I make no apology for following my noble friend Lady Gardner on the same point. We all recognise that the local authority emergency planning services have a responsibility put on them by these regulations. It is perfectly fair that plans must be put in place in case of an emergency. To get those plans in place, the co-operation not only of the extractive industry is needed, but that of other third parties as well. It is this issue that lies at the heart of our concern. Paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 20, set out on page 162, is quite explicit that the Environment Agency as the regulator must refuse an application relating to a category A mining waste facility on receipt of a notice from the emergency planner, the local authority, stating that the operator has not provided the necessary information. It might not be the operator; it might be other people or third parties.
The local authorities will be unsure, when taking on these new responsibilities, whether they know precisely what they are asking for. There is only a matter of months until the permit dates so in that situation one would expect there to be collaboration with the local authorities and the extractive industries to determine just what information is needed. I am quite convinced that the china clay industry and any other extractor would wish to provide the information required. If, however, the local emergency planning services are not yet clear, their instinct will invariably be to cover themselves by putting in a precautionary note saying that they are not sure they have the information required. Therefore, under paragraph 14(2) with no ability to appeal or mediate, the regulator—the Environment Agency—simply has no option but to refuse a permit, which effectively closes a business down.
Members of the Committee will recognise that that is draconian. It is reasonable to ask the Minister to assure us that some reconsideration could be given to this in the timescale, recognising that we are not asking for the extractive industries to be exempt from emergency planning. That is not the point. It is simply that if there is uncertainty as to what is required and time runs out, it seems unreasonable for the business to be closed down. I hope the Minister can give us those assurances.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Selborne
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 2 March 2010.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c378GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:16:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625559
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625559
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625559