House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jun 1995

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in subsection (3), after second `section', insert `or for the purpose of any pollution control functions as defined in section 5'.

Amendment (b) to the proposed clause, in subsection (3), leave out `authorises or'.

Government amendment No. 176.

Amendment No. 20, in clause 107, page 133, line 35, at end add `(12A) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no information relating to any individual or business which has been obtained by virtue of this section or any pollution control functions, shall during the lifetime of that individual or so long as that business continues to be carried on, be disclosed without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business.

(12B) Subsection (12A) does not apply to any disclosure of information which is made

(a) for the purpose of fulfilling any statutory duty falling on the person disclosing it other than under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; or

Column 713

(b) between enforcing authorities for the purpose of their pollution control functions.'.

Government amendments Nos. 88 and 98.

Amendment No. 249, in schedule 22, page 321, line 15, at end insert--

`(3A) Where the Agency is treated as having determined that information is commercially confidential by virtue of subsection (3) above and it subsequently appears to the Agency that the information is not commercially confidential for the purposes of this section then the Agency shall--

(a) give to the person to whom or whose business it relates notice that that information is required to be included in a register kept or maintained by the Agency under any provisions of this Act, unless excluded under this section; and

(b) give that person reasonable opportunity--

(i) of objecting to the inclusion of the information on the grounds that it is commercially confidential; and

(ii) of making representations to the Agency for the purpose of justifying any such objection:

and the Agency shall, having taken any representations into account, determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.'.

Amendment No. 248, in page 322, line 27, after `person', insert `by disclosing information about a trade secret'.

Government amendments Nos. 99, 104 and 106.

Mr. Atkins: The new clause puts beyond doubt the ability of Ministers, the new agencies and local enforcing authorities to exchange information that will help them in carrying out their environmental functions. They will be able to disclose such information to each other without risk of civil or criminal liability. Amendments Nos. 88, 98, 99, 104 and 106 are consequential to the new clause; they amend the disclosure of information provisions in other environmental legislation to ensure that they are consistent with the new clause.

In Committee, we amended the provisions relating to the remediation registers and the contaminated land regime to exclude commercially confidential information. That brought the provisions into line with other environmental enforcement registers. Amendment No. 176 takes forward an undertaking that I gave at that time to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). It remedies an omission in the copying of the standard provisions. Wherever information is excluded from the remediation register on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, a statement will be placed on the register recording that this has taken place.

In due course, if the House allows me to do so, I shall respond to hon. Members who speak to other amendments in the group.

Ms Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): I express my gratitude to the Minister for correcting the fault to which he alluded concerning the entry in the register. It is extremely important that, where information is kept from the public domain on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, there is a note, so that it is apparent that there is information that is not being disclosed.

We can see the sense in making it absolutely clear, through the new clause, that the new agencies, Government Departments and so on can freely exchange information among themselves. However, I have a question for the Minister. The new clause uses the words "may be disclosed" rather than "shall be disclosed". Clearly, there is an element of discretion here.

Column 714

I foresee the possibility that the new agencies, which will, we hope, be tremendously dynamic in their concern for the environment, will seek to gain information from a Government Department, only to find that the Department is not willing to disclose it. I ask the Minister to give some assurance on this point, or to say that the word "may" has been used so that there can be discretion and therefore withholding of information.

I also put on record the fact that, in Committee, the Opposition repeatedly asked the Government to make provision for true public disclosure. The new clause and the associated amendments in no way meet our demands for proper public disclosure and public accountability. They provide simply for exchanges of information between public bodies, which does not necessarily mean that information will be made available to the public.

Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood): This is an important new clause. Can the Minister tell us why it has been tabled at such a late stage? I should like to think that the reason is that the Minister listened to what we said in Committee. The new agencies will be important and powerful. I am extremely keen that the whole area is transparent. I suspect that there are fears among, for example, local authorities, that they will pass information to the agencies and to others, while not being allowed to have access to information themselves. The importance of the partnership for the way forward must be recognised. Any steps that the Minister can take to ensure that the new agencies, the discussions and the partnerships behind it are transparent, open and reassuring to people will be extremely welcome.

5 pm

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro): The Minister will be aware that I have real concerns about the disclosure of information, which I raised in Committee. Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 relate in large measure to the concerns in my area and to the actions of South West Water. Water companies at the moment have to provide information to the National Rivers Authority when they apply for a consent to discharge. That information is then available to the public from the NRA, because it is incorporated in the pollution control register under the Water Resources Act 1991. Under that Act, there are very limited exceptions for commercial confidentiality, and a certificate must be obtained from a Minister to prevent such a release of information. The water companies have never sought such a certificate. As I explained in Committee, the changes made through the Environment Bill mean that the new agency must state within 14 days whether it accepts that the information submitted is commercially confidential.

If there is an appeal, the information stays off the public register until the appeal is determined. That is important, because South West Water--this may occur also in other areas--never submits full environmental statements with its planning applications. Usually, the planning application is submitted at the same time as the application for a discharge consent. People currently have access to full environmental data because the NRA holds them during the period when the planning application is being dealt with. The proposed change would frustrate that.

If the Bill remains as it is, there will be a clear loss in terms of available information on sewage pollution of

Column 715

river estuaries and coastal waters, as much of the information derives from studies required to be carried out under consent to discharge applications.

In Committee, the Minister argued that there was no intention to change the existing law, and added that the Government did not believe that they had made a change. The Minister--having agreed in Committee to consider the matter--has written to me. In his letter, he accepts, contrary to the assurances given in Committee, that there is an intention to make a major change in the law relating to access to information on discharges by sewerage undertakers.

The Minister suggested that existing access to information on discharges to water cannot be justified. Yet Department of the Environment circular 13/85 says that the

"guiding principle in the legislation is that, subject to specified safeguards, there should be free availability of information"

except where there is a need to strike a balance between openness and limited but justified measures of confidentiality. That is why, until now, the Secretary of State has been given limited powers to waive the inclusion of information in registers where he is satisfied that the disclosure of information would prejudice to an unreasonable degree a private interest by disclosing information about trade secrets, or would be contrary to the public interest.

A careful balance was struck when the original legislation was passed, but the Government were then satisfied that the balance in relation to information on discharges into water was right. Those discharges affect bathing waters, shellfish waters, wildlife habitats, drinking water and all sorts of uses of water that affect the public. Therefore, it is vital that the public have access to the relevant information when applications for a consent to discharge are being made.

South West Water regularly claims commercial confidentiality without a ministerial certificate, and it has backed down only when it has been forced to do so. It is reasonable to assume that it will continue to make such applications while trying to deny public access to the information. The measure is fundamental to the principle of openness, and to coastal areas which will be heavily affected by such applications. I also believe that public access to information is required under existing EC environmental policy.

In his letter, the Minister suggests that the new wording is needed to create consistency across the regulatory regime. He argues that the waste water industry should be treated in the same way as integrated pollution control, as it affects, for example, companies such as ICI. But the comparison with industrial discharges is not appropriate. Waste water companies are performing a public function of waste disposal as an emanation of the state. The Department of the Environment has accepted that they are the relevant persons for the purposes of the directive on freedom of access to information on the environment and the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. The waste water companies are discharging waste for which they themselves are the regulators under the Water Industry Act 1991. There will be a problem if they are able to decide on the prevention of the release of information when they are their own policemen.

Column 716

The effluent of the waste water industry is not effluent from the creation of any commercial product, so I cannot see the relevance of commercial confidentiality. There can be no question of any competitor obtaining information about a waste water company's operation from the information lodged in a consent to discharge application. The technology for the processing of waste water is well known.

The companies are also monopolies, as there is no competition in their respective areas. How is it justifiable to withhold information from the public about the effect of discharges from public sewerage works and the effect that those will have on the environment? Such discharges can affect every individual living in an area, and I cannot see the reasoning behind the Minister's explanation in his letter.

Can the Minister explain how the protection of the commercial interests of the relevant bodies requires these provisions, and how the proposed changes can be justified in the context of decreasing public access to environmental information, to which directive 313 applies?

This is a matter on which there is great public concern in my constituency. Only yesterday, South West Water revealed that, for its most recent discharge--in my constituency at St. Agnes--it was now interpreting its duty as meaning that it has to treat sewage only during the summer months when the bathing water directive applies, and not throughout the year. That is an entirely new interpretation, which could affect every coastal discharge, not only in the South West Water area but in the rest of the country.

The NRA is currently uncertain about whether it can tackle South West Water's new interpretation, which, while providing a saving to South West Water, is extraordinarily damaging to the local environment and the community. I hope that the Minister will be able to present a good argument. Otherwise, people will interpret that as an extraordinary change of tack from a Government who say that they are committed both to the environment and to the principle of freedom of information.

Mr. Atkins: I should have addressed my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before speaking to the amendments today. I am tempted to ask you whether I should call you Sir Deputy Speaker, or merely Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whichever it is, it is most appropriate that the congratulations of the whole House be given to you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should still call me Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Atkins: I shall accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) asked me about the timings, and I was grateful for her earlier words about my fulfilling an obligation which I had agreed to earlier. The hon. Lady posed a question about whether there was somehow a point of difference between "may be" and "shall be" in the wording of the measure. She will understand that there may be occasions --for reasons of national security, for example--when "may be" ought not to be "shall be".

It is not my understanding, nor is it the intention of the Bill, that people should withhold information except for the very best reasons. It will be up to other people to decide what those best reasons are, but it will happen in the minimum of cases.

Column 717

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)--in a wide-ranging intervention on what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial area--raised a number of points relating to commercial

confidentiality. It is worth repeating that the new section 191B in the Water Resources Act 1991 has been modelled on section 22 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In operating the EPA provisions, and in view of the 14-day time scale for determining whether information should be treated as commercially confidential, every effort should be made to reach a timely decision. These points, incidentally, relate to amendments Nos. 248 and 249.

Consequently, we understand that there have been none of the difficulties that amendment No. 249 envisages. That shows that the 14-day period serves its purpose. I do not see any reason why the same should not be true for the agency, and, frankly, can see no need for further procedures as proposed in the amendment.

Amendment No. 248 would limit the criteria for designating information as commercially confidential. As drafted, the Bill follows the precedent of the Environmental Protection Agency, in allowing any information to be classed as commercially confidential if its disclosure would prejudice to an unreasonable degree a business's commercial interests.

The amendment would limit the criteria to disclosure of information about a trade secret. By inserting a new section 191B in the Water Resources Act 1991, we are bringing the provisions about commercially sensitive information in the context of water into line with those in respect of other mediums under which the agency would be operating. As the hon. Member for Truro said--indeed, as he knows--his amendment would frustrate that purpose. It is worth emphasising that, in general--a point that I have mentioned on numerous occasions and doubtless will as the agency is set up- -there will be no room for unwarranted exclusion of information from the public. Information will be withheld under the provisions only if publication prejudices commercial interests to an unreasonable degree.

We do not envisage any sudden increase in the number of applications for information to be treated as commercially confidential simply because we are moving away from a definition based on trade secrets to one of commercial confidentiality, which already operates in respect of other environmental mediums.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I understand, but I hope that the Minister understands that the water companies are not operating in a normal commercial environment. South West Water has increasingly claimed commercial confidentiality, and, although an appeal is allowed, it cannot be heard in time for the relevant planning processes to be scrutinised.

The Minister is trying to be helpful, and I would ask him to reconsider that matter. I would find it helpful if he agreed to do so, as his colleague's letter misses that fundamental point.

Mr. Atkins: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he also was a reasonable man as regards most of his amendments and new clauses, and I am not in the business of making life difficult at this late stage. I will consider the matter. As it is a constituency issue, he need only write to me about it for me to deal with it as a matter

Column 718

of course. In that sense, I am prepared to listen to what he has to say, and if I can explain further I will be happy to do so. Question put and agreed to .

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill .

New clause 1

Relevant authorities to define requirements of environmental protection

`(1) It shall be the duty of each relevant authority to integrate requirements for environmental protection wherever applicable into its policies and plans and into the performance of its functions under any enactment.

(2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means-- (a) any Minister of the Crown;

(b) any public body,

(d) any person holding public office.'.-- [Ms Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 19-- Environmental integration -- `(1) It shall be the duty of each relevant authority--

(a) to prepare an environmental compliance assessment prior to adoption or approval of any policies or before legislation is introduced into or laid before either House of Parliament which is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

(b) to take account of the information provided by the environmental compliance assessment prepared under paragraph (a) above in the formulation and implementation of policies and legislation so as to avoid, reduce or minimise any adverse effects on the environment and, where possible, to enhance the environment. (2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means-- (a) any Minister of the Crown,

(b) any public body,

(d) any person holding public office.'.

New clause 27-- Integration of environmental considerations into discharge of functions --

`.--(1) Each relevant authority may consider the need to protect and enhance the environment when:

(a) determining any policy; and

(b) discharging any functions pursuant to any enactment (2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means: (a) any Minister of the Crown

(b) any other public body to which the Secretary of State may by regulations apply this section

(3) The Agency may issue such guidance as it considers appropriate to any relevant authority with respect to the ways in which they should discharge their functions pursuant to subsection (1) above'.

Ms Ruddock: May I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? No discourtesy was intended by my not doing so initially. Also, I have not yet congratulated the Minister on his elevation, although I know that my colleagues did so at the most recent Environment questions.

It is my pleasure to speak in support of the new clause and those grouped with it. We would be delighted if the Minister were minded to accept any new clause that gave force to the requirement that environmental considerations

Column 719

be integrated, where appropriate, into every aspect of public policy. As with so many other issues that we have discussed during the passage of the Bill, however, the Government claim to be wholeheartedly in favour of a commonsense and environmentally friendly proposal, but never find themselves in a position to vote for it.

The notion of sustainable development--development that meets the needs of present generations without jeopardising the ability of future generations to meet theirs--must lie at the heart of any debate on the environment. As the Government would be the first to acknowledge, no Environment Agency and no Department of State can begin to achieve sustainable development alone; it requires a systematic approach--the limiting of the use of finite resources, the reduction of pollutants from every source, the conservation of energy and the minimising of waste, for example.

In short, such considerations ought to be at the heart of all policy making. The Secretary of State for the Environment claimed as much when he said that the Government

"have put in place perhaps the most comprehensive machinery of government to manage the environment to be found anywhere in the world."--[ Official Report , 18 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 35.] He does boast, does he not? We wish that that claim was justified, but it is our view and that of all the major conservation groups, especially the Council for the Protection of Rural England, that existing mechanisms for achieving environmental integration are weak and inadequate for the task.

New clause 1 is not a programme in itself. It offers a statutory framework to stiffen the Government's commitment and to require those in public office to examine their policies and actions in the light of environmental considerations.

5.15 pm

In Committee, the Government resisted such notions being brought into statute, yet the Minister was at pains to tell us of their achievements in appointing green Ministers and in their report, "Green Housekeeping". I only wish that there were more hon. Members in the Chamber tonight because I suspect that, for most of them, the existence of the "Green Housekeeping" document will come as a great surprise. The Government did not trumpet it in the way that they do so many of their other publications. Sadly, as we heard in Committee, the green Ministers rarely meet and little is known of them. Since 1993, all Government Departments have produced and published cost compliance assessments, evaluating the cost of any of their proposals on the business sector. The Government demonstrate great enthusiasm for such tests. I trust that today we shall see some enthusiasm for an environmental compliance assessment, which we would very much support. Examining the environmental implications of any policy or draft legislation would undoubtedly ensure a higher priority for the environment.

Labour Front-Bench Members intend to be brief when moving our new clauses because we understand hon. Members' interest in this debate. In conclusion, therefore, integration of environmental considerations into public policy ought to be a prerequisite in an Environment Bill that establishes environment agencies for the first time

Column 720

and looks forward to the 21st century. Sustainable development cannot be achieved unless the integration of environmental considerations is at the heart of all public policy.

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North): Amendment No. 256 would have placed a duty on the Environment Agency to advise Ministers on matters that it considered relevant to environmental sustainability. As my amendment was not selected, I am pleased to support Labour's new clause 1 very strongly.

The Bill's weakness is that it persists--as the Government persist--in regarding the environment as one issue among several, rather than as the basis of all life, improvement and development, so it does not put in place a mechanism for the integration of environmental issues into policy decisions in all Departments. No such mechanism exists.

We gather that the Cabinet Environment Sub-Committee meets infrequently. As has been said, green Ministers in different Departments do not have the function of greening policy in their Departments, but of studying housekeeping within them. The round table and Sir Crispin Tickell's panel, excellent though they are, have the function only of developing ideas and offering advice to the Government, which does not carry the thing any further.

It is apparent that the nature of policies developed in the Departments of Transport and of Trade and Industry and the Treasury has a huge influence on the extent to which our lives, our economy and our social systems are environmentally sustainable. The Department of the Environment has an influence, but others possibly have even more.

It is clear, however, that the Treasury does not see itself as having anything to do with sustainability. I mentioned on Second Reading a letter that I received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he referred to the failure of his civil servants to attend a meeting of the House of Lords Committee on Sustainable Development. The letter says:

"The Government's strategy for Sustainable Development is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I was therefore not persuaded that it would be appropriate for Treasury officials to give oral evidence on the subject as a whole to the Committee on 7 February".

That attitude illustrates the need for mechanisms to ensure that all Departments address the issue each time that they develop any policy initiative. I am pleased to support new clause 1, which at least has the merit of putting a requirement on the statute book.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I support new clause 1, which has been tabled by the Labour party, but I shall address my comments to new clauses 19 and 27, which my hon. Friends and I tabled, and which have the same aim--to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into the decision-making process of Departments, Ministers and public bodies.

As it stands, the Bill misses an opportunity to promote the integration of environmental concerns in all areas of government, despite the Government's recognition of the importance of such integration, and despite the White Papers issued on the environment since 1990--the 1994 "Sustainable Development Strategy" and the 1995 UK annual report.

Column 721

The Secretary of State claimed on Second Reading that the Government had put in place

"perhaps the most comprehensive machinery of government to manage the environment to be found anywhere in the world."--[ Official Report , 18 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 35.]

Although the introduction of a Cabinet Sub-Committee on the Environment, the designation of green Ministers in each Department and the sustainable development round table are welcome initiatives, there is little evidence that they have had a significant impact on the integration of environmental considerations across

government--certainly outside the Department of the Environment. Existing mechanisms for achieving environmental integration are inadequate. The Bill provides a chance to establish new procedures to ensure that the environment is put at the centre of the policy-making process. To that end, new clause 19 would require all public agencies to produce an environmental compliance assessment--an assessment that would scrutinise the environmental implications of draft legislation and ensure that information gathered was taken into account in final decision making. That would give the environment a higher priority in decision making, and highlight the environmental impact of decisions that might otherwise be overlooked, such as transport-related pollution resulting from hospital closures.

Placing a duty on all public agencies to provide environmental compliance assessments is not a new concept. Since 1 April 1993, all Departments have produced cost compliance assessments that evaluate the costs of new proposals on the business sector. Such assessments are now routinely carried out. That system was introduced by the Government, and the new clause copies it, but in this case it would ensure that the costs to society from environmental impacts were assessed and addressed in policy formulation.

Many in local government already follow that process in their decision taking, as do several pioneering businesses. I hope that the Government will do the same. I believe that the introduction of environmental compliance assessments would significantly aid the Government's stated aim of ensuring that the environment is considered consistently across government. By accepting the new clause, or at least the principle behind it, the Government could demonstrate that they take that idea seriously.

New clause 27 simply aims to integrate matters in a watered-down manner. It stipulates:

"Each relevant authority may consider the need to protect and enhance the environment"

when making policy or carrying out its functions. If the Minister will not accept a requirement, surely he can at least allow the principle to be taken into account when organisations or the Government take decisions.

Next Section

Home Page