LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 31 October 1990)

§ Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 1A to 3A.

I welcome the Valdez principles as a voluntary mechanism of corporate self-governance with the goals of sustaining our fragile environment for future generations. That was the goal of those who 1853 established them. But they are not appropriate to the particular pollution control systems set out in Part I of the Bill.

There is nothing wrong with (a) (the minimisation of pollution) as a general statement of intent, except that it does not belong here. We have already provided for something much more specific and stringent in the Bill. We have provided in Clause 7(2) of the Bill that the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost must be used, not to minimise pollution but to prevent it. Only if releases cannot be prevented will they be minimised. And in all cases BATNEEC must be used to render all releases harmless. I cannot accept an amendment which would confuse and weaken the more specific and stringent measures that we have already provided for in the Bill.

Subsection (d) refers to the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste. I have already explained how BATNEEC will be used to prevent or minimise releases and to render them all harmless. But there is a mention of the acceptable disposal of waste. We have 50 clauses in Part II which provide for the acceptable disposal of waste, including measures to promote recycling.

The amendment concerns the marketing of products. Here too the Government are pressing for an EC wide eco-labelling scheme to be introduced by the end of 1991. And if consensus within an acceptable time proves impossible, we have already stated that we will take our own steps to introduce a British labelling scheme. The amendment adds nothing to that.

The amendment refers to public access to information. It talks about providing "adequate" information to employees and enforcement agencies. I do not like to think in those terms. Enforcing authorities will not need to be directed by the Secretary of State to obtain "adequate" information from the operators of processes. They will want that information anyway to do their job. And having got that information we have made it quite clear, through the registers set up under the Bill, and by our leading role in the agreement of an EC directive on access to information earlier this year, that the public must have a right to the information held by the enforcing authorities. It is my belief that the role of the public in monitoring environmental information will be one of the most effective stimuli to improving the environment.

Finally, there is environmental auditing. Environmental auditing, as the UK environmental groups who considered the Valdez principles at their seminar recognised, is growing apace. We made it clear in the White Paper that the spread of environmental auditing is something we encourage, given the role it can play in helping firms improve their environmental (and business) performance.

We suggested that businesses should review all aspects of the business that may affect the environment; identify ways to improve the firm's environmental performance; assess the costs of all the possible actions identified and the benefits to be gained; set out a broad policy statement of the 1854 business's broad environmental objectives; involve all staff; publish the environmental performance in the annual report; and so on. But the Government's view is that this should be on a voluntary basis. We do not regard it as helpful for government to be prescriptive about when or how the technique is to be used.

The development of environmental audits is most assured by encouraging individual companies to adapt the techniques best suited to their particular circumstances. The voluntary nature of the technique, as it has been developed by businesses, has encouraged a positive, objective and self-critical approach. The techniques are still developing.

It is beyond question that these amendments would make Part I of the Bill an unworkable muddle. As I have already indicated, some of the principles are already incorporated in the provisions of Part I—for instance waste minimisation. The vague wording of the amendment would cut across the precise wording of Clause 7 and would create confusion. Others of the principles are directly contrary to the provisions of Part I: for instance, the requirement to take account of worker health and safety. Because there is a separate legislative system for worker health and safety with its dedicated enforcement agency, the Bill explicitly excludes worker health and safety factors from IPC. Energy efficiency raises similar considerations. Some of the principles are completely alien to IPC, and if applied would result in the whole system breaking down. These include the requirements to take account of the sourcing of raw materials to ensure sustainability, and the imposition of strict liability on process operators.

Far from strengthening Part I these amendments will weaken it and paralyse it. I urge the House not to insist on these amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.

Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered IA to 3A.— (Baroness Blatch.)

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I immediately acknowledge that the Commons disagreed to the amendments giving their reason as public expenditure. It is therefore entirely inappropriate for us to seek to overturn the view that the other place took.

Perhaps I can say that I was fascinated by the contrast between the Minister's speech and the debate which took place in another place on Monday. She examined the amendment, which was introduced at Report stage in your Lordships' House. Although I did not agree with her, at least she took the matter seriously and paid some attention to what the amendment was attempting to achieve.

In another place our amendments were misrepresented by the Government and by Government Back-Benchers. They said that the amendments would involve the creation of an environmental protection agency. I am totally in favour of the creation of an environmental protection agency. But, the Minister made clear, our amendments do no such thing. As the 1855 Minister did not make clear, our amendments help those who require authorisation under the integrated pollutions control system to understand what principles they should adopt in seeking authorisation. That is what the amendments do. That is entirely permissive. It was generally agreed not only in the United States, where these principles were first drafted, but also in this country among businesses that the kind of detail set out in Amendment No. 3 is entirely helpful to business and in no way restrictive.

I am sorry that the matter should have been taken that way by Government. I am sorry that the Government should be adopting a stance in the matter which is against the interests of business and against the interests of environmental protection. However, for the reasons I stated it is not a matter we shall insist on.