Environment Bill

Written evidence submitted by News Media Association (EB41)

Environment Bill

Introduction

The News Media Association (NMA) is the voice of UK national, regional and local newspapers in all their print and digital forms. Our members publish around 1,000 news media titles – from The Sun, The Guardian, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror to the Yorkshire Post, Kent Messenger, Monmouthshire Beacon and the Manchester Evening News. Collectively these publishers are by far the biggest investors in news in the UK, accounting for 58 per cent of the total spend on news provision in this country.

Recycling and the UK newspaper industry

The UK newspaper industry has embraced recycling to an extent unmatched by any other European country; UK publishers currently use all the domestic recycled stock available to them and have clearly demonstrated their green credentials. The newspaper is a sustainable product. If it is recovered clean and dry, uncontaminated by organics, it can be re-used again and again in fresh newsprint. However, there are limits to the level of recycling that can be achieved within the current domestic capacity.

The first producer responsibility agreement that the industry reached with the UK Government on targets for recycled content for newspapers was in 1991. Since that time the voluntary scheme has been highly effective, leading to significant improvements in the levels of recycled content in newsprint. In 1991 the level was only just over 28%, and a target of 40% was set, which was to be met by the year 2000. In the event this was reached four years ahead of schedule. In April 2000 newspaper publishers entered into a new voluntary agreement, setting targets of 60% by the end of 2001, 65% by the end of 2003 and 70% by the end of 2006. All these levels were achieved ahead of the target dates, and since that time the agreement has been maintained on an informal basis. The position is monitored by the NMA via an independent audit undertaken every six months. In 2013 the recycled content ratio reached a high of 82.2%. However, the subsequent closure of domestic mills (which use 100% recycled waste paper in their newsprint production) has inevitably had a negative impact on the figure.

We note that the provisions in Schedule 4 of the Environment Bill regarding producer responsibility essentially replicate those in the Environment Act 1995. The Secretary of State has the power to introduce regulations imposing obligations on specified persons in respect of specified products or materials. We would take this opportunity to urge that the current voluntary arrangements for the newspaper sector – which have been demonstrably effective – remain in place going forward.

Restrictions on the disclosure of information

Please find a briefing prepared for the Commons 2nd Reading on 26 February 2020 by the Campaign for Freedom of Information [1] , which we endorse. There are concerns over restrictions on disclosure of information in the Environment Bill. To reassure the public – who will no longer be able to take the government to the European courts over any failures – there is to be a watchdog, namely the Office for Environmental Protection [OEP]. The OEP will not enjoy the same powers as the European courts, its decisions will not necessarily be binding and its board members will be chosen by ministers. The central concerns identified by the Campaign for Freedom of Information are as follows:

· Clause 40 of the Bill contains broad prohibitions on the disclosure of information about some of the functions of the OEP and may override public rights of access to information under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). The Bill should be amended to include a specific statement that the prohibitions do not affect the EIR right to information (save on confidentiality grounds as set out at paragraph 347 of the Explanatory Notes).

· The Bill would prohibit the disclosure of information about OEP investigations into suspected failures by public authorities to comply with environmental law. The prohibition would only be lifted once the OEP decides to take no further action. If and when the prohibition ceases to apply the status of the information in question would be changed, treating it as being held "in connection with confidential proceedings". This would bring it within the scope of an EIR exception and make it more likely that the information could be withheld. That should not be necessary; existing EIR exceptions protect information where disclosure is shown to be harmful and not in the public interest, an important safeguard against unjustified secrecy. The ambiguity could be clarified by an express statement that nothing in clause 40 affects the operation of the EIR.

· Under clause 24 a prohibition would apply to information which public bodies supply to the OEP to assist it with its functions. The information could only be disclosed with the consent of the body supplying it. If the prohibition on disclosure trumps the EIR right of access, this information could be withheld indefinitely.

· The definition of "environmental law" in clause 43 expressly excludes legislation which is concerned with "disclosure of or access to information". The Explanatory Notes state that this is to avoid overlap between the OEP and the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the EIR. However, this would leave lacunae, since there are statutory requirements to provide access to environmental information for which the ICO has no responsibility (such as laws requiring public authorities to maintain public registers of pollution). The Bill should be amended to bring such matters within the OEP’s remit.

These issues are discussed in greater detail in the Campaign’s briefing note, which we commend to your attention.

April 2020