House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Oct 1990

Column 894

I hope that what I suggest will be accepted not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the European Community. The Commission hopes to make a presentation to the Council of Ministers later this year. The purpose of the Bill--if it is accepted--is clear. If the EC does not come up with a scheme, the United Kingdom, with its growing commitment to the environment, will put one in place. The financial powers are there to do so, provided that the Environmental Protection Bill completes its passage through the House in the next couple of days.

The scheme must be cradle-to-the-grave. It would be stupid to label a product environmentally friendly and benign, only to discover that the process of its manufacture pollutes. Items would fall into several product sectors. Within those sectors, the merits of each item would be assessed. Those which are judged to reach the standard would be given the qualifying mark. It would be a simple, positive, guide to the purchaser on which products were least harmful to the environment. I envisage that there would be a moving standard within each sector a constant striving for better quality in existing products and also an encouragement to produce replacements. The product which bears the mark of approval today may well fail to obtain it tomorrow.

As the scheme developed, I hope that next to whatever the mark will be there would be a grading system. A number would indicate the absolute effect that the product has on the environment. In that way, the purchaser would have more than merely a comparison within a sector in making a decision.

A scheme could become a positive sales aid to British manufacturing. For some time, I have been worried about foreign competition. The foreign product imported into our country may not necessarily be produced with the same care and attention to health and safety and pollution regulations which our manufacturers must employ.

In my Bill, I do not attempt to address what the mark will be. I shall leave it to some advertising agency or marketing organisation to come up with some fancy logo. However, I must confess that the capital letter E, standing for ecology, environment and perhaps Europe, has some appeal.

The chances of a 10-minute Bill reaching the statute book are somewhat similar to the survival chances of a snowball in the Sahara. However, I hope that, just as there are nutritional standards and sell-by dates on food, the House will approve the principle of environmental labelling for non-food products. The measure will build on the growing public awareness of the fragile nature of the environment and the need for its protection, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Page, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Graham Bright, Mr. Roger King and Mr. Alistair Burt.

Labelling (environmental effects and safety) Mr. Richard Page accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for products other than food and drink to carry information about environmental effects and safety ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

Column 895

Orders of the Day

Environmental Protection Bill

Lords amendments further considered .

Clause 95

Fees and charges under

1960 Act--

Lords amendment : No. 212, in page 102, line 43, leave out ("sections") and insert ("section").

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 212, 216, 218, 345 to 347 and 429.

5.9 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments. The amendments deal with technical points.

Question put and agreed to .

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to .

Lords amendment : No. 213, in page 103, line 5, leave out ("for varying") and insert

("in respect of the variation of")

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 213 to 215, 217, and 304 ; Lords amendment No. 340 and the amendment thereto ; 341 to 344.

Mr. Trippier : Her Majesty's Opposition may wish to speak to their amendment to Lords amendment No. 340 before I say anything.

Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : The Opposition do wish to speak to their amendment, which is being discussed at this late stage in the proceedings because the Government have not fulfilled promises made during the earlier stages of the Bill.

The problem dealt with by the amendment arises out of the persistence shown by Dudley metropolitan council in its long-standing attempts to close loopholes in legislation. The council, quite simply, wanted a say in the procedures by which a licence was granted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, to Waste Incineration Services Ltd. This authorised the Pear Tree lane site to be used for the purposes of disposing of solid and liquid organic radioactive waste. I have visited the site, with Councillor Sparks, and have met local residents who have long campaigned about their concerns over waste disposal at the Pear Tree lane and other sites. I have met campaigners from all over the west midlands who are concerned about the way in which radioactive and other toxic wastes are disposed of.

In this case, Dudley metropolitan council was right to have expected to have at least been consulted about the granting of the licence for disposal of radioactive waste under section 6. That is in line with our views on the importance of freedom of information. The behaviour of the HMIP was also in contradiction of the Government's

Column 896

professed aim, set out in their White Paper, which refers to the need for the public to receive environmental information. The first that Dudley's residents knew about the licence authorising the disposal of radioactive waste was when the council received a copy of the licence, which had already been issued. Where was the consultation? When the council rightly took this matter through the courts, it was rewarded by the courts finding in its favour. The Secretary of State was required to consider whether to involve local authorities and to give them a right to a hearing. No wonder that the legal officer considered that the Secretary of State's previous actions had been

"high-handed, cavalier and unreasonable."

Ever since, we have pressed the Government to recognise that local authorities have a legitimate right to have their say whenever a licence application of this kind is being considered. In a letter to me, the Under- Secretary said :

"It is a matter for local authorities only when the proposed disposal has a significant effect on the locality."

However, he makes no suggestion as to what is significant, and at this eleventh hour in our deliberations on the Bill, the issue has not been resolved. Therefore, we have tabled the amendment : it is plain that the Government do not want a statutory procedure for involving local authorities in these major environmental issues such as disposal of radioactive waste.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 340 makes no suggestion even to any rights to hearings. We are not going that far down the road at this stage. Nor does it advance the position of local authorities, except to complete the limited role that they have already been given by the Government's proposal to notify them of applications in advance. These would then have to be published.

Radioactive licences awarded under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 can be for disposal, accumulation, use or use in connection with radioactive apparatus. Amendment (a), which is concerned with radioactive apparatus, is an example of how the procedure should operate. The Government have provided no clear answer to what is supposed to happen when an authority such as Dudley receives a copy of a licence application. As the Bill stands, despite the assurances given by the Under-Secretary, there is no provision to guide the authority as to the period within which comments should be made, or any sign of what the HMIP might do with any comments it receives. The amendment is designed to regularise the process, to the benefit both of authorities and of the HMIP. The scheme proposed is that there should be a six-week period within the normal four-month period during which the HMIP considers applications, in which the authority may submit comments to the HMIP, which the inspectorate would then be required to consider. This is a light requirement on the HMIP, but it would at least ensure that the comments made by authorities were not simply ignored, as happened in the case of Dudley council. The purpose is to prevent uncertainty about applications from dragging on for any long period, and equally to protect the HMIP from comments received from authorities late in the process, which may cut across the process of determination, which by then would be further advanced.

Column 897

5.15 pm

The amendment makes the further proposal that notifications to local authorities under the Bill should include a reminder of the calling in power given to the Secretary of State under paragraph 12 of schedule 5, which inserts a new section 12B into the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Under this power, the Secretary of State may instruct the chief inspector to refer to him any particular application which will then be determinable by him. It is understood that it would be open to local authorities to request the Secretary of State to exercise his power. In practice, this would probably be heeded only in a case where a decision reached by the inspector appeared to have ignored a significant matter drawn to his attention by the local authority. Again, I refer the Under-Secretary to the use of the word "significant" in his letter to me.

Nothing in the amendment would constrain the decision of the Secretary of State as to whether to call an application in, but it would serve as a limited form of appeal against decisions to grant applications in certain narrow instances. It would be helpful to have on the record an assurance that it will be open to authorities in specific instances to petition the Secretary of State in this way. If that assurance can be given, and if we can have some guidance as to the way in which officials will deal with this scheme, the residents of Dudley and their councillors will have the satisfaction of knowing that they closed a loophole in legislation, and that they have done all that they properly can to bring the attention of the Government to the wider implications of the way in which waste disposal licences involving radioactive substances are dealt with.

Mr. Trippier : Perhaps I may assist the hon. Lady by making clear what the situation will be when the Bill as it stands--that is, without the amendment--becomes an Act of Parliament. I am concerned about what she said about Dudley metropolitan council. I would not profess to be as much of an expert as she is, but I will look at this one again. Considerable influence has been directed at the Government to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen again. Even if I were to take verbatim what has been said by the hon. Lady, the amendment is in any case defective--although I hope that she will forgive me for saying so--because it refers to the procedures that should be applied to applications to use mobile apparatus, but that need not concern us. The principle that the hon. Lady is making is accepted in general terms.

Local authorities will be sent copies of all applications for registration and authorisation once they have been received by the chief inspector. They will then have an opportunity to comment at an early stage in every case. At present, local authorities see applications only if they are involved in a formal confrontation process. Local authorities will be sent a greater amount of information. In addition to copies of applications, they are to be sent copies of all certificates. At present, certificates of registration for mobile radioactive apparatus are not required to be sent. They will be sent copies of certificates for enforcement, copies of prohibition notices, records of convictions and any other documents that the Secretary of State may direct the chief inspector to send.

Local authorities will have a role to play in making this information available, as the public will be able to inspect those documents at their offices. That, as the hon. Lady knows full well, is consistent with our approach, which she

Column 898

has supported. I welcome the increased public access to environmental information. Authorities are to be entitled to charge a reasonable fee for the provision of photocopies of documents that will be open to public inspection.

There may be a minor difference of opinion between us on the great majority of cases in which radioactive materials need to be registered to be kept and used. Certainly, in the case of mobile apparatus, local authorities will have no executive or regulatory function. I entirely accept that the hon. Lady may not necessarily be asking for that, but it is a statement of fact.

As a result, authorities will also lack the highly specialist expertise that will be necessary to enable them to comment on these matters in an informed and detailed way. For that reason, the control of radioactive substances has always, under successive Governments, been under central Government control--at present through Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in England and Wales and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate in Scotland.

As I have said, the amendment is inappropriate, and I ask the House to reject it.

Ms. Walley : Given what the Minister has just said, may I ask him whether he is prepared to discuss further with his officials and with officers of the metropolitan council of Dudley ways of dealing with some of the issues that have been raised--including the timetable under which HMIP would give information to the local authority concerned? We do not have a final way of dealing with this, but we accept that, if there are further consultations of that sort, that will at least benefit HMIP and enable the problems that have been highlighted by the Dudley case to be of wider benefit in tightening up legislation on radioactive waste and its disposal.

Mr. Trippier : I am happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause

Public registers of information

Lords amendment : No. 250, after Clause 115, insert the following new Clause--

("Publicity .--(1) The Secretary of State shall maintain a register ("the register") containing prescribed particulars of or relating to

(a) notices given or other information furnished under section 102 above ;

(b) directions given under section 102(8) above ;

(d) applications for consents (and any further information furnished in connection with them) and any advice given by the committee appointed under section (advisory committee for purposes of Part VI) below in relation to such applications ;

(e) consents granted by the Secretary of State and any information furnished to him in pursuance of consent conditions ;

(f) any other information obtained or furnished under any provision of this Part ;

(g) convictions for such offences under section 112 above as may be prescribed ;

(h) such other matters relating to this Part as may be prescribed ;

but that duty is subject to section (exclusion from register of certain information) below.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State--

Column 899

(a) to secure that the register is open to inspection by members of the public free of charge at all reasonable hours ; and

(b) to afford to members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges.

(3) The register may be kept in any form.

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the keeping of the register ; and in this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.") Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.- - [Mr. Trippier.]

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in paragraph 1(d), after "below", to insert "or any other committee".

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (b) to the Lords amendment ; and Lords amendment No. 251 and amendment (a) thereto.

Mr. Morley : The issue of genetically modified organisms has not received the attention that it deserves, although it has far-ranging consequences. I hope that new developments in this country will be beneficial, and the research has a potential for good for our food and agriculture industries. However, there is no doubt that we need a tight framework to ensure that such research--especially that involving the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment--is carried out in a way that is tightly controlled and open to public scrutiny.

I am grateful for the concessions accepted in the Lords amendments. I am aware that the Government appreciate the importance of these issues and that they have gone a long way towards dealing with some of the worries expressed by the Opposition and other organisations. We welcome the significant changes in Lords amendment No. 250, particularly the setting up of a register of information for the regulatory procedure. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment will have its advice published in the register for the public to see, but other committees, particularly the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification, do not seem to be empowered in the new clause to have their recommendations and advice published for the public to see. I imagine that there may be an amalgamation of advice from both committees and from the Health and Safety Executive, so it would make sense if the Government accepted our amendment to allow other relevant committees to have their advice published for the public to see.

As for amendment (b), although we accept that applications for consent will be registered, the Lords amendment does not seem to provide for information on future revocations or variations of consent to be registered. I know that it was argued in the Lords that there are registers under subsection (1)(c) and (d), but it does not seem clear whether that will be allowed under the Lords amendment, even though I appreciate that the Secretary of State has powers under subsection (1)(h) to prescribe other matters, and that he can use those powers to clarify the situation, whether or not the information is included in the amendment.

We need to examine commercial confidentiality. I realise that, when research involving the release of genetically modified organisms is being carried out, people may for various reasons want to sabotage the experiments

Column 900

by undermining them commercially ; so many people would accept that it is reasonable to keep secret the details of a site where the experiments had been carried out. But it is not justifiable to keep secret details about the company or institution carrying out the experiments. Such information must be available to the public. General information about the operation should also be made public, so that people can see what is going on.

I know that there are difficulties in keeping a site where genetically modified organism experiments are taking place secret, but it is not unreasonable to expect general information about such experiments to be provided. I see no reason why the names of the companies and institutions concerned should not be provided for people who have an interest in these matters--that is merely part of the accountability which I am sure the Government would accept is essential for sensitive experiments of this nature.

5.30 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : This is a legal minefield. Because of time constraints, I will ask the Minister only one question. Is there any working party or group in the Department of the Environment or in any of the other Ministries--such as the Department of Trade and Industry--that may be as directly or more directly involved in the thorny, difficult and intractable question of the patenting of animals? It raises many difficult issues of patent law, and it is crucial that someone should sort them out.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory) : I associate myself with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), and agree that genetically modified organisms have considerable potential for benefiting mankind, but that they must be carefully controlled and managed. Like all scientific advances, they offer the potential for harm as well as good.

The Lords amendments give statutory backing to our previously declared policy on public access to information about part VI matters, and establish a public register of information. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 250 would require details of advice given to the Secretary of State for the Environment by "any other committee" to be recorded in the register. That is not necessary, because information on the register will relate solely to part VI, and only the committee established by virtue of amendment No. 253, which we have yet to consider, will be relevant to consideration of the matters in question.

In practice, that committee will be the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the composition and terms of reference of which we announced last April. There are others concerned with genetically modified organisms, such as the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee but they are not directly concerned with environmental safety, so their advice would not be relevant to the matters to which the part VI register relates. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the patenting of animals. I confirm that colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are negotiating on an EC directive covering precisely that issue, which I hope reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Column 901

Mr. Morley : Does not the Minister agree that in terms of the specialised subject of release, there would be a purpose to seeking the advice of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : No. A matter concerning environmental safety will fall to be considered by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe spoke also to amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 250, which would require details of revocations and variations of consents, and so on, to be included in the register. Again, I assure him that that is unnecessary. Lords amendment No. 250, subsection (1) requires the register to include particulars of, or relating to, a number of notices--including, in paragraph (d), applications for consents. It is clear that revocations and variations of such consents are included, and that effect is given to amendment (b) by the existing subsection (1). Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 251 would modify the Secretary of State's ability to exclude information from the register, on the ground that its exclusion might result in damage to the environment. All member states of the Community agree in principle that there must be such a provision, and a similar measure exists in the directive on access to information on the environment adopted in June. I assure the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe that the ability to exclude information is a reserve power that will be used only with the greatest discretion.

The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe suggested that experiments and tests might be sabotaged if it were known that releases were taking place in a certain way, at a particular location. I can give an example to illustrate his point. The release of a genetically modified plant might be allowed only under specified conditions that might include--I cite a particular instance from the continent--the requirement that the plants are covered with bags to prevent dissemination of the seeds and their uncontrolled dispersal into the environment. Were the plot to be sabotaged, dispersal could occur, thereby damaging the environment, which would be the exact opposite of the intention of the conditions under which the experiment was allowed to proceed.

In such cases, disclosure of too much information could lead indirectly to environmental damage. On those grounds, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, choose not to press the amendment.

Mr. Morley : I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances, but I must press him on the role of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. While it could be argued that its terms of reference cover releases of genetic material into the environment, the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee is meant to consider the environmental consequences of escape from containment of genetically modified material. Is not there a case for the ACGM giving advice on containment experimentations, which ought to be recorded for public scrutiny?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : If such a matter for concern came before the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee, it would properly refer it to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. In those circumstances, the matter would be discussed, and advice issued. Therefore, I insist that the wording that

Column 902

amendment (a) seeks to introduce is unnecessary. The committee we are to establish will be adequate for the task, in that it will consider all matters relating to environmental safety.

Mr. Morley : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

New Clause

Advisory committee for purposes of Part VI

Lords amendment : No. 253, before clause 116 insert the following new clause--

(".--(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to provide him with advice--

(a) on the exercise of his powers under sections 105, 106 and 107 above ;

(b) on the exercise of any powers under this Part to make regulations ;

and on such other matters concerning his functions under this Part as he may from time to time direct.

(2) The chairman and other members of the committee shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment. (3) The Secretary of State shall pay to the members of the committee such remuneration (if any) and such allowances as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. Trippier.]

Mr. Morley : I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 7, leave out from concerning' to end of line 8 and insert the operation of this part as it may consider desirable'. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have to inform the House that amendment No. 253 involves privilege.

Mr. Morley : I emphasise again that we welcome the concessions that the Government have made by establishing the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which was announced last April. This amendment seeks clarification on the role of that committee. Will the Minister confirm that the advisory committee will have a wide-ranging area of advice as its remit --for example, what it can do and where it can intervene? We believe that our amendment gives the committee greater freedom to operate within its remit.

Will the Minister confirm that the terms of reference agreed by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment at its first meeting on 3 July will be allowed? The terms of reference were to advise the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, the Secretaries of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other bodies as appropriate on all aspects of human and environmental health and safety, on the introduction into the United Kingdom environment of genetically modified and other novel organisms and in particular to advise on proposals for the specific introduction of research needs and on appropriate regulations and written guidance.

Certainly we should have no quibble with those terms of reference, but the new clause seems more restrictive than the words used in the committee's terms of reference, which refer to all aspects of human and environmental

Column 903

health and safety. Also, the new clause is not clear about the advice, reference needs and written guidance that the committee refers to.

The Royal Commission on environmental pollution has suggested that the advisory committee should advise on a whole series of headings, such as the scope for categorising releases, the need for research, especially on releases, the undertaking of a review of releases that have been carried out, as well as liaison with overseas organisations. It is also possible that the committee may advise on any need for changes in the legislative procedure in future. I should also like an assurance that the committee will have the power to produce an annual report, which will include developments that it has been involved with and lessons to be learnt from them. Will the Minister also assure me that the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment will have a broad-based representation? I accept that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has such a broad base and I congratulate the Minister as it covers a wide range of interested parties, not only on the technical and scientific side but on the wider environment side. I should appreciate assurances that the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee will also have that broad base.

There is concern about the ethical implications of such research. While I believe that genetically modified organisms--plants and animals--have great potential and could have great advantages, there are a whole series of ethical implications. I understand that a commitment was given to the Lords that the Government would consider such implications, and would make a statement in due course. Can the Minister inform the House at which point in the next Session of Parliament a statement can be expected and what form it will take? 5.45 pm

Mr. Trippier : I respect the point that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made about the ethical considerations that must be addressed. He will remember that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) raised that matter in Committee, and that several members of the Committee commented upon it. I welcome what he said, and that matter will certainly be addressed. There will be an annual report, and I am glad to be able to give the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe that assurance. However, he must remember his words only five minutes ago, when he was talking about accountability. I agreed with him at the time. With such a complicated and technically obtuse subject as genetically modified organisms, eventually it must be the Secretary of State's responsibility to decide what happens to advice given by the advisory committee, for reasons that I thought we had agreed in the Standing Committee--I shall quickly reiterate them. The Secretary of State for the Environment, who is answerable to the House and ultimately to the country, must be the person who is responsible in law for the committee and for the advice that it gives.

I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the statement that I issued in April on the terms and conditions of the advisory committee still stands. I confirm that membership of that committee, which I have already announced, is

Next Section

Home Page