---

Energy Bill

moved Amendment No. 11: 11: Clause 29, page 16, line 8, at end insert ““unduly”” The noble Lord said: This group relates to the disclosure of commercially sensitive information. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 simply change the wording of Clause 29(2)(b) to strengthen the protection of commercial interests. We propose to do that by removing the unreasonable degree test. We do not want to place the Secretary of State in the position of deciding at what point interference into commercial interest is unreasonable. The change in wording is slight, but we on this side feel that to have the subsection state that the information should not unduly prejudice them is a sufficient condition for protection. Amendment No. 13 would have a more substantive impact than perhaps Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. It would change the period of confidentiality of commercially sensitive information otherwise due to be included in the public register. As it stands, the Bill would exclude from the register for four years information that, "““would prejudice to an unreasonable degree a person's commercial interests””." Projects of the nature that we are considering are typically very long term. Four years seems to us to be an inadequate protection. We appreciate that access to environmental information can be important to achieving sustainable development because it fosters a public role in decision-making in a transparent and helpful fashion. However, that obviously must be balanced with the fact that some information is crucial to business competitiveness and to national security. The Minister in the other place noted that the period of confidentiality could be extended at the Secretary of State's discretion following an application by the person who might be affected. But that, we believe, is inadequate. We support a flexible system, but that flexibility should be rooted in something that already provides adequate protection and can be adjusted when necessary. Four years does not seem to us to provide the adequate base position upon which changes or extensions might be granted. Commercial confidence depends on the knowledge that a participant's interest can be protected and an extension, purely at the whim of the Secretary of State, might not be appropriate. The Minister in the other place outlined the safeguard; that is, the Government's, "““usual reasonable approach to these matters””.—[Official Report, Energy Bill Committee, 26/2/08; col. 255.]" That seems to me to be a matter open to debate. Regardless of this Government's reputation for reasonableness on these matters, it is important to note that this is legislation for future Governments of whatever colour. To depend on a future Secretary of State to be reasonable does not seem the best course of action when the stakes are this high. A lack of commercial confidence could wreck these projects and protecting the information that needs to be protected is part of the foundation of this confidence. I understand that the timeframe of this clause comes from the Food and Environment Protection Act, but does the Minister not think that, given the very long-term nature of many of these projects, the four-year period should be reconsidered? What consultation has occurred with respect to this time period? Does the Minister not see that there are substantial differences in the use of the time period governing the Food and Environment Protection Act and this Bill? A letter sent by the Government to my honourable friend Charles Hendry in the other place outlined the process to some extent, but they admit that the decision is up to the Minister. Is there anywhere to which these bodies will be able to appeal if their application for an extended period is denied by a Minister? While the decision as to what is an adequate period is a subjective judgment, and we have suggested 10years, we on these Benches feel strongly that the mechanisms regarding confidentiality need to be seriously reviewed and rethought. I beg to move.