European Standing Committee A
Wednesday 14 June 2000
[Mr. Jonathan Sayeed in the Chair]
Environmental Liability White Paper
[Relevant Documents: European Union Document No. 6055/00, a Commission Communication on the precautionary principle.]
10.30 am
Mr. William Cash (Stone): On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. The circumstances in which we come to the Committee could not be allowed to pass without someone registering the strongest possible protest that we are in a Standing Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. A properly constituted quorum of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny decided unequivocally last week the matter should be taken on the Floor of the House.
There seems to be complete contempt for the proceedings of the House. At least the Minister of State has been prepared to come to the Committee, which suggests that the Government acknowledge that the matter is important. When the European Scrutiny Committee decides that a matter should be taken on the Floor of the House, it is because it has deemed that the matter is of legal and political importance, and that all hon. Members have the right to examine in open forum the questions arising from it. We need not compare the merits or demerits of that form of debate compared with a Committee such as this. That right is being denied to the House as a whole.
True, any hon. Member can attend the Committee, but it is clear that, in the real world, there has been an abuse of the system. The way in which the Leader of the House treated the matter at business questions last week, simply announcing that the subject would be debated in Standing Committee, was outrageous. The European Scrutiny Committee is one of the few Committees to enable the House properly to consider matters in line with an all-party Committee recommendation. In that, it is like the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It must follow that, if the Committee says that the Floor of the House is the right forum, that should be the forum.
Convention or political gerrymandering might be a factor. Political gerrymandering has occurred here—the Government do not want the matter to be debated properly on the Floor of the House. As we will discover, an important question arises regarding biotechnology, GM foods, toxic solid waste and the polluter pays principle. The bottom line is that it is a disgrace that the matter is being taken before a Standing Committee.
The Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but it is not a point of order and is not for me.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Unless you rule otherwise, Mr. Sayeed, it might be useful for me to respond briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
The Chairman: Order. I would rather that the Minister did not do that because time is limited.
10.32 am
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to the Committee for the opportunity to debate an important subject. I take account of your ordinance, Mr. Sayeed, on the point of order of the hon. Member for Stone, but I am sure that today's debate represents an opening shot in what will be extensive discussion of a highly technical and detailed issue. The Government do not intend to deny hon. Members a full opportunity to make their views known on the difficult area of environmental liability. I was asked to come to the Committee and I have responded. Of course, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the request that the matter be taken on the Floor of the House, but we are at the scrutiny stage and there will be a later stage. The question of genetically modified organism liability will undoubtedly return for debate on the Floor of the House, as we want it to.
I am grateful for the Committee's report on the document and on our explanatory memorandum. I am also grateful for its highly pertinent questions, on which we have provided a supplementary memorandum dated 5 June, on which it has also reported. As the Committee said, the White Paper is a significant document that raises a host of issues, both political and legal. It stems from a decision made three years ago by the previous Commission, which in turn followed various earlier proposals for EC action in this area that did not come to fruition. The fact that it did not succeed is perhaps a measure of the difficulty of the subject. The main aim of any environmental liability regime is to make the causer of environmental damage pay for remedying that damage, in line with the polluter pays principle, which, as I understand it, is universally supported. In turn, any such regime should encourage greater prevention and precaution, in line with that important principle. The White Paper explores ideas for a regime across the European Union by setting out various options and outlining elements and features that such a regime might include.
The White Paper concludes that the most appropriate action for the Community is a framework directive, which would provide for strict liability for environmental damage that takes the form of contaminated sites, damage to biodiversity and traditional damage—that is, harm to persons or property—when such damage is caused by particular EC-regulated dangerous activities. It would also provide fault-based liability for damage to biodiversity that is caused by non-dangerous activities. The White Paper proposes to make the operator of the relevant activity the liable party.
The White Paper argues that retrospection should be avoided so that only damage that occurs after the entry into force of the EU regime would be caught. Member states should be under a duty to secure remediation of the damage in cases that involve a liable polluter. If the state fails to act or does not act properly, public interest groups should have the right to judicial review and perhaps to sue the party that is responsible for the damage. The White Paper also suggests that public interest groups should have a power to obtain an injunction from the courts in order to prevent damage from occurring, a power to take preventive steps in urgent cases and an entitlement to recover their costs from the party that is responsible for the damage. It discusses alleviation of the plaintiff's burden of proof and possible defences.
As we noted in our explanatory memorandum, the United Kingdom has a variety of regimes, measures and proposals in its domestic law on these matters, in which the concept of environmental liability is already widely applied. For example, we have just introduced in England a new statutory regime for dealing with contaminated land, which places liability for its remediation firmly on the polluter in the first instance. Last year, we improved the regime for dealing with water and groundwater pollution and introduced a new system of works notices to get such damage put right. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, which is currently passing through the House, includes provision to better secure the remediation of damage to sites of special scientific interest by those responsible. In addition to those public law measures, there is also private law, under which people whose interests are directly affected by a case of damage may be able to pursue a claim in the courts for compensation under various torts. Public interest groups can establish standing before the courts in relation to judicial review, and the Government are considering the question of representative actions.
We have systems already, and we can understand the desire to explore arrangements at the EU level, where we know that there are certain gaps. One of the main issues is exactly how EC proposals relate to what we already have, what the costs and benefits of changes would be, and what objectives we want to achieve. I would be the first to recognise that that is not an easy area in which to arrive at quick answers. In fact, the White Paper raises more questions than it answers. We are currently assessing the reactions to our consultations with various interested parties, and preparing a response to the European Commission.
From the initial response, our views will develop as we further explore the proposals and their implications, and as the Commission itself refines and develops its thinking from the fairly broadly expressed ideas in its White Paper. A full regulatory impact assessment will be needed. A draft directive would be the subject of intensive negotiation and debate, both domestically—I am sure that it will be debated on the Floor of the House—and throughout the European Union, which could take a number of years.
That is the background to the proceedings. The Committee's views and questions, and this morning's debate, will be fully taken on board in our further deliberations.
The Chairman: I thank the Minister for the brevity of his statement on this complex issue. I remind the Committee that questions should be brief, succinct and asked one at a time. In that way, each hon. Member will be able to ask a number of questions.
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): I agree with the Minister that this is an important subject. I agree also with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone that the subject should have been dealt with on the Floor of the House. As a result, we have a great many questions.
First, the White Paper originates from a European Parliament request made in 1994, which was debated by the European Commission in 1997. Only three years later it resulted in a White Paper, yet I understand that the European Commission hopes to issue a directive by the end of the year. That seems unduly hasty, because, as the Minister admitted, the White Paper raises many more questions than it answers. The Minister's memorandum is littered with complaints about its vagueness and the doubts that it raises. What is the Minister's view of the time scale, and is his Department pressing the European Commission to think about the matter over a longer period?
Secondly, the Minister outlined a great many pieces of United Kingdom legislation on environmental protection. The White Paper attacks the principle of subsidiarity. What does the Minister think that the UK might be doing wrong that could be remedied by a European-wide directive?
| 
