Commons environmental committee warns on Brexit risk

A report from the Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee warns that leaving the EU would put the UK's environment at risk, including air and water quality, biodiversity, and the countryside because the UK has benefited from an EU-wide environmental clean-up in the past four decades. In February we featured a similar report when the Environment Agency, National Trust and RSPB, warned that Brexit could lead to a much worse situation in terms of environmental protection in the UK, stating that the membership has a positive effect on the quality of Britain's beaches, water, air, birds and the like, making it easier to coordinate action and agree policies.

Leaving the EU would threaten the UK’s air and water quality, biodiversity and the countryside, a committee of MPs has warned.



The UK has benefited from an EU-wide environmental cleanup in the past four decades, and giving up membership would lead to a damaging policy vacuum and an end to influence over green regulations, the commons environmental audit select committee has said in a report.

Britain was once “the dirty man of Europe”, pouring out toxic pollutants that caused acid rain, industrial pollution, poor air quality, contaminated land and sewage-filled beaches. After taking on EU membership, successive governments had to mend their ways in line with rules on the environment developed over decades.

Mary Creagh, chair of the committee, said: “The UK has cleaned up its act: EU laws mean we bathe on cleaner beaches, drive more fuel-efficient cars and can hold the government to account on air pollution. The overwhelming evidence is that EU membership has improved the UK’s approach to the environment and ensured that the UK’s environment has been better protected.”

George Eustice, the farming minister, who is part of the Vote Leave campaign, said in response to the report: “Our natural environment is rich in diversity, but is also complex. Imposing centralised policies through clunky EU directives has failed because these act as a straitjacket that stifles innovation in environmental management.

“The UK has also lost its voice and voting rights on many international wildlife conventions. If we vote [to] leave and take control, we will regain our seat at the table at these conventions. We would be able to innovate, to pilot ideas and to really deliver for our natural environment.”

Separately, a group of former high-ranking environmental officials have warned that the UK’s influential position in international climate change negotiations would be at risk from a vote to leave. Membership of the EU has enabled the UK to punch above its weight. It has given us a platform to influence not only the climate commitments of our European neighbours, but also those of the US and China. In the last European parliament, all countries agreed to follow the carbon reduction trajectory set by the UK for the next 15 years,” they wrote in a letter to the Guardian.

The letter was signed by Lord Turner, former CBI director-general and former chairman of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC); Lord Deben, chairman of the CCC and former environment secretary; Chris Huhne, former environment secretary; Sir Crispin Tickell, former ambassador to the UN; and the leaders of six environmental campaigning organisations.

They noted that the UK had played a major role in the success of the climate change talks in Paris last year, which produced a new global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions that will be signed at a special ceremony at the UN later this week. Outside the EU, this “pivotal role” would be impossible, and this would “damage our national interest by reducing our diplomatic leverage”.



Environmental issues were largely left out of the prime minister’s negotiations earlier this year in which he sought to reform aspects of the UK’s relationship with the EU. According to the environmental audit committee’s report, the government does not have contingency plans for what would happen to environmental regulations if the UK were to leave the EU.



Some regulations would still have to be enforced if the UK were to be treated as a trading partner, similar to Norway or others. But it is not certain which rules those would be, and negotiations would likely be “tortuous”.

In addition, the committee said that future UK governments would be unable to influence those rules, or any new regulations, because there would be no British seat at the negotiating table when they were drawn up.

MPs also criticised ministers for moving too slowly on implementing some of the EU’s green regulations. Air pollution campaigners have taken the government to court for its failure to adhere to air quality standards.

Businesses stood to benefit from a vote to remain, as the single set of environmental standards governing all companies trading in Europe meant a level playing field, said Nick Molho, executive director of the Aldersgate Group, which represents businesses supporting green actions. “[This] has reduced the cost and complexity of complying with different regulations in different member states,” he said.

The Vote Leave campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The National Farmers’ Union said it would not campaign on the referendum, but that its stance was in favour of remaining in the EU. The organisation said the decision, announced by the farming body’s council on Monday evening, was made because the Electoral Commission required it to take a view. A previously published report commissioned by the NFU found that Brexit could cost many farmers in lost subsidies.

The stance might be controversial for many in the farming community, as pro-Brexit views have been gaining ground. The NFU is not polling its members on the issue, saying such an operation would be too complicated, and that it was “not a political organisation”.

The NFU lobbies the government on farming issues.