---

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these technical regulations and for the clear guidance notes that were provided by the department. Not only do we on these Benches welcome the proposals and accept the need for them, but we also note the wide consultation that has taken place with the industry and with other interested parties such as the Atlantic Frontier Environmental Network.

When these draft regulations were discussed in the other place last week, my honourable friend the Member for Salisbury asked the Minister for Industry and Energy a number of questions. Although the Minister responded sympathetically, I am not certain whether he replied to some of them definitively. I shall repeat some of them.

The guidance notes refer to representations being made by members of the public on applications for licences. There seems to be no provision for such representations to be made electronically, even though the industry is going to be required to make its applications by that means. The regulations do not seem to require the applicants to advertise their applications on a website.

It is all very well for an oil company to advertise in the West Highland Free Press, but there may be parties living in other parts of the country for whom that worthy journal is not part of their regular weekly reading.

In his response, the Minister in the other place told my honourable friend:

"I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point about electronic responses".

Has that consideration yet taken place, and if it has what conclusions have been reached?

I am also a little concerned about a further observation of the Minister in another place to the Committee that:

"we must protect the right of people not equipped to respond in that way".

I hope that that does not mean that the Government will refuse to allow that form of response in order to cater for the lowest common denominator. That is apart from the fact that e-mail is becoming an increasingly common form of communication, as the Post Office is finding out to its cost. Facilities are

13 May 2002 : Column 83

available at commercial outlets—the so-called Internet cafés—or at public libraries for members of the public who do not own a PC. Will the Minister assure us unequivocally that the public will be able to respond electronically and tell us where and how that will be made clear to the public? This is an important precedent for future regulations.

The other point raised by my honourable friend concerned the possibility of the use of chemicals at very short notice, when it may be impractical for the operators to apply for permits within the prescribed time limits. That possibility is referred to in the guidance notes. Presumably, that would be as a result of an unforeseen and unforeseeable emergency. The Minister told the Committee that,

"operators should consult my Department as soon as possible".

He went on:

"We have experts available at all times to respond throughout the year. I should perhaps clarify whether that is at all hours of the day and night".

I should be most grateful if the noble Lord were able to give us that clarification now.

The Minister also assured the Committee:

"we will apply these provisions sensibly and flexibly. There is also a defence in the regulations available to operators about what to do if they had made best efforts to inform".—[Official Report, Commons Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8/5/02; cols. 9-10.]

He concluded that passage by saying, "We will clarify that". I assume that he was referring to Regulation 18(2)(b), which says that it shall be a defence to prove that the contravention

"was due to something done as a matter of urgency for the purposes of securing the safety of any person".

I should appreciate that clarification from the Minister today, because I wonder what defence is to be available in an emergency that does not affect the safety of any person, but affects the environment—a major oil spill, perhaps—which might occur totally outside the department's office hours, perhaps at 2 a.m. on Christmas Day.

I repeat that, even with those questions, we welcome the regulations.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I welcome the regulations and the Government's decision to introduce them to reflect their obligations under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic. I look forward with interest to the Minister's responses to the noble Baroness and I shall not repeat some of her questions, which were raised in another place.

Geography obviously plays a significant part in the effects of an oil or chemical spillage. The United Kingdom will be affected not only by what happens off our waters, but also by what happens in other adjacent territories. What action are other relevant countries on continental Europe taking to comply with their obligations under the same convention?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness and the noble

13 May 2002 : Column 84

Lord for the regulations. I shall try to deal with the points that they have raised. The format of the public notice has to cover the use of newspapers, because not everyone has websites, but there is no reason why the company cannot put it on their website. I think that the noble Baroness's point was about the response of people to that. As I understand it, responses to those applications can be made to an official named in the notice by letter, by fax or by e-mail. Only for the notice do we think that newspapers should be used.

The noble Baroness also asked about unforeseen events. We will have experts available at all times, day and night, 365 days a year. That covers the point that she raised. We are prepared to move quickly on that issue.

Other countries are moving on the issue. It has taken a long time to put measures in place. Other countries are moving at a similar pace. Different countries are doing different things. Some can use current legislation and others will need to introduce new legislation.

The point of the regulations is that the permit will be installation-specific. The fundamental point is that the marine environment is not the same throughout. There are different water depths, different currents and different life forms, so the permits will be specific to particular installations.

I hope that that answers the main points that have been raised. I believe that the regulations will add to the protection of the marine environment in a manner that is compatible with the continuing success of this country's oil and gas production. They will fit in well with enhanced existing offshore environmental practices. They have been framed to meet the legitimate concerns of the offshore oil and gas industry and consequently strike a proper balance between those concerns and our international commitments.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he have the answer to my question about what our continental neighbours are doing to comply with the convention?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I covered that in general terms. If it would be helpful, I shall write to the noble Lord setting out specifically what individual countries are doing.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002

7.50 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the regulations laid before the House on 5th March (S.I. 2002/440).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I speak to the Motion standing in my name and explain my angst at the regulations, I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who was to respond to the debate, is unfortunately unable to do so because of

13 May 2002 : Column 85

a death in the family. We have a very able replacement in the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who, since he was appointed to government, has become something of a multi-role combat Peer in that he seems to shift from subject to subject with great ease and great effect.

I am sure that the House would wish to express its condolences to the noble and learned Lord on the death of his father. I would certainly like to move and join in those condolences.

As to my angst, I wish to call attention to a curious lapse in DEFRA's consultation process with regard to Part L of the building regulations concerning certain operations which can be self-certified in areas of the building trade by organisations specifically set up for that purpose. The statutory instrument in question is that recorded on the Order Paper, 2002/440, the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002.

As the House will readily observe, the regulations give effect to four self-certification schemes in the building trade. They are: solid fuel combustion appliances and associated equipment; oil-fired combustion appliances and associated equipment; foul and surface water drainage; and, last but not least, replacement windows. Self-certification means that the operation in question does not have to be inspected and passed by the building inspector of the local authority and is by its nature deregulatory, and therefore to be highly commended.

Highly commended, that is, if there has been wide consultation within the industry and the relevant sector of the industry has set up a suitable scheme to operate the deregulation in question. Before the Government decided to set up a self-certification scheme for the first three operations I have mentioned, they did indeed do just that—not once, but twice—in 1997 and again in 1999. As a result, HETAS, OFTEC and the IOP approved persons schemes came into effect for solid and oil-fired combustion appliances and associated equipment and for foul and surface water drainage respectively. Their appearance in the schedule to the 2002 regulations therefore came as no surprise to anyone.

However, I am reliably informed that in those consultations no mention was made of replacement windows. To many of those in the building industry, these came as a complete surprise. Not even a hint that new glazing was to be covered was given by the department in the three years that have elapsed since the previous consultation in 1999. It therefore comes as some surprise that the regulatory impact assessment states in paragraph 9:1 that:

"The representatives of small businesses were consulted".

Anyone coming fresh, as I did, to these words would assume that they were to be interpreted as meaning that a representative selection of members of the building trade were consulted, probably through their trade organisations. That is certainly true as far as the first three items in the schedule are concerned, but, alas, the same cannot be said of replacement windows. In this connection I observe that the Building Advisory Council, as an agent of government, consulted the House Builders Federation, an

13 May 2002 : Column 86

organisation concerned with new houses. Why on earth should the department consult that federation about replacement windows, a matter of no concern to new building but of obvious concern to other small businesses in the building trade, such as the Federation of Small Businesses or, even more appropriately, the Federation of Master Builders? Neither was consulted on re-fenestration, even though they had been on oil and solid fuel and surface and foul drainage, as indeed they should have been.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I am proud to be a member, decided that even though the regulations are dependent on the Building Act 1984 it would not as a committee complain about the limited exercise of powers. However, that does not prevent me, as a Member of your Lordships' House, from doing so. In my view, the situation I have described comes very close to that. Section 14(3) of the parent Act states:

"Before making any building regulations concerning substantive requirements"—

which of course these are—

"the Secretary of State shall consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee"—

I am sure that the department did—

"and such other bodies as appear to him to be representative of the interests concerned".

I do not want to take a vast amount of time over this. I shall merely ask the Minister this question—why the tunnel vision I have described? I rest my case. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the regulations laid before the House on 5th March (S.I. 2002/440).—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

---