House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Energy Bill |
Energy Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 21 February 2008(Afternoon)[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]Energy BillClause 3Licences
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, at end
insert
(4) (a) The
Secretary of State shall consult with relevant environmental bodies,
particularly in relation to marine plans, when granting
licences.
(b)
environmental bodies are defined as government
departments and their agencies with particular responsibility for
environmental issues..[Steve
Webb.]
1
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that with this we are
taking amendment No. 20, in clause 17, page 9, line 20, at end
insert
(4) (a) The
Secretary of State shall consult with relevant environment bodies,
particularly in relation to marine plans, when granting
licences.
(b)
environmental bodies are defined as government
departments and their agencies with particular responsibility for
environmental
issues..
I
understand that Mrs. Humble said that in view of the wide
range of the debate on these amendments, she was not inclined to permit
a debate on clause stand part. I do not intend to depart from her
guidancecowards way
out.
The
Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks):
Thank you,
Mr. Amess. I welcome you to the Chair for the business part
of our Committee. Before the Committee adjourned, I was saying that I
appreciate the commendable intention behind the amendments but, because
of the existing environmental protections that I outlined, I consider
them unnecessary. In my view, these matters should be dealt with under
existing environmental laws. Those can and will be amended as necessary
to ensure that we continue to have a robust regime that ensures that
relevant controls are in
place.
In
summary, any approvals granted for an offshore gas or carbon dioxide
storage project will contain conditions, where necessary, to protect
the environment. In granting any approvals, the Secretary of State will
have had to consult the relevant environmental bodies. I should make it
clear that in our role as the licensing authority for petroleum
extraction, we have been considering such environmental issues for many
years and have built up considerable expertise, which will be applied
to the new regimes under the Bill.
I hope that I have provided
some reassurance to hon. Members that the environment is being, and
will continue to be, adequately protected, which of course we are very
keen to see. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Northavon will
withdraw the
amendment.
A number
of issues were raised about the marine environment, and understandably
and usefully so, given policy developments in that area. The hon.
Member for Northavon asked in particular about the interaction between
this Bill and the proposed marine Bill. We have already had some
dialogue on that matter involving my hon. Friend the Member for
Sherwood as well. The marine Bill will not change the current licensing
arrangements in respect of offshore methane gas storage, as those will
remain with my
Department.
As I
mentioned, my Department has a large, dedicated offshore environment
and decommissioning unit, which includes a specific inspectorate. The
unit regulates the offshore oil and gas and renewables industries, in
the context of sustainable development, with a raft of legislation for
the protection of the environment. Specifically, that unit liaises
closely, where necessary, with the Marine Fisheries Agency, although
that body is not a statutory consultee. However, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Sherwood outlined, the marine Bill has not yet been
published and certain matters have still to be decided. He made
sensible and practical points about time
scales.
The
hon. Member for Northavon asked whether offshore gas storage would be
subject to the requirements of the strategic environmental assessment
process. I can assure him that that has been scoped into the next
strategic environmental assessment, which is due to commence this
year.
Several
hon. Members raised issues relating to the Crown Estate. The hon.
Member for Wealden asked whether the Crown Estate had any role in
statutory nuisance issues. To the extent that statutory and common
nuisance apply to CO2 storage activities offshore, either
the operator or the Crown Estate could be liable. That would depend on
the specific circumstances in which the nuisance occurred. It would be
up to the Crown Estate to indemnify itself against any potential
liability in the lease or authorisation that it would grant to the
operators.
The hon.
Member for Northampton, South asked whether the need for a Crown Estate
lease and a licence from the Department for Business, Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform would place an undue burden on developers. We do not
believe that to be the case: the creation of a new tailor-made
licensing regime has been welcomed by the industry. The system that we
are putting in place is analogous to the onshore area where a developer
would need to seek agreement with the landowner for the site
development, as well as consents under the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990. That is the right
approach.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test expressed concerns about
the Crown Estates position to insist on unreasonable lease
terms. The Crown Estate is under a statutory obligation not to exploit
its monopoly position under the Crown Estate Act 1961. The Crown Estate
has extensive experience of administering offshore rights, and it is
working effectively in relation to offshore renewable energy
zones.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West sought an assurance that
the licensing process would not result in unnecessary delays. We will
be consulting industry on the application process to ensure that it is
as smooth as possible. However, we mentioned earlier in our debate that
environmental considerations will need to be taken into account to
ensure that we comply with environmental legislation before issuing
licences.
I feel
that, both this morning and this afternoon, we have had a reasonable
dialogue on the subject. In view of my reassurances, I wonder whether
the hon. Member for Northavon, who initiated an important and
significant debate, would
nevertheless
Albert
Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): I was a
little late arriving and I wonder whether the Minister has had the
opportunity to look into the question of whether the Welsh Assembly
Government will be a statutory consultee or whether it will be able to
make its own legislation.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I apologise to my hon. Friend for not covering that
point. Would he be happy for me to cover it later or, if necessary, in
writing? I can see the importance of the
matter.
Charles
Hendry (Wealden) (Con): I asked the Minister who would be
responsible for assessing the geological safety of the proposed storage
areas and who would carry out subsequent assessments. I wonder whether
he has had a chance to consider the matter and whether this would be an
appropriate moment to respond to those
questions.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I remember the hon. Gentleman raising those
matters, and I apologise for not covering the point. Again, I shall
respond either later or in writing. Of course, it is vital territory.
Our inspectorate will receive training to cope with the new
technologies. Technical assistance will always be available to
undertake monitoring, but I shall be able to say more about that in due
course.
I was about
to ask the hon. Member for Northavon whether, in the light of my
assurances, he might consider withdrawing his useful
amendment.
Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): The Minister never fails to charm
me. He gave a helpful and constructive response, but one or two issues
remain outstanding, some of which were raised by other hon. Members.
For instance, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test raised the issue of
Crown Estate; the Ministers reply seemed to be that they are
basically good guys and it has not been a problem so farI
paraphrase only slightly. There is a lack of accountability under the
clause, and I am not wholly reassured on the
point.
The
central point, about timing, was raised in exchanges between the hon.
Member for Sherwood and the Minister. We do not have a marine Bill, and
we do not know when we are likely to see a draft Bill. The critical
point of the amendment is to deal with what in other circumstances
might be called an interregnum. In other words, after the coming into
force of this Bill, but before the coming into force of the marine
Bill, who will do the work that the marine management organisation will
be doing once it exists? It is that period about which we are
particularly worried.
Once
we have a marine management organisation, even though the marine Bill
will probably not give it a remit over the matters that we are
debatingthe Minister assured us that the Department undertakes
such consultation routinelyand although we might try to amend
the marine Bill to that effect, can we assume that the marine
management organisation will be consulted? If the organisation is
adding something to the process and is not just another tier of
bureaucracyif there is some added valuewhere are the
safeguards and reassurances to come from until it exists if we do not
amend the Bill to require the granting of licences to be subject to the
kind of consultation that we are talking about?
The Minister
said that various EU directives already protect the marine habitat.
Presumably, however, the Government think that superimposing a marine
management organisation would add something. However, until it comes
into being something is missing, otherwise it would not need to be
invented; I mean the strategic dimension. Before we adjourned this
morning, I spoke about the worry of a gold rush or a scattergun
approach being taken to applications for licences. Prior to there being
a marine management organisation, where will the strategic spatial
planning in the marine environment come from? When thinking about
granting licences, there should be consultation on those key
environmental factors.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Will the hon. Gentleman nevertheless recognise the
points raised my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that we do not yet
have a marine Act and Parliament has not yet judged it? When there is a
marine Act, as I hope that there will be, my Department and the
relevant agencies can begin to look at the practical specifics
necessary. I have given a reassurance that we are going to work very
closely with the new legislation, the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs and the new marine management organisation.
Meanwhile, I was trying to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have
environmental protections in place and that my Department is well
versed in it, given the history since the 1960s of oil and gas
exploration. I am reminded, and I may have mentioned earlier, that we
are already covering these with the Marine and Fisheries Agency in
advance of the creation of the MMO. We are, as ever, as joined up as we
could possibly
be.
Steve
Webb:
I am grateful for that intervention. I will not
labour the point, but the concern that the hon. Member for Sherwood
raises about the fact that we have a gap between the passing into law
of this Bill and of the marine Bill reinforces our concern; it does not
undermine it. The Minister is saying that we do not have a draft Bill,
we do not have a Bill and we do not know what it is going to look like,
but this regime will be in force until we have a marine Bill. Our
concern is about what will be the regulatory regime between now and
then. The Minister seems to be saying, quite interestingly,
its alright, its all covered. We are
going to have the marine Bill anyway, which is going to either not add
value, in which case it is pointless, or it is going to add some value,
which will not be present in the period up to the coming supporting
marine Bill.
Malcolm
Wicks:
The hon. Gentleman will recognise
that despite the wonderful Department behind me, I
can only deal with what we have at present in terms of legislation. I
have tried to reassure him that going forward we will make all the
appropriate connections. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman might have
been going on to ask me about the powers of the Welsh Assembly,
following the question from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. I
would reassure the hon. Gentleman, if he asked me that question;
although my Departments licence will cover the 12 nautical
miles of Welsh territorial waters, a licence will also be required from
the Welsh Assembly under the Food and Environmental Protection Act
1985. That is the answer to an anticipated possible question, echoing
the question from my hon.
Friend.
Steve
Webb:
I am grateful. It is great to have questions
answered that I have not even asked. It could set a precedent for the
rest of our deliberations. In fact, we could just wait for all our
questions to be answered. I take the point from the hon. Member for
Ynys Môn that the our amendment does not cover the Welsh
Assembly and it probably should have done; I accept that
comment.
We are
worried about the period up to the coming into force of the Bill that
we do not yet have. We will take on the Ministers assurances,
because we believe that the energy considerations should not be
subsidiary to the environmental considerations, which is what we are
pointing out through the amendment. Having received those assurances, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
3 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 22 February 2008 |