Deeds not words How recent revisions to the Statutory Guidance have weakened the protection provided Howard Price, Principal Policy Officer, CIEH

Deeds not words How recent revisions to the Statutory Guidance have weakened the protection provided What is the Statutory Guidance? - the principle piece of procedural guidance to regulators - made under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act local authorities must act in accordance with it (quasi- legislation) - originally made in 2000 – additions made in substantially revised in April 2012

Deeds not words How recent revisions to the Statutory Guidance have weakened the protection provided Why did Defra revise it? - `major flaws` - `undermined the effectiveness of the regime` - `created regulatory uncertainty` but the real reason was the failure to deliver policy-compliant technical guidance which would `represent contaminant concentrations which may pose unacceptable risks to health`

Deeds not words How recent revisions to the Statutory Guidance have weakened the protection provided How did Defra revise it? What`contaminated`means is no longer based on `the amount of pollutant…which a human receptor might take in…would represent an unacceptable intake…assessed on the basis of its toxicological properties` but on whether `the authority is aware that similar land or situations are known or are strongly suspected…to have caused such harm before`

Deeds not words How recent revisions to the Statutory Guidance have weakened the protection provided How did Defra revise it? In addition, -where the decision is not clear-cut, the authority should consider the social and environmental costs of remediation - `if it is established that land is at or close to normal levels…it should usually not be considered further`. - other changes, e.g. - to `significant harm` - `the …authority should consider the number of people who might be exposed to the risk…` - purported restrictions on investigations

Deeds not words How recent revisions to the Statutory Guidance have weakened the protection provided Conclusions The revised text fails to meet its stated objectives Its justification was incredible, the changes are not only poorly crafted but are reckless in their effect In particular, the line between `contaminated` and not `contaminated`- between unacceptable risk and (remember) still some risk - remains as unclear as before