Clause 28
Energy Bill
4:15 pm

Charles Hendry (Shadow Minister, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Wealden, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 28, page 15, line 8, leave out ‘4’ and insert ‘10’.

This simple amendment would change the period of confidentiality from four to 10 years. Essentially, this is a probing amendment that we have been asked to propose by those involved in the industry. The Bill currently states that information can be excluded from the register if it would prejudice to an unreasonable degree a person’s commercial interest. However, that requirement expires after four years. In relation to the issues that we are talking about and the technologies that are involved, it seems that commercial confidentiality should in many cases last for more than four years. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify why four years has been chosen when it might be appropriate to have a longer period in which that information could be treated as confidential.

Malcolm Wicks (Minister of State (Energy), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Croydon North, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendments. For the benefit of other Committee members, I will explain what clause 28 sets out to do. I will then say why I believe that the amendment to extend the period of time for which information excluded from the register of carbon dioxide licence is presumed to be commercially sensitive is unnecessary.

Clause 28 requires the relevant regulatory authority to maintain a public register of specified information related to carbon dioxide storage licences. That provision is in keeping with the principles of public access to information on environmental matters. Access to environmental information has long been seen by the Government as essential to achieving sustainable development because an informed public can play an active role in effective decision making. The requirement for a public register replicates existing arrangements under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985—indeed, I recall that it is under part 2 of that Act. The information to be included in a public register will be set out in regulations and may include, for example, details of the licences issued and the parties to such licences, licences that have been revoked or modified, enforcement action taken, and other prescribed types of information. As with 1985 Act, suitable protections will be put in place to exclude from the register commercially sensitive information and information that prejudices national security interests.

It will be up to the Secretary of State to decide what information should be excluded on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. There is a presumption that information that is excluded will remain excluded for only four years, but that period can be extended at the Secretary of State’s discretion, on application by the person whose commercial interests are affected.

In tabling the amendment, the hon. Gentleman wishes to extend to 10 years the period for which information is presumed to be excluded. However, the amendment is unnecessary for two reasons. First, 10 years is perhaps excessive, and the four-year period in the Bill strikes the right balance between ensuring that companies’ commercial interests are not unduly prejudiced and protecting the public’s right to get at the information. I stress again that the clause replicates the equivalent provision in the earlier Food and Environmental Protection Act, which has worked successfully for a number of years.

Secondly, if it transpires that information is still sensitive after four years, the Bill will contain adequate safeguards. Subsection (4) gives the Secretary of State the power to decide, on application by the operator, whether the information should continue to be excluded after the four-year period. That important provision will allow for periodic reassessment of the excluded information and will help to ensure that information will continue to be protected where there are sound grounds of commercial sensitivity for doing so. Our proposed approach encourages the flexibility necessary to maintain the balance of interests for and against disclosure.

Charles Hendry (Shadow Minister, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Wealden, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister, and that is very helpful. In the event that the company involved wanted the period to be extended, but the Secretary of State did not, the Secretary of State’s wish would presumably prevail. What would be the process for reconciling such differences of opinion?

Malcolm Wicks (Minister of State (Energy), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Croydon North, Labour)

If there is a more formal process, my increasingly long letter will contain the answer. One would rather hope, however, that the company’s views could be fully taken into account through discussion and consultation.

Notwithstanding that, I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance that the Bill already contains safeguards, that we can go beyond the four years if necessary and that we would apply our usual reasonable approach to these matters.

Charles Hendry (Shadow Minister, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Wealden, Conservative)

I was doing quite well at following the Minister until his final sentence. He referred to the Government’s usual reasonableness, but that is not the term that springs to mind when talking about the way in which the Government operate. Obviously, that is a reflection not on the current Government, but on all Governments.

The Minister has given us assurances, and I would be grateful if he could spell out in slightly more detail how the process would work if the Government felt that it was not necessary to continue excluding information from the register, but the company involved felt that it was. I would also be grateful if he could spell out in his letter how long the subsequent periods might be—one year, two years or three years?

None the less, the Minister’s response will give the industry assurances about how the process will move forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.