality and give local government powers to help enforce targets. The bill would also give the government powers to recall vehicles which do not meet legal emissions standards.

Waste management and resource efficiency regulation is addressed in part 3. It would give the secretary of state power to create deposit return schemes, ban single use plastics, and introduce new charges for plastic carrier bags. It would also amend the Environmental Protection Act with regards to providing recycling and food waste collection and puts provisions in place for electronic waste tracking. Finally, it would illegalise the exporting of recycling to non-OECD countries (although, as Greener UK notes, “it is already illegal for the UK to send “polluting” waste to non-OECD countries” [Greener UK Briefing for Second Reading of Environment Bill]). 

Part 5 would amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to update drought plans, and would make changes to the provision of water abstraction licences. It would allow, under certain conditions, for abstraction licences to be revoked without compensation. The bill would also give the secretary of state power to change what are considered pollutants in water supplies. Part 8 would give the secretary of state powers to update and amend EU REACH legislation on chemical regulation, allowing for a smooth transition to a post-Brexit legislative framework. 

Creation of the Office of Environmental Protections

One of the key ambitions of the bill is to create a “world leading environmental watchdog” to hold the government and public bodies to account (the OEP). Its functions would include monitoring and advising on environmental law and targets set by the secretary of state, as well as reporting on public bodies’ failure to comply with environmental law and fielding complaints. In the case of a violation, the OEP would be able to issue ‘information notices’, then ‘decision notices’, and finally appeal to the Upper Tribunal for an environmental review (Clauses 32 – 36). It specifies that “where the Upper Tribunal makes a statement of non-compliance it may grant any remedy that could be granted by the court on a judicial review other than damages”.

The OEP would be made up of 5 – 8 non-executive members, appointed by the secretary of state (Schedule 1, 1) who would select the chief executive. The secretary of state would also decide on the OEP’s budget. 


Part 6, as well as Schedule 14, deals with regulating biodiversity, and would introduce a general duty “enhance biodiversity in England and Wales, updating the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 ( Clause 93 (2)).  Schedule 14 would “[make] provision for grants of planning permission in England to be subject to a condition to secure that the biodiversity gain objective is met” (Schedule 14 2(1)): the ‘biodiversity net gain’ of any development would have to exceed the pre-development value by 10% (Schedule 14 2(2)). Part 6 would also require public consultations before certain tree felling. 

Part 7 deals with the creation of conservation covenants. Conservation covenants would be agreements between landowners and relevant responsible bodies which exist for conservation reasons. The responsible bodies could be public authorities such as local councils but also organisations such as charities (Clause 104).   Conservation covenants would bind both landowners and any succeeding landowners (Clause 107).

Criticisms of the Bill

As mentioned earlier, the Environment Bill is not without its critics. Greener UK wrote in their briefing for the second reading that:

considered as a whole, the bill does not achieve what has been promised: gold standard legislation, showing global leadership for responding to the environmental crisis, and a world-leading watchdog. (Greener UK Briefing for Second Reading of Environment Bill)

Their criticism, re-iterated by MPs during the second reading, largely fall under two broad headings: first, that the OEP as it is set out would lack the teeth to properly enforce its functions; secondly, that the powers to amend regulation provided throughout would give no legal guarantee against regulatory regression.

MPs expressed concerns about the independence of the OEP from the government in the bill’s second reading. As it stands, both the appointment of non-executive board members and allocation of budget would be the duty of the secretary of state. Evidence presented in pre-legislative scrutiny argued that non-departmental public bodies structured in this way are often subject to significant governmental oversight as a result of the appointment process and financial allocation. It doesn’t take too much of a cynic to see how this could hamper the goal of “robustly hold[ing] the Government to account”.

Furthermore, the proposed OEP has been criticised for its lack of teeth. Unable in its current form to fine public bodies, the strongest action the OEP could take following an investigation (after issuing a “information” and “decision” notice) would be to launch a judicial review. This would mark a change from the EU Commission’s enforcement role and the CJEU’s ability to fine countries for environmental non-compliance. Furthermore, the pre-legislative scrutiny of the bill’s previous iteration (Environment Bill 2019) advises that:

given the weaknesses of the traditional judicial review process for dealing with environmental cases, an enhanced enforcement procedure should be established for the OEP.

No such enhanced enforcement procedure has been included in the most recent draft of the bill. 

The bill has also been heavily criticised for leaving open the possibility of regression in environmental standards. The bill would give the secretary of state sweeping powers to change regulation following Brexit, but would make no legally binding commitments against loosening environmental standards in the four main regulatory areas (water, air, biodiversity, and waste). While the government has made oral commitments to non-regression, this would likely be tested in any free trade negotiations with the USA and other economic blocs. 


The bill, as it stands – and it may well significantly revised before it’s signed into law – is neither good nor bad. If the government is sincere in its attempts to implement its 25 year environmental plan, achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and become a world leader in environmental governance, the bill would give it the powers it needs to achieve this. However, given the external pressures of Brexit and the need to secure trade deals with countries like the US, it remains to be seen if this government really is climate-sincere.

Rafe is a journalist and aspiring barrister with an interest in environmental law and policy

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.




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 birds directive 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 circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics 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 european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: