Martin
Horwood: I am not speaking for myself, I hasten to add. I
have nothing to repay, I should say for the record. That is the kind of
scale that we are talking about—the sums that are often imposed
on individuals. For major corporates, whose environmental crimes might
cost the public purse an enormous sum in clean-up and remedial action,
there should be suitable penalties, following the principle that the
polluter should pay. In part 4 of the regulations, in regulation
22(1)(a), there is a penalty limit of £50,000. The considerable
public expense of clearing up a major environmental disaster caused by
the pollution of groundwater might easily exceed £50,000. I
would be interested to hear the rationale for choosing that amount and
whether the Minister believes that that would be sufficient in the case
of a major environmental disaster that requires a great deal of public
expenditure to clean up. I am also rather concerned that there might be
a loophole in regulation 6 on exemptions to be granted by the agency.
Paragraph (1)(b) says that the agency may exempt
“a pollutant
into groundwater that, for technical reasons, is incapable of being
prevented or limited without using—
(i) measures that would
increase risks to human health or to the quality of the environment as
a whole; or
(ii) disproportionately
costly
measures”. “Disproportionately
costly” is difficult to define. There is potential for that to
become a kind of routine loophole through which corporate polluters
might be able to
wriggle.
Mr.
Redwood: As the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of the
regulations, can he tell us what they will stop that is not currently
stopped?
Martin
Horwood: I am not sure that it is my place to say; it is
for the Government to
say.
Mr.
Redwood: You support the
regulations.
Martin
Horwood: I said that I welcome regulations to control
groundwater pollution, but I am asking a lot of questions about the
imposition of the regulations before us. Hopefully, they provide a more
comprehensive approach to groundwater pollution, and hopefully
instances of such pollution that currently evade punishment might now
be punished. Perhaps the Minister can give an example of that, if that
is a valid
question.
Sir
Paul Beresford: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Martin
Horwood: I would like to finish my point about regulation
6, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me. I hope that the provision in
sub-paragraph (b) will be a rare and exceptional exemption. Perhaps the
Minister can explain what he thinks might be the technical reasons that
could excuse a polluter from being penalised, and say roughly how many
exemptions he might expect to see in a typical year. I do not know
whether there is historical evidence on which to base such an
estimate. We
have to recognise that not all stakeholders are as big as Severn Trent
Water, and it is right to recognise the impact on smaller businesses,
particularly agricultural businesses that are struggling at the moment.
Only this January new rules were brought in on nitrate-vulnerable
zones, which are areas designated by DEFRA as having excessive levels
of nitrates, mainly due to off-farm waste; speaking as a townie, I
understand that that is a euphemism for manure in most cases. The new
rules included new maximum manure and slurry rates, new closure periods
and limits on fertiliser practices, all of which, in practice,
translates into the need for new and bigger storage facilities on
farms. Such facilities can cost as much as £40,000 each, and
that is an enormous cost for small and medium-sized businesses such as
farms. [Interruption.] That was in the January
2009 regulations, as I am explaining. As a
concession to ameliorate the impact on farms, DEFRA announced that
waste permits would not be required for anaerobic digestate, which
would be regarded as a viable fertiliser. Will the new regulations
interfere with or overturn that concession, and will that welcome
exemption be retained? Will DEFRA consider a more targeted and
landscape-specific approach to regulations such as those that we are
considering? Farmers deal with different climates, and different soils
and groundwater conditions. Will the Government consider slightly
different action programmes and approaches to groundwater pollution in
different areas, where that is
appropriate? Provided
I hear reasonable answers to my questions, I welcome the fact that
groundwater pollution is being tackled, and I am content to see that
co-ordinated European action is being taken to tackle pollution and to
make the polluter
pay. 3.7
pm
Mr.
Redwood: What a muddled load of nonsense we have just
heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesman. On the one hand, Liberal
Democrats say that they want tougher regulation; they welcome European
regulation; they think that it is exactly the kind of regulation that
they want. On the other hand, if it does anything adverse to small or
agricultural business, they do not want it. They cannot have it both
ways. The
point of the Committee is to find out from the Government what they
mean when they say, for example, that the impact on small firms will be
minimised by a light-touch regulatory approach. Are they saying that
they want tough regulation, but will not implement it? If so, is that
not potty, misleading and dangerous? Or are they saying that they want
fairly light regulation, and that that is what they believe they have?
Are they sure that that is what they have, given that one of the
options that they were considering was no regulation at all? The
explanatory memorandum implies that that was a perfectly serious
runner. It says something similar on rural-proofing. We are
told: “Agriculture
is one of the main sectors
affected”. You
don’t say, Mr. Benton. Well spotted! It goes on to
say: “Impacts
will be minimised through use of a risk-based approach
and” through
use of our old friend,
“light-touch
regulation”. We
need to know what all that means. I am not in favour of talking tough
and acting soft. That is not stable, nor is it fair on the people one
is trying to regulate. One should decide what ills one wishes to stop,
be clear about how they will be stopped and enforce fairly, without
fear or
favour. The
Liberal Democrats seem to be saying, “Everything European is
wonderful, but please don’t let it affect my
constituency.” I have not burdened the kind stand-in Minister
with detailed questions, but we need to know
how the Government have come to this judgment of Solomon, as they would
see it, in which they legislate tough but say that they will act soft.
I suggest that they take the regulations back and think again. It is a
pity that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore, is not here, because it would be
fairer to ask him the question. We should have a proper Committee with
a Minister who has gone through the thought processes on the complex
issue that we are considering. There is clearly no urgency, as one
option would be to carry on with the legislation that we
have. Martin
Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for
being against regulation in the banking sector as well as in areas such
as the one that we are discussing, but does he not accept the principle
that we should have tougher regulation of environmental
crimes?
Mr.
Redwood: Yes. Where there is a danger that people might
cause death or serious illness by allowing toxic substances into water
courses, that should be stopped; believe it or not, I share the hon.
Gentleman’s passion on that issue. That should clearly be
against the law and there should be tough enforcement action. He should
not, however, try to mislead the Committee by suggesting that I am
against banking regulation. In my 2007 report, written before the
regulatory-system-inspired crash, I said that tougher regulation of
cash and capital was needed, and that it was the inadequacy of that
regulation that brought the banks down. That, however, is a matter for
a different
Committee. We
need Ministers who have thought the issue through,and
who can give us the figures. In the papers before the Committee, there
are no figures about the extra costs that the regulations will impose
on farms and small businesses, and there is no statement as yet from
anyone on the Committee—I look to those who support the
regulations to give ussucha
statement—about what evils occur under existing regulations that
wouldbe stopped under the new system. Nobody can deny
that the new system will be complex, expensive and difficult to put in
place. It represents a big change to current arrangements, and we do
not know why the Government agreed to it in Brussels in the first
place, or why they have agreed to the
versionthatthey are presenting
today. They do not seem to have a clue about what the benefits and
costs
are. 3.13
pm
Angela
Watkinson: Notwithstanding the Minister’s very
recent attachment to the brief, will he clarify a couple of points?
Regulation 13(3)(2) refers to a daily discharge into domestic septic
tanks or sewage treatment tanks under a 2 cubic metre limit being
exempt from the regulations up to 1 January 2012. Does that satisfy the
capacity requirement of a household with several adults, or does it
correspond to the requirement of only one adult?
Will the
Minister also respond to one of the many questions asked by my hon.
Friend the Member for Vale of York: does a septic tank also take in
kitchen and bathroom water? That would make a significant difference to
the capacity. How is the limit enforced?
Regulation 16
relates to the application for a permit, but there is no indication in
the papers of the cost of the permit, although I am sure that there
will be one. Will it be a one-off permit or an annually renewable one?
That would also have a significant impact, particularly on small rural
properties. 3.14
pm
Dan
Norris: As the hon. Member for Upminster has pointed out,
her colleague, the hon. Member for Vale of York posed a list of
questions. I will do my best to go through them. I know that the hon.
Lady will come back if I miss any out, and I am happy for her to do
so.
Miss
McIntosh: On a point of information—helpful I
hope—the regulations should have been transposed from the new
groundwater directive into UK law by 16 January 2009. Are we already in
breach of the regulation? Might we face infringement proceedings? It
would be helpful to
know.
Dan
Norris: The straight answer is that we are in breach and
slightly behind. I do not regard that as a big problem. We are right to
take our time and get it correct, rather than rush and get it wrong. I
hope that the short delay that we have created will not be problematic.
I do not anticipate it being
so. I
shall deal with the questions posed by the hon. Members for Vale of
York and for Upminster at the same time—as best I can, because
there is now a sheaf of paper in front of me, which I shall do my best
to get through. First, let me say that we have to comply with the
groundwater directives. The Committee is not the place to discuss EU
negotiations. Forgive me, but I shall try not to go off on a tangent
and shall stick to what I am finding challenging in any
case. As
septic tanks seemed to be the main focus of many of the questions, I
stress that, although small discharges from isolated domestic dwellings
not connected to the sewerage system—dwellings with septic tanks
and similar facilities—were previously exempted from the
requirement for authorisation, that will not be the case in the longer
term. The intention is that, under the environmental permitting
regulations, discharges from septic tanks of 2 cubic metres or less
would be subject to registration with the Environment Agency as exempt
groundwater activities. Registration would depend on compliance with
basic rules of operation and maintenance and would be free. That is a
consequence of a previous ministerial
decision. Meanwhile,
until 1 January 2012, small discharges—referring back to the
limit of 2 cubic metres per day—will continue to be exempt
unless they are the cause of an environmental problem. For example,
with the pollution of a drinking water supply, which is rare but
occasionally happens, the Environment Agency may serve a notice either
to prohibit the activity or to require a permit to be applied for. That
arrangement will also apply in the case of registered exemptions under
the EPRs. As at present, all small discharges of effluent within a
defined area around a drinking water supply will require a full permit,
subject to an application charge but not to subsistence
charges. The
exemption limit of 2 cubic metres a day is the Environment
Agency’s practical interpretation of the original exemption in
the 1980 directive. The practical
limit is sufficient for the daily needs of a household of up to 10
persons, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster
about the thinking behind that limit. The 1980 groundwater directive
and the 1998 groundwater regulations exempt such discharges, but that
exemption is not sustained in either the water framework directive or
the 2006 directive. The issue was exposed at length in discussions with
the European Parliament. An automatic exemption cannot be included in
the new groundwater regulations, except for a period up to 1 January
2012, recognising that the 1980 directive remains in force until 2013.
The position is slightly complex, but I hope that we are getting there,
bit by
bit. The
system is not new but involves detailed changes as a result of the 2006
groundwater directive, which results from the process of consultation
between the agreed position of the Council of Ministers and the
European Parliament. Negotiations were considered by the scrutiny
committees and, I think, agreed in that form. The website consultation
that took place required e-mails to go out to all interested parties.
Several hundred e-mails were sent, but there were only 31 responses,
which the hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned. As for who
negotiates, there is a dedicated team in DEFRA, supported by the
Environment Agency’s experts and impact assessment consultants.
The proposal and the impact assessment were consulted upon in
2004. On
sewerage systems, if there is evidence of pollution that causes harm to
human health and the environment, there is existing
legislation—the Water Resources Act 1991—to deal with it.
The regulations will not add any requirements. The Environment Agency
can take action against those who pollute. Most well maintained
sewerage systems do not cause a problem, and I can testify to that
since I represent a rural constituency where septic tanks are not
unknown. It is not a new offence to discharge to the ground; that is an
offence under the 1991 Act. It has been the Environment Agency’s
policy not to insist on a permit, except where there is a risk to
drinking water supplies, and I think that is quite an important place
to be
assertive. A
question was asked about whether the approach is scientific or
risk-based. All applications have to be assessed before a permit is
granted. That includes the assessment of ground conditions, the local
hydrology and the potential impact of the proposed
discharge. The
hon. Member for Vale of York asked an important question on costs. I am
concerned that there should not be an unfair or unreasonable pressure
on rural communities, where septic tanks are more likely to be located.
An impact assessment of cost showed that, in relation to the water
framework directive, the new groundwater directive is cost-neutral.
There might be slight increases and slight falls in costs, but overall,
it is cost-neutral. That applies to the transposing regulations. The
regulations before us will make no additional requirements in terms of
charges, and that will include things that are not strictly related to
the question asked by the hon. Lady. Things such as anaerobic
digestates will not require charges
either. On
the cost burdens for householders, there is an exemption, which I have
already mentioned, until 1 January 2012. There is no charge
for registration in
2012. Guidance will be published for consultation in the near future. I
am not sure what “near future” means, but I will write to
the hon. Lady to let her
know. On
the code of practice and notices on the guidance, draft guidance has
already been prepared—just so that the hon. Lady
knows—and will undergo public consultation as soon as possible.
The final guidance will be published shortly thereafter. Again, I refer
to the need to write to her to give her a time scale. Codes of practice
already exist under previous legislation. The 1998 groundwater
regulations refer to specific things such as sheep dip, petrol stations
and solvents. The proposed regulations will not specifically add to the
particular areas of responsibility, but will allow a more flexible
approach to allow control. They will have a slight impact on septic
tanks, but no significant consequence.
The 2006
groundwater directive does not impose significant additional
requirements on the control of agricultural sources of nitrates. The
nitrates directive is a base measure under the water framework
directive, and only where action under the nitrates directive is
inadequate to achieve objectives might additional action be required.
Although the proposed regulations therefore have the potential to
require additional measures over and above those required under the
nitrates directive and also apply to non-agricultural sources of
nitrates, the 2006 groundwater directive does not add further
requirements. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady, but I am happy
to answer in more detail if
necessary. I
want to stress a few positive points, because we are obviously dealing
with concerns. The new regulations are more flexible. That is a good
thing, because they are not restricted to prescriptive lists of
substances. Some substances might cause harm, so even if they were not
on a list, it would clearly be nonsensical not to take notice of and
act on them. The regulations will therefore facilitate a more
risk-based approach to action when necessary, and I think that most
people will agree that that is a sensible thing to do. One should
assess what the problem is and then act on it. There is a
comprehensive, common-sense list of exemptions, which should cater for
most circumstances.
| 
