division_name: Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill &#8212; After Clause 16 - Environmental protection
motion: <p class="indent" pid="c827.8/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Environmental protection; Parliamentary scrutiny</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c827.8/3" pwmotiontext="yes">Govt motion to disagree&#8230;Govt motion to disagree&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c827.9/6" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;is not about additional parliamentary scrutiny; this is actually about stopping Parliament acting in this area.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="">20 June 2023</phrase>; Vol. 831, c. 117.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c829.2/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c829.2/8" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;&#8216;do anything we want&#8217; powers for Ministers.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c829.2/10" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;appropriate&#8230;to achieve the same or similar objectives&#8221;;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c831.0/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;What is at stake is the location of the ultimate decision-making authority&#8212;the right to the final word.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c831.0/11" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;this would amount to a massive transfer of political power from parliaments to judges&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c831.0/13" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;it would be a transfer of power initiated by the judges to protect rights chosen by them rather than one brought about democratically by parliamentary enactment or popular referendum.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c831.0/15" pwmotiontext="yes">"it is no wonder that the elected branches of government regard that prospect with apprehension&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c831.0/17" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;brought about democratically by parliamentary enactment&#8221;,</p>