Environment Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 24, page 14, line 29, at end insert—

“(g) a Scottish local authority,

(h) a Scottish housing association, or

(i) a Scottish environmental regulator.”

This amendment seeks to ensure clear reporting lines in Scotland and to ensure that the OEP’s remit does not clash with that of the Scottish regulator.

This amendment—I touched on this on Tuesday—continues the intent of amendment 188. Its aim is to ensure that Scottish public bodies do not duplicate their chain of authority, that they report to the correct bodies and that the devolved settlement around environmental protection is protected. It would basically ensure that the devolved nature of the Administration in Scotland was respected, that the reporting lines for those duties were clear and that the remit of the Office for Environmental Protection did not clash with that of the Scottish regulator.

I hope the Minister will see that muddying the waters of authority in the present way is rather unhelpful, and I hope he and his colleagues will see fit to support what would be a very reasonable addition to the Bill.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I would like to reassure her that the Bill respects all the devolution settlements, including the Scotland Act. Therefore, the duty to co-operate does not apply to Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament or any person carrying out devolved functions, and the public authorities listed in the amendment are already excluded from the duty to co-operate to the extent that they will be carrying out devolved functions. That means that these public authorities would not be required to share any information with the OEP in relation to their devolved functions in Scotland. Therefore, it is not necessary to list them as excluded bodies for the purposes of clause 24.

I support the hon. Member’s intention to avoid overlaps with the functions of the equivalent Scottish governance body. That is why we have appropriately sought to limit the OEP’s remit to reserved matters, while avoiding any devolved matters that would appropriately be dealt with by that other body. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I am just trying to establish this from the Minister: all these bodies are included in the reference to the Scottish Government—to “the Scottish Ministers”. I think that that is what the Minister is saying. If that is indeed the case, although I stick to my point that all matters of the environment should be under the aegis of the Scottish Government, I am content to withdraw my amendment at this point, but I might revisit it on Report and Third Reading. We will, of course, be speaking to other amendments relating to the same matter later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Monitoring and reporting on environmental improvement plans and targets

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 25, page 15, line 26, at end insert

“including setting out what action will be taken”.

This is a fairly simple and straightforward amendment, which I hope will be taken in a fairly simple and straightforward manner. In subsections (9) and (10) of clause 25, there is provision for the Secretary of State to do certain things. By the way, I cannot resist emphasising that on this occasion the Secretary of State “must” do them. Subsection (9) states:

“The Secretary of State must—

(a) respond to a report under this section, and

(b) lay before Parliament, and publish, a copy of the response.”

Subsection (10) states:

“Where a report under this section contains a recommendation for how progress could be improved, the response must address that recommendation.”

But the clause does not include a provision for setting out what action the Secretary of State might take in response to that report. Amendment 98 would add the words,

“including setting out what action will be taken”.

It would be a prudent addition to the Bill, ensuring that when the Secretary of State is responding to an annual reporting process, he or she responds to the fact not just that there is a report, but that there is a report and that action should be taken. The Secretary of State ought to record at the same time as responding to the report what actions he or she is going to undertake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I agree that it is of great importance that the OEP should be able to hold public authorities to account, and that all parties should have certainty about its remit. I assure hon. Members, however, that the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to ensure both those things.

Regarding amendment 117, we have deliberately taken a broad approach to defining a public authority as

“a person carrying out any function of a public nature”,

subject to a number of specific exclusions. The same approach is used in a number of other Acts, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and, more recently, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. It is, therefore, an approach with which the courts are familiar.

The existing definition already covers UK Ministers and Government Departments, local authorities, arm’s length bodies such as the Environment Agency, and all other bodies that carry out public functions. It is therefore unnecessary to list specific types of public authority in the Bill, as they are already captured. Furthermore, by including the term “public body” without defining it further, this amendment would introduce a lack of clarity about who and what is covered by this particular new element of the definition.

I reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith that the Bill respects the devolution settlements, including the Scotland Act 1998. Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament and any person carrying out devolved functions have been excluded from the remit of the OEP. The public authorities listed in amendment 191 are, therefore, already excluded from the remit of the OEP, to the extent that they are carrying out devolved functions, so it is not necessary to list them as excluded bodies for the purposes of clause 28. I support her intention of avoiding overlaps with the equivalent Scottish governance body, Environmental Standards Scotland. That is why we have appropriately sought to limit the OEP’s remit to reserved matters, while avoiding any devolved matters that would appropriately be dealt with by that body.

In conclusion, I hope that Members are reassured that the definition is fit for purpose. It both avoids overlaps with bodies carrying out devolved functions, and ensures that the OEP has oversight over all relevant public authorities. As such, I politely ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, to withdraw the amendment.

[Deidre Brock]

I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s comments. He has basically given me the same assurance as he gave for amendment 190—that all the bodies covered in the amendment are already covered by references to either “(d) a devolved legislature” or “(e) the Scottish Ministers”. I am happy with that assurance and will not press amendment 191.

[Dr Whitehead]

Likewise, although we think it would be a good idea to have the words in amendment 117 in the Bill, we are a little reassured by what the Minister has said, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Complaints

[Deidre Brock]

I beg to move amendment 192, in clause 29, page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment would allow public bodies to report the actions of other public bodies where they are at fault.

The amendment has come about because it seems a little strange to me that public bodies would be excluded from the reporting side of the system, particularly as public bodies might be reckoned to be rather more likely to receive knowledge about breaches. If public bodies should be held to account, why is it sensible for them to not aid in holding other public bodies to account? Reports made by those carrying out public functions are not likely to be less valid, or less based on true concern, so I do not feel they should be discounted. I am keen to hear the Minister’s response, because, as I say, it seems a strange part of the Bill.

[Leo Docherty]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling her amendment. It is of course important that the OEP be aware of potential breaches of environmental law, and the power to receive complaints is an important element of that. However, it would not be appropriate for one public authority to be able to submit a complaint to the OEP about another public authority; it would amount to one part of the government system complaining about another. There are more appropriate ways for public authorities to resolve such disputes.

Public authorities are expected to work together constructively to resolve any instances of alleged non-compliance. For example, the Government’s code of good practice is clear that Government Departments and arm’s length bodies should

“develop constructive working relationships based on trust, respect and shared values.”

Furthermore, if a public authority has a specific role in regulating other public authorities, mechanisms will already be in place to enable the relevant bodies to enforce the relevant regimes. For example, when a local authority applies to the Environment Agency for an environmental permit and is subject to permit conditions, the Environment Agency already has powers to take the necessary enforcement action under existing legislation if the local authority fails to abide by the conditions.

There are also relevant precedents for our approach, which is broadly similar to that in the Local Government Act 1974 in relation to what is now called the local government and social care ombudsman. In that Act, public authorities are also excluded from submitting complaints to the ombudsman.

I note that a person who works for a public authority would still be able to submit a complaint in a personal capacity, rather than on behalf of their organisation. As such, I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that the provision in clause 29(4) is appropriate, and ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Deidre Brock]

I am not entirely convinced by the Minister’s response. My point about public bodies being more likely to hear of potential breaches from other public bodies still stands, but I will reflect a little more on what he has said. I will withdraw the amendment, but I might revisit it in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Investigations

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 30, page 18, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”

Where the OEP carries out an investigation this amendment seeks to ensure that it is made public.

This is another “may” and “must” amendment, which draws attention to an interesting passage of “mays” and “musts” in this clause that culminates in letting the OEP off. Subsection (1) states:

“The OEP may carry out an investigation under this section if it receives a complaint”

made under the previous section. Subsection (2) states that it

“may carry out an investigation under this section without having received such a complaint if it has information that, in its view, indicates that…a public authority may have failed to comply with environmental law, and…if…the failure would be a serious failure.”

So it can carry out an investigation.

However, subsection (4) states:

“The OEP must notify the public authority of the commencement of the investigation.”

So there is a requirement and a duty on the OEP to tell the public authority what it is doing about the investigation. Not only must it tell the public authority, but under subsection (5) it must

“prepare a report on the investigation and provide it to the public authority.”

Then, subsection (8) states that the report should set out

“whether the OEP considers that the public authority has failed to comply with environmental law…the reasons the OEP came to that conclusion, and…any recommendations the OEP may have”.

So there is quite a powerful set of instructions to the OEP as to what it may do when it carries out an investigation into a public authority and how it is supposed to prepare a report. It must set out the things that I have just cited.

After all that, subsection (9) states:

“The OEP may publish the report or parts of it.”

Or it may not; it may keep it to itself and put it in a cupboard. Having done all that, the OEP is not required to do anything about it. However, subsection (10) states:

“If the public authority is not a Minister of the Crown, the OEP must also…notify the…Minister of the commencement of the investigation, and…provide the relevant Minister with the report prepared under subsection (5).”

So the OEP must provide the Minister with something if the public authority is not a Minister of the Crown, but it does not have to publish the report. It is not clear whether the Minister has to do anything if the OEP does not, although the OEP, instead of leaving the report in the cupboard, might send it across the Minister’s desk.

We therefore have a circularity that ends in a dead end, if it is possible to conceive of such a thing. That concerns me, because if I were the interim chair of the OEP and I was not completely au fait with everything that it ought to do or not do, I would take that passage to mean that the OEP does not actually have to do very much. I do not think that is good enough; the OEP should be bound by what it is required to do in the case of these investigations.