Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-26)
RT HON
JANE KENNEDY
MP, MR STEVE
COLDRICK AND
MR MALCOLM
DARVILL
3 NOVEMBER 2004
Q20 Mr Bacon: The phrase "encourage
co-operation" would not cover "advisory"?
Jane Kennedy: That is why we felt
that Article 137 was appropriate.
Q21 Mr Connarty: Can I possibly take
time out to allow you to reflect on the seriousness of what has
just been discussed and move on to health and safety at work and
risks to the wider society? What is the government's general policy
on controlling through EU legislation the risks from the workplace
to the wider society? How does it play off the competitiveness
of industry against the broader safety issues?
Mr Coldrick: Seveso 1 and Seveso
2 directives—
Jane Kennedy: Do you want here
a general discussion?
Q22 Mr Connarty: I want you to answer
the general question first. Basically, how does the government
play off the competitiveness of industry against the broader safety
issues? I am sure the Minister, and hopefully advisers, will have
been following the work of this committee very closely because
it is of interest to you, and will have noticed that the Confederation
of British Industry criticised Parliament recently for being asleep
on the job when it came to looking at the regulations that were
made in Europe that affected British industry adversely. We had
the Director of the CBI here to discuss that topic only a few
weeks ago, so the question I am asking is obviously very relevant
at the moment. How does the government balance out the competitiveness
of British industry and the implementation of EU safety regulations?
Jane Kennedy: In formulating a
response to European legislation the government would not only
consult across government but also outside of government on the
impact of any legislation coming out of Europe. In particular,
obviously, we are interested in the impact on business competitiveness.
Mr Darvill: Under the new arrangements
on worker protection, before any proposal becomes a directive
the European Commission will use the new social partners co-decision
route whereby they put the matter to the social partners, which
are the European representatives of the CBI and the TUC, to discuss
if they come to an agreement for a non-legislative proposal, and
it is only after that happens that legislation is proposed, so
in a way the CBI and the TUC get the first bite of the cherry.
They get an opportunity to examine any proposals way before officials
and the government do. If there are questions of competitiveness
they should therefore have been flagged up very early and the
CBI should be aware of them and the CBI are never slow in bringing
their concerns to us.
Q23 Mr Connarty: Turning specifically
to the government's assessment after doing all that, particularly
the impact assessment on the implementation of Seveso 1 and Seveso
2 directives in respect of enterprises covered by Control of Major
Accident Hazards, what impact assessment has the government done
on those two particular pieces of suggested regulation from the
EU?
Jane Kennedy: I thought that the
army and Northern Ireland had the most acronyms but I have learned
differently. The two acronyms are the SEMA regulations and the
COMAH regulations of 1999. The Health and Safety Executive did
prepare an impact assessment of them. Consultation on the proposed
regulatory package included an impact assessment for the new COMAH
amendments and that has recently been completed. I do not know
if Steve wants to add more to that. The relevant legislation for
the planning and hazardous substances pre-dated the COMAH regulations
of 1999, so I understand that an impact assessment was carried
out for those changes that COMAH introduced but it was some time
ago.
Q24 Mr Connarty: Yes, in fact there was
what was called a partial impact assessment, which I have here,
and the conclusion in section 57 says, "There are no substantive
competition concerns that arise from the amendments to the Seveso
2 directive in the three markets considered". It does in
fact point out that there will be a substantial rise in the number
of sites coming into the highest level of COMAH regulations. As
the Minister knows, on the ground there are many things that are
not taken into account, like the impact on developments that may
fall within the new consultation distances that are thrown around
the sites and the outstanding question, which I believe the government
has yet to pronounce on, the fact that with these consultation
distances basic planning blight will be increased by societal
risk being taken into account rather than the risk to the individual.
I think the Minister would agree that there has been no death
ever recorded of someone outside a chemical, a petrochemical or
even an explosives factory in the UK from a major accident since
the COMAH regulations came into being and yet we are talking about
putting a substantial ring around chemical industries and other
facilities that will impact adversely on the ability of outside
organisations to develop for quite a considerable distance round
about these chemical and other factories.
Jane Kennedy: In the context that
we are talking about now, which is calculating the impact on land
use planning decisions and others, we are consulting on the implications
of this and not expecting to receive the conclusions of the work
that officials are doing across government on that until the spring
of 2005. We are quite some way off before I will have a clear
idea of what the advice to me is going to be.
Q25 Mr Connarty: Could this committee
have an assurance that that impact assessment, when it takes place,
will genuinely talk to the stakeholders, not just to a very short
list of people that were listed earlier but the people whose economic
future will be impacted by these decisions? I understand in Germany,
for example, that the regulation says that the consultation distances
end at the factory gate and the regulation is about storage of
materials on site and not about the blighting of surrounding areas.
Jane Kennedy: I have certainly
heard your comments in the committee today, Mr Connarty, and representatives
of the Health and Safety Executive have also heard them, and I
can give you an assurance that it is our intention that the consultation
should be exactly that, a meaningful and very direct and open
consultation focusing on the interests of those who are concerned
about it.
Chairman: Minister, I think we had better
end the session by saying that I am sure we have both heard each
other's comments on what we have been discussing today. The committee
is very keen on looking at what we call the abuses of Article
308 anyway and I think the words you used were that you found
it a chastening experience. It may have been a chastening experience
but our gripe today is not just about your department but this
issue in particular. We will be watching other departments as
well and what they are up to and how they resist any further abuses
of 308. I am sure we have got our point across to you, albeit
pleasantly and diplomatically as we are renowned for. Thank you
very much.
Q26 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Just on a point
of clarification, Chairman, the Minister said she would kindly
get back to us on the issue about taking legal action.
Jane Kennedy: I thought you had
already asked me that one, but yes, I will, and I will write back
to you.
Chairman: I am closing the session now.
Thank you, Minister.
| 
