This was the message from environmental lawyer Angus Evers, of London law firm King & Wood Mallesons, who was speaking at a session of the Committee’s inquiry into the impact of EU environmental legislation on UK law.
The inquiry, which was launched in October, aims to inform debate on environmental policy ahead of the referendum on the UK’s continuing membership of the EU – scheduled to take place before the end of 2017.
Chaired by Huw Irranca-Davies, Labour MP for Ogmore, the Committee also heard from panellists Diane Mitchell, chief environment adviser for the National Farmers Union, and Martin Harper, director of Conservation for the RSPB.
Speaking in his capacity as a co-convener and member of the UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA), Mr Evers told the Committee that there were many factors to consider when asked whether the UK’s membership of the EU acted as a constraint on its legislative ambitions.
Treaties
He said: “I think it would very much depend on what the nature of the UK’s relationship with the EU is post an exit. Would we be members of EFTA [European Free Trade Association]? We need to look at the UK’s participation in a number of other treaties. There’s a lot of international law out there which the UK has ratified and a lot of that has been adopted by the EU.
“There’s nothing to stop us going further were we not EU members and there maybe instances where we might want to do that. In some cases as EU members we have done that. There may be other areas where we think the EU has gone too far and we want to rein back on legislation.”
Mr Evers was also asked whether the EU’s ‘precautionary principle’ – which aims to ensure a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-making – was stifling UK waste policy.
He continued: “The balance is right in terms of the letter of the law. I think where some of the issues arise is in the enforcement where there are sometimes overcautious regulators who rather than allowing innovation find it easier to say no. Perhaps we do take a slightly more cautious approach to waste regulation than other member states. I think Germany takes a much more pragmatic approach.”
Conflict
Mr Evers went on to cite examples of how the UK’s relationship with Europe has sometimes conflicted with its own waste strategy, such as its “less than enthusiastic” response to the 1999 Landfill Directive.
He added that the EU legislative process is “much slower” than the domestic process and highlighted it was the UK’s responsibility to “carry” some of the other 27 member states with it.
But on the benefits of balancing UK and EU policy, he said: “With any environmental policy or landscape there will always be factors that have local impacts and some with cross boundary impact. One example is air quality. We need a framework across Europe to deal with air quality issues, such as incinerator pollution in the UK being blown across the North Sea and vice versa.”
He highlighted that the large amount of refuse-derived fuel exported to the continent – which reached 2.5 million tonnes a year in 2015 – was another ‘cross-boundary impact’ to consider.
Register for free to comment