§ Mr. BurdenTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to introduce a mechanism for appeal against inclusion on the contaminated land register;
(2) what plans he has to introduce mechanisms for ensuring removal from the contaminated land register of land which has been cleaned up and is no longer contaminated;
(3) what plans he has to support the investigation and clean up of land included on the contaminated land register; and what funding arrangements will be available, with particular reference to cases where the polluter is no longer in existence;
(4) what guidance he proposes to issue on the relationship between parts A and B of the contaminated land register; and how they are to be cross referenced for ease of inspection;
(5) what steps he is taking to ensure that unlicensed and unrecorded contaminated land users are identified in the contaminated land register.
§ Mr. MacleanUnder our current proposals, on which we completed a period of consultation in early October, local authorities would be required under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to compile public registers of land which is, or has been, subject to contaminative uses. The proposals include prior notification of owners and occupiers of sites which are to be registered, with arrangements for them to challenge factual errors before registration takes place.
As it is proposed that registers should record the facts of past or present contaminative uses of sites rather than actual contamination, it would not be consistent to remove sites from registers after contamination had been treated. Complete decontamination is in any case rare, and there can, in some circumstances, be continuing effects on water or adjacent land.
Financial assistance is available to local authorities in the form of supplementary credit approvals for the costs of investigation of contamination and of any necessary remedial measures where it is not practicable to recover the costs of treatment from those responsible. Local authorities can still bid for approvals for 1992–93.
Both parts of the registers would record only sites subject to contaminative uses which would be listed in regulations. Part B would record those registered sites which had been investigated or treated. The regulations defining the particulars to be included in registers would set out the criteria for inclusion in parts A and B.
18WGuidance to be published on information requirements for registers would recommend a method of cross-referencing between the two parts.
The registers would contain sufficient information to identify each site and its contaminative use or uses. The past or current identity, licensing or authorisation of any particular site user would occur, if at all, only incidentally to the purposes of the register. Licensing authorities might well refer to registers and make inquiries about the status of any current use or user of a site.
I am grateful to the more than 400 organisations and individuals who have responded to our current proposals. We are fully considering the various representations we have received, and will decide in the light of them our next steps in relation to the powers in section 143.