Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 152: 152: Clause 44, page 20, line 2, leave out ““, or presents a significant risk of causing,”” The noble Viscount said: This is quite a different point, which goes with Amendment No. 153. I am told by the local authority associations that the words on page 20 in subsections (4)(b) and (6)(a) to (c)— "““the activity as carried on by that person is causing, or presents a significant risk of causing, serious harm to … human health … the environment … and … the financial interests of consumers””—" have an extremely bad track record. The Environment Act 1995 inserted into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 a whole series of new sections, one of which, Section 98A, deals with contaminated land. It gives powers to local authorities where it appears that the condition of the land by reason of substances in or under it may cause significant harm, or there is a significant possibility of harm being caused by the substance. It goes on to say that, "““what harm is to be regarded to be ‘significant’ shall be determined by guidance””," under Section 78YA—yet another section; they ran out of letters. That was in 1995. This time, it is a Defra matter. The guidance on what is significant has never been issued. It was going to be subject to parliamentary approval but, 13 years later, nothing whatever has happened. I therefore tabled the amendment to see whether I could find out what the Government think, "““significant risk of … serious harm””," actually means, because the Minister’s sister department has failed to do so for 13 years. Can the noble Baroness enlighten us, by any chance? That would be a great help. At the moment, the thing is unenforceable and something needs to be done about it. I beg to move.