Clause
12
Inspectors
Charles
Hendry: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in
clause 12, page 6, line 41, at
end insert—
‘(d) the
appropriate length of appointment for an
inspector.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment
No. 13, in
clause 26, page 14, line 6, at
end insert—
‘(d) the
appropriate length of appointment for an
inspector.’.
Charles
Hendry:
This is our next attempt at a probing amendment,
to which I am sure the Minister will have an incredibly effective
answer already prepared. Clause 12 relates to the appointment of
inspectors
“to assist
in carrying out the functions of the Secretary of State under this
Chapter.”
Clause 26, to which amendment No. 13
refers, relates to inspectors with regard to carbon capture and storage
facilities. The clauses give the Secretary of State powers to make
certain regulations with regard to the inspectors. Specifically, they
say that they
“may make regulations about the
powers and duties of inspectors, the powers and duties of any other
person acting on the directions of the Secretary of State and the
facilities and assistance to be accorded to persons
mentioned”
in those
paragraphs.
What
we are suggesting is that as it stands, it does not include any
guidance or rules about the appropriate length of service of an
inspector. I am inherently uncomfortable about open-ended appointments
where people are appointed for an unspecified number of years. With the
best will in the world, whatever qualifications they have and whatever
energy and drive they have when they take on an appointment, people
will lose some of that over a period of time. These two amendments
would give the Secretary of State the power to determine an appropriate
length of appointment for an inspector—we leave it to his
discretion, or indeed to that of a SOSREP, to decide what that time
scale should
be.
Martin
Horwood:
Earlier I was questioning the
wide latitude being given to the Secretary of State by some parts of
this Bill, but in the case of this amendment, we seem to be lavishing
very detailed powers on the Secretary of State which I am not sure
really is appropriate. There seems to be too much detail and I thought
the Conservative party was in favour of reducing red tape. The
important point is that this is based, as I understand it, on the
existing licensing regime for the petroleum industry and we should
hesitate to muck about with it too much. I am all for giving more
general, strategic powers and having those more closely
defined—we referred earlier to the primacy of the environment in
the issuing of licences and issues of that kind, but when it gets down
to detailed human resource issues that should be naturally included in
any appointment process, that seems ludicrously over-detailed. I seek
clarification from the Conservative spokesman, but I cannot see the
justification for these detailed
prescriptions.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Although I think that the Committee has stuck to
its task very diligently this afternoon, as a sideshow, I am enjoying
the traditional debate about the power of the state between the Tories
and the Whigs, which has been going on for several centuries and which
I follow with close attention. It is not for me to make a judgment. I
understand the concern of the hon. Member for Wealden. Any politician
facing regular general elections has to be jealous of open-ended
appointments, so I understand the
prejudice.
2.30
pm
Before
addressing the amendments, I would like to set out a little of what we
are trying to achieve with clauses 12 and 26, because the proposals
also relate to clause 26. Those clauses give the Secretary of State the
power to appoint inspectors to inspect facilities used for offshore gas
or carbon dioxide storage or related activities. They also give him the
power to make regulations setting out the powers and duties of
inspectors and other persons acting under his direction, for example,
surveyors or other contractors. Examples of such powers
and duties are the power to enter premises, to carry out an
investigation, to require information or to take samples. The
regulations can also set out the facilities and assistance that
licensees must offer inspectors in carrying out their
duties. Inspectors
play a crucial role in ensuring that the terms and conditions of the
licence are adhered to. They are the eyes and ears of the regulating
authority and provide a valuable resource to ensure that the oil and
gas industries comply with a raft of legislation that is in place to
protect the environment. I suspect that we are in agreement so
far.
To
get to the point, in almost all instances, inspectors are civil
servants, recruited on civil servants’ terms and conditions of
employment. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wealden to set
out in regulations the appropriate length of appointment for an
inspector appears, therefore, to cut across contractual matters that
are normally covered within a contract of employment. Equally, if a
contractor is employed for the purpose of inspection, the duration of
their employment will be stipulated in the contract of
employment.
There
are currently a number of inspectors who act on behalf of the Secretary
of State in respect of oil and gas licensing. Our proposal is not to
recruit more inspectors, but to extend the powers of the existing
inspectors, bringing their knowledge and experience of oil and gas into
the new regime. With thanks for probing the Government, I wonder
whether the hon. Gentleman might consider withdrawing the
amendment.
Charles
Hendry:
The Minister began by talking about why
politicians will be jealous of people having these sorts of contracts.
I remember well on the final day of the 1997 election campaign, when I
was the MP for High Peak, being told by somebody in a factory,
“The problem with you Members of Parliament is that you do not
understand what it is like to work on a short-term contract.”
Within 24 hours, I
did.
I am grateful to
the Minister for clarifying the issues. I understand that two types of
people may act as inspectors: those who are civil servants and it would
therefore be inappropriate for them to have a particular period of
appointment and people who are brought in from outside, in which case
it would be standard working practice for the term of the appointment
to be stated in their contract. That provides the assurance that we
need and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Charles
Hendry:
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
clause 12, page 7, line 8, at
end add—
‘(c) by the
revocation of the licence, at the discretion of the Secretary of
State.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 14, in clause 26, page 14, line 14, at end
add—
‘(c) by the revocation
of the licence, at the discretion of the Secretary of
State.’.
Charles
Hendry:
As you will have seen,
Mr. Amess, these amendments also relate to the clauses on
inspectors. They relate to the penalties that can be given out where
people have deliberately obstructed inspectors in their work. As with
earlier amendments, we want to send a clear signal that we recognise
the potential dangers of the activities being carried out in relation
to the importation and storage of combustible gas or CO 2.
That is especially the case with CO 2 storage, given that it
is a very new technology and science and it will be a long time before
we understand all of the risks
involved.
The
inspectors are fundamental in ensuring safety. We should not
contemplate anybody blocking their work. The inspectors should have
access to inspect whatever they want, wherever they want and whenever
they want. We need to understand the motivation behind somebody
refusing access to an inspector. They could, for example, say that a
dangerous manoeuvre was going on and the inspector would understand why
they might suggest that he should come back at a different time, if the
inspection did not relate specifically to that manoeuvre. It would also
be understandable if the relevant person whom the inspector needed to
see was
unavailable.
In
almost every other circumstance, we would have reason to be suspicious
of why an inspector should be refused access or obstructed in his or
her work. A fine provides punishment, but the threat of revoking a
licence if the operator wilfully obstructs an inspector is far more
powerful. I hope that the Minister will agree. He may say that that is
covered in clause 30, on the termination of licence regulations, but we
believe that more detail is needed on the circumstances in which
licences could be terminated and it should not be left so vague as the
clause currently provides it to
be.
Operators need
such a level of guidance, given the tens of millions they are being
asked to invest in the projects. They need to know in what
circumstances the licences could be removed. We do not seek an
exhaustive list, but we need an indication of the level of offence that
would result in such draconian steps. I would suggest that blocking the
work of an inspector would be grounds for such
revocation.
Martin
Horwood:
Perhaps my phraseology in relation to the last
amendments was a little harsh, but I am also puzzled by these
amendments and whether they need to be included at all. I suspect that
they do not.
On
amendment No. 11, I find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of
State does not have the power to revoke the licence of someone who acts
to obstruct the work of inspectors, which appears to be the object of
the clause, if the licence has been appointed by him. That is a natural
part of any licensing regime that would come out of the regulations and
the design of the licence, on which we have already been told there
will be consultation, before we see the meat of the licensing regime.
In a sense that is the meaning of the word “license”.
There is only continued license to operate providing the terms of a
licence are not broken, which obstructing the work of inspectors would
clearly do.
Even if
provision does need to be included more clearly in the Bill, as the
hon. Member for Wealden suggests—I would love to take credit for
this, but my talented researcher Anna Harvey suggested to me that there
were more logical places in the Bill for similar amendments to be made,
such as clauses 7 and 8, which
we have already gone past. Perhaps it provides an opportunity to explore
with the Minister exactly what the Secretary of State could have the
power to do in sanctioning those who operate without a licence or break
the terms of their
licence. Coming
to amendment No. 14, I find myself once more puzzled that it needs to
be included. As the hon. Gentleman stated, it could be said that clause
30 already covers the matter. That is exactly right. It sets out the
regulations under which a licence may be terminated. Obviously, it is
important to outline specific provisions to clarify what those
circumstances would be, but that would also be a natural part of a
licensing regime.
The
explanatory notes to the Bill suggest that any provisions of a licence
relating to its termination will be made under the regulations in
clause 30. So, I cannot see the purpose of the amendment. Perhaps, on a
probing basis they provide the Minister with a useful opportunity to
explore the powers that might be exercised in those
circumstances.
Malcolm
Wicks:
That was another useful discussion and I
congratulate the researcher of the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I know
that it would not be accurate to say that that is what families are
for.
Martin
Horwood:
I am not so much of a Whig that I follow my
august predecessor Craven Berkeley, the first MP for Cheltenham, who
was elected in a family tradition. We have abandoned those practices
now, I hasten to
add.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I know that Hansard will have followed my
words carefully when I said that I knew it would not be accurate to say
that in the hon. Gentleman’s case. That is important. However,
just in case, parliamentary privilege is a wonderful thing, is it
not?
To encourage
compliance with these requirements, clause 12(5) specifies that the
regulations may also create offences relating to inspections. For
example, it would be an offence to obstruct an inspector when he is
exercising his duties under the regulations. The clause lays down
penalties that may be imposed for such offences. Those offences will be
punishable
“(a) on
summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or
such lesser amount as is specified in the regulations,
and
(b) on conviction on
indictment by a
fine.”
The
maximum penalty provisions contained in clauses 12 and 26 reflect those
outlined in the Petroleum Act 1998 for offences against submarine
pipeline inspectors. That enforcement regime has worked successfully to
date. The liability to a potentially unlimited fine will act as an
effective and proportionate deterrent to operators engaged in offshore
gas or carbon dioxide storage. I remind the Committee of that because
these words are now becoming familiar to
me.
However,
it is felt that financial penalties are insufficient in relation to
offences committed against inspectors. A revocation of a licence may
present an additional sanction. Under clauses 5 and 19, the licensing
authority could include a provision in a licence that specifies that
the
licence could be revoked if the licensee committed any offence as set
out in the relevant regulations. Moreover, in the case of carbon
dioxide storage, the appropriate sanction might not be revocation of
the whole licence, but withdrawal of the rights of the operator to
continue storage activities. That is because we may wish the operator
to continue to be bound by the monitoring and the remediation
obligations under the licence, even if they no longer have the right to
continue storage activities. I hope that I have reassured
the hon. Member for Wealden that the proposed penalties for offences
relating to inspections are adequate. I hope that I have also explained
that a revocation provision is not required in the Bill because it
could be included in the terms and conditions of licences if the
regulatory authority deemed it necessary. There are circumstances in
which that might not be appropriate. I would like to reassure
colleagues and the hon. Gentleman that refusing to allow an inspector
entry to a site would be very serious indeed, but that is true across a
range of areas from this to child protection. Such a refusal would be
enough to attract a penalty or the loss of a licence. That will be in
the terms and conditions of the licence.
The hon.
Gentleman has been very kind this afternoon. I hope that in the light
of those reassurances, he will consider withdrawing his
amendment.
Charles
Hendry:
I am very flattered by the attention that the
Liberal Democrats have been paying to the various amendments that we
have tabled. They seem to have given more thought to our amendments
than to the Bill itself, which I think is very generous of them and we
appreciate it greatly. It is an interesting approach to look at
retrospective amendments once we have gone past the clause and say,
“What a shame that we didn’t think about this a little
bit earlier
on.”
Martin
Horwood:
Just to clarify, I was not actually suggesting
that the amendments might have been more logically amended in those
places. Since we were not in favour of making them anyway, we would
have been the last people to suggest them at that
point.
Charles
Hendry:
That sounds a very Liberal Democrat
position—we should have done something that we are not in favour
of somewhere else in the Bill at an earlier stage. However, we will not
get involved in this petty partisan politics, Mr. Amess,
because I know that you would disapprove of that strongly.
To go back to our traditional
love-in with Minister, he has been so helpful in reassuring us on all
of our concerns. In particular, the final comments that he made about
what would happen if someone sought to bar an inspector from a
particular facility or from looking at records. The Minister made it
very clear what is inherent in the Bill. With those particular
assurances in mind, I am happy to seek leave to withdraw these
amendments.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
2.45
pm
Clause
13
Criminal
proceedings
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Malcolm
Wicks:
This is very much a procedural clause that ensures
that an offence under the chapter can be tried in any part of the
United Kingdom, regardless of the location, which may be offshore, in
which the offence may have been committed. It also sets out which
authorities can institute, or give permission to institute, criminal
proceedings in respect of the offshore area. The clause will provide a
more streamlined procedure than exists under the current arrangements
for prosecuting offences committed offshore. Those are contained in the
Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, which, as you may recall,
Mr. Amess, was in 1878 and would now be
disapplied.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 13
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
