Draft Environmental Information Regulations 2004

---

[back to previous text]

John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I am afraid that I cannot match the relish with which she scrutinises the detail of proposals from Europe, but I have a number of questions for the Minister about their practical application. If I am

Column Number: 9

barking up the wrong tree, I am sure he will immediately leap to his feet and allow me to be more pertinent in my questioning.

It seems to me that the planning process and the ability of local people to object to it at local authority level could be greatly assisted by the regulations and access to information. If I may, I will give specific and actual examples, and the Minister might wish to comment on whether such information, which in my brief time in the House has not been made available to me or to my constituents, might now be made available.

I take for example details of notes between the Environment Agency and the Association of British Insurers examining the risk of flooding and proposals for building on a flood plain. My attempts to get such information have been stonewalled when major planning applications have been going through, just as my constituents—the adjoining neighbours—have been unable to find out anything by way of documentation from the Environment Agency. They have found nothing at all about the comments made by the ABI risk assessors on the risk of a failure to insure properties if they are built on designated land relating to the planning application.

In a similar vein, let us consider the example of a planning application on allegedly contaminated land. Of course, there is such an application in my constituency. One of the things that local people wish to ascertain is the level of contamination. Having ascertained it, they also want to see whether or not the developer's proposals—in this case, those of Henry Boot plc in collusion with Tesco—are sufficient to protect their health interests in the longer term. In relation to those and other examples, such as the potential for development on a former historic site—for example, an ancient cemetery—I am interested to know whether local people would have access to that level of information. Again, the previous example was a real one from my constituency and it occurred this year. Would they have to pay for the information? In addition, is there any way in which an agency, such as a local authority or the Environment Agency, could manage not to provide it, either to me or one of my constituents?

2.58 pm

Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): This is a welcome opportunity to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth, and it is a privilege.

We welcome the updating and strengthening of the previous directive on public access to environmental information. It is something which we all broadly support and we are just examining minor, but important, points of detail to ensure that the provisions will work as successfully as possible and that barriers are not placed in the way of people who require information.

Other directives, such as the water framework directive, will also play important roles in ensuring that the kind of environmental information we need

Column Number: 10

fully to assess the state of our environment and to understand the impact of our activities is collected. It is essential that people have access to that information.

There is much logic in approaching transposition in a way that includes the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Harmony is vital, not because we are in thrall to Europe, but because it makes absolute sense in legal terms that we use this opportunity to keep the matter quite straightforward and simple. We too have concerns: will any other environment-related legislative changes or secondary legislation be required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000? Is this all there is to come, or is anything else coming down the line?

The directive says that public authorities need to make available and disseminate environmental information as widely as possible to the general public, particularly by using information and communications technologies, and that the future development of those technologies should be taken into account in the reporting and reviewing of this directive. Obviously we are talking principally about the internet. One of the good things about it is that increasingly people can find the information that they need on it at home or in public libraries. The internet is their primary port of call. We need to know, however, if that information will be available in an accessible form.

The hon. Member for Vale of York talked about how the information is presented. Will it be presented in a straightforward way so that people do not have to dive all over the website to try to understand what they are looking at? It is as easy to bury information on a website as it is to present it. We want to know how far the Minister believes it will go, and what his view is of the quality of websites and the quality of information that will be available. Has he had a chance to consider the matter, because we are talking about quite a variety of organisations, and some people are very good at presenting information, while others are some way behind?

Will the Minister take action on backsliders, or is he assuming that people will ask for the information on paper? If so, will the costs be disproportionate because the information has not already been put on the website? That is an important consideration if we are to do more than simply write this into our legislation, and really enter into the spirit of what is intended.

The directive will be reviewed after four years, and the Government will submit a report to Europe. We will be very interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to monitor the effectiveness of the directive and its transposition. How will he include the public bodies as well as the utilities that he mentioned, when submitting that report? Will there be a consultation? Will members of the public also have a part to play in providing their experiences of requesting information ahead of that report, so that we can secure continuous improvement for our constituents and for organisations in the UK and play our part in showing that we have done what was required?

Column Number: 11

The hon. Member for Vale of York touched on the fact that it is already December, and the regulations and the administrative procedures need to be enforced by 14 February. The regulations apply from 1 January 2005, but the consultation on the code of practice does not close until 12 February. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Minister intends the consultation to be a whitewash, but I do not want it simply to cover something that will already be implemented two days after it closes. How will the Minister process the information that is provided during that consultation, and what action does he intend to take? Finalising the code late will cause problems not only for the Minister's Department but for all public bodies that are required to make information available and to understand what they need to do in the light of that consultation.

I welcome the fact that the Minister said that utilities would be covered, as water companies, gas companies and the railways hold a great amount of information, and we need to know quite a lot about what happens in those areas. Other groups also have information that may or may not be available but that may give cause for concern. We know, for example, that many chemical processes took place on former MOD land during the war. Guildford, which is part of our green belt, includes such land. When we are proposing to put some of the massive house build for the south-east on that land—in fairness, it is Surrey county council that is proposing to do so, not Guildford borough council—it is important that the public can participate in the debate. It is important that they know the state of the land, what contamination there is, whether it is feasible to build on the land or whether the remediation costs would be so great that, in practical terms, nobody would want to touch it. Will information about former MOD land be available in the public domain subject to a request? That would save people wasting time looking at land for which the remediation costs would be much higher than they might otherwise realise. The Minister will be aware that such information is often not on paper anywhere, although local people will remember what took place in the war and have quite a lot of details. However, what information there is is probably held by the MOD.

Similarly, developers may propose to put housing on polluted or contaminated sites. Will they be required to provide information about potential pollution on a site that they own? If it is a special site for which the Environment Agency has responsibility, that information will be available, but if it is not, how will the public find out about it? Could the developer holding the piece of land say that he would not provide the information on the grounds of commercial sensitivity? After all, issues such as pollution are of great importance when pricing a development and determining its feasibility. They are also important when councils address planning, because they may believe that they will not get the land remediated unless they go for building. At the same time, developers are prone to talking up contamination and the

Column Number: 12

environmental benefit from councils allowing land to go for building. Openness about possible contamination is therefore important.

Similarly, would developers make information about the cost of clean-up available, or could they refuse to divulge it on the basis that it was commercially sensitive? Providing such information is part of the process of engaging the public in debate when large-scale developments come up. The public will want to know everything about it and to know that the facts are out in the open. They will want to know that they have the same information as the council and, indeed, that the council has the information in the first place. Developers often say that it will cost £5 million, £8 million or £9 million to clean up a piece of land, and we are sometimes not altogether sure whether to believe that, so it is important to have more information and clarity about contamination.

The Minister has made some useful comments about what a public authority can charge, and we are interested to know what recourse a member of the public will have to the Information Commissioner if they seek information, but are told that it is too expensive to provide, or are given a large bill to meet the costs of providing it. How will disputes over whether it is practical to provide information and over the cost of providing it be dealt with?

Regulation 18(6) raises a further issue. Regulation 12(1)(b) applies a public interest test, but regulation 18(6) brings in section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act to allow for a veto on decisions that the Information Commissioner takes on public interest grounds. Can the Minister appeal tribunal decisions? If so, when might that veto be applied? Again, it is useful for people to understand what is a reasonable and what is an unreasonable request and to have some guidance from the Minister. In that way, we can have some clarity about requests for information and about how far to push for information that might be important.

To wrap up, we very much support the regulations. We are keen to see them come into force and to make use of the information that is made available. However, we would like a little more detail about the boundaries and about the grey areas, such as how much information should be provided about commercial sensitivity, MOD land and about the resolution of disputes.

3.8 pm

 

---

Prepared 9 December 2004