Clause 35 - Environmental review

Part of Environment Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:15 pm on 5th November 2020.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Alan Whitehead Alan Whitehead Shadow Minister (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) (Energy and Climate Change), Shadow Minister (Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) 3:15 pm, 5th November 2020

This is a substantial group of amendments that all have the same effect—to transfer proceedings in a variety of different areas from the upper tribunal to the High Court.

I am—mercifully, it might be said—not a member of the legal profession, and one of the few Members of Parliament who is not, but I am somewhat puzzled about how this provision happened as an amendment in earlier proceedings of the Bill. When the Bill went off for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that Committee gave some recommendations and thoughts on the question of the upper tribunal and, indeed, of the High Court, judicial review and environmental review.

At that point, the Government’s response to the EFRA Committee and its pre-legislative scrutiny report was as follows. Noting the Committee’s recommendation, the Government stated that

“we have made provision for a new environmental review mechanism in the Upper Tribunal for the OEP to bring legal challenges”— that is, the Government made such provision. I emphasise this next sentence:

“The approach will have a number of benefits compared to that of a traditional judicial review in the High Court. In particular, taking cases to the Upper Tribunal is expected to facilitate greater use of specialist environmental expertise.”

At the point of pre-legislative scrutiny—this is how the Bill stood, before we all disappeared for a while—the Government appeared to be not only in favour of taking cases to the upper tribunal, but advocating that because they expected it would

“facilitate greater use of specialist environmental expertise.”

Although the Bill was not in front of us for a time, nothing has happened in the legal world, as far as I know, to cause that judgment to be reversed. No new legislation or proceedings are in place; all is as it was.

The Government had judged that the upper tribunal approach was perfectly okay, so it is unclear why fairly strong support for continuation of the clearer upper tribunal route with an environmental review has been so comprehensively replaced with reference, under the judicial review mechanism, to the High Court. Perhaps during lockdown some people had too much time on their hands—they were not getting out enough or whatever—and thought they would tinker around with the provision.

People who understand these matters better than I do have suggested that that could undermine the holistic approach we might expect the OEP to take, which could have been supported in the upper tribunal. That is due, among other things, to how a tribunal has a less adversarial approach than the High Court, and the lowering of procedural requirements between the similar but different-in-name processes of environment review and judicial review could create confusion for court users and practitioners. There are a number of cons to the change—that may be what the Government thought when they responded to the EFRA Committee with a robust view that the upper tribunal would give

“greater use of specialist environmental expertise” in determining, in a non-adversarial way, how such matters should progress.