OEP Chair Dame Glenys Stacey gave a brief address at the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)'s Spring Reception on 22 May:
Hello, and thank you for inviting me to this timely event, and indeed to say a few words. Much is being said about the new reset deal, and I know that you at the IEEP will be keeping a close eye on how things play out, and offering expert analysis and commentary.
You will know that our role is to hold the Governments in England and Northern Ireland to account against their environmental commitments and obligations. I want to focus here on the biggest issue in town, so to speak – the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
I know everyone here will be following that with interest.
With this Bill, Government is seeking to achieve two policy aims – a ‘win win’ scenario. Driving development of housing and infrastructure while doing better for nature.
We all know this is tricky stuff. A delicate balance.
We have given advice to the Government on the Bill. In doing so, we welcomed the Government’s intention for those ‘win win’ outcomes.
And much of what the Bill seeks to achieve would be beneficial, if well implemented.
And that is so important, as the stakes are high. Our latest assessment of the Government’s progress against its environmental commitments and obligations found it remains largely off-track. The deadlines for a number of important Environment Act legally binding targets fall within the next few years. The window of opportunity is closing fast.
Taking a more strategic approach to addressing environmental challenges such as nutrient overloading, has much to commend it. We wish to see that strategic approach succeed, to deliver co-ordinated action that improves nature at the appropriate geographical scale.
We are, however, concerned by several aspects of the bill which undermine its potential to deliver those win-win outcomes. There are fewer protections for nature written into the bill than under existing law. Creating new flexibility without sufficient legal safeguards could see environmental outcomes lessened over time.
And aiming to improve environmental outcomes overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species.
In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression.
But the situation is not unresolvable. In our advice we set out how the reductions in legal protections for the environment in the proposed approach can be ameliorated in large part. This would make a material difference to the prospects of government achieving more for nature whilst also streamlining and speeding up planning decisions.
Our advice includes strengthening the ‘overall improvement test’ element of the Bill and the inclusion of safeguards for the overall network of protected sites.
We have heard from Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook that Government is seriously considering our advice. We will see how things progress.
And I know that many here, with a focus on the UK EU relationship, are wondering if our analysis of the current position has any relevance to the Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the ‘level playing field’ provisions.
That is not one the OEP can really provide an answer to.
Others are far better placed to offer insight and advice on that point.
What we can say is that the Bill would mark a departure from the EU way of protecting habitats and species as set out in the Habitats Directive and the Wild Birds Directive - in some circumstances.
So the TCA provisions are potentially engaged. But the second part of the test – whether that has an impact on trade – is where others will need to weigh in. We have no view on that.
Like you, we will be watching the progress of the Bill very closely.
Before I close, I just want to acknowledge the IEEP’s interest in the Corry review. I know you have mentioned concerns about Recommendation 19, which relates to the OEP. I must thank you for recognising, in doing so, the importance of an independent voice of scrutiny.
Recommendation 19 is concerned with considering how our work can help to increase the focus on outcomes and support regulators to take more risk to achieve goals within the Government’s wider objectives. Our recently revised Strategy is heavily focused on outcomes, and many of our reports to date have noted that intended outcomes are not being achieved because of how current environmental law is being implemented.
We therefore welcome the prospect of further discussions with the review team and wider Defra group on the implementation of the recommendations and what they mean in practice, and are in active discussion with Natural England already.
Thank you.
