Clause
25
Injunctions
restraining breaches of section
16(1)
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Malcolm
Wicks:
There might be circumstances in which it is
necessary to seek to restrain a person from exploring for carbon
dioxide storage sites or from storing carbon dioxide. They might arise,
for example, if someone began exploratory drilling activity without a
licence. They should be required to stop their activity until they have
obtained a carbon dioxide licence. The clause will allow the Secretary
of State or the relevant regulatory authority to seek an injunction in
such circumstances. In the absence of such a provision, an injunction
could be sought only by a person whose private interests were affected
or by the Attorney-General. There is precedent the provision in section
187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which gives a similar
power to a local planning authority. We propose corresponding
provisions for offshore gas
storage.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 25
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
26
Inspectors
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
4.15
pm
Malcolm
Wicks:
It would be useful if I briefly introduce the
clause. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint
inspectors to inspect facilities used for carbon dioxide storage or
related activities. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to
issue regulations setting out the powers, for example, powers to enter
premises, to carry out an investigation, to require information, and to
take samples. The clause also sets out the duties of inspectors and
other persons acting under the Secretary of State’s direction,
for example surveyors or other contractors. As well as the facilities
and assistance that must be offered to the inspectorate, the Secretary
of State may also make payments to inspectors appointed under the
clause, which will be of great relief to the inspectors who are
employed. Inspection arrangements are an important means of ensuring
the effectiveness of any licensing regime because they allow the
regulatory authority to physically inspect the relevant premises and to
ascertain compliance with the licence and other applicable regulatory
provisions.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 26
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
27
Criminal
proceedings
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Malcolm
Wicks:
It would be helpful if I briefly introduce this
procedural clause, which ensures that an offence under this chapter can
be tried in any part of the United Kingdom—we had a similar
clause in relation to gas
storage—regardless of the location 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 makes the prosecution of offences committed
under this chapter more effective as it allows the prosecution of such
offences to be carried out anywhere in the UK, without having to
ascertain which court has jurisdiction. It gives the Secretary of
State, among others, the power to prosecute offences committed
offshore.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 27
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
28
Requirement
for public
register
Charles
Hendry:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 28 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
29
Abandonment
of
installations
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Charles
Hendry:
We are cantering through the Bill at such a pace
that I wish I had the army of back-up support that the Minister has
immediately available to him.
My questions on the clause
relate particularly to the explanatory notes, which state
that
“the operators of
such installations may be required to decommission them in a timely
manner after operations have permanently
ceased.”
I am concerned
that the explanatory notes say that operators
“may be required to
decommission”,
rather
than that they will be required to decommission. I cannot imagine in
what circumstances they would not be required to get rid of the
installation in the way described.
Will the Minister also give us
some clarity on how such things will be paid for? Will it be from the
fund that will be set up, or will there be other ways in which the
Minister can ensure that funds are available for decommissioning
work?
Malcolm
Wicks:
May I say that the hon. Gentleman would make a
useful member of my proof-reading team? I am advised that he is right
and that we should have been talking about “will
be”.
Charles
Hendry:
I have a range of children, aged 11 and nine, who
do support work for me. Obviously, they could be seconded to the
Department if that would be useful. I am grateful for the
Minister’s clarification on that
matter.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 29
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
30
Termination
of licence:
regulations
Charles
Hendry:
I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
clause 30, page 16, line 3, after
‘facility’, insert
‘and about the examination by
inspectors of the closing of the
facility.’.
This
important amendment concerns the way in which facilities will be
closed, and the examination by inspectors of such closures. It
reaffirms the role of inspectors in examining a facility that has been
closed for any reason, and says that the operator should be responsible
for all such costs. The Bill does not make it
clear that when inspectors need to go in to ensure that work has been
done properly, that cost will be reimbursed by the operators. I seek
the Minister’s assurance that they will be required to pay for
that.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman. My speaking note
always says thank him before seeking to persuade him that I cannot
possibly accept his amendment, however well intentioned. As he knows, a
key area covered by the regulatory framework in the Bill is the closure
of carbon dioxide storage facilities. Operators, as commercial
entities, cannot be responsible for carbon dioxide storage facilities
indefinitely because of the geological time scales involved, as we
discussed this morning. Clause 30 provides the Secretary of State with
the power to make regulations specifying requirements for the
termination of licences and the arrangements for the long-term
stewardship of those closed stores. We expect licences to include
provisions requiring the carbon dioxide store to be monitored for a
period of time after closure to ensure its safety and security. That is
provided for in clause 19. During that time, responsibility and
liability for the store will remain with the licensee. Only when there
is sufficient evidence to confirm that it is safe and secure would we
expect to consider terminating a licence. I made that clarification
earlier.
The
amendment would include in the clause express provision to allow
inspectors to examine closed carbon dioxide stores. That is not
necessary, because there are already powers in the Bill that will allow
us to deliver that aim. First, requirements for the inspection of
carbon dioxide stores during both the operational phase, when carbon
dioxide is being injected, and the monitoring phase could be
included in the specific licence terms and conditions of any carbon
dioxide facility. The power for the licensing authority to
prescribe such conditions is contained in clause 19, which governs the
terms and conditions of licences.
Secondly, the amendment would
duplicate powers in clause 26, which gives the Secretary of State
powers to appoint inspectors and make regulations prescribing their
powers and duties. It allows the Secretary of State to specify their
inspection responsibilities regarding both operational and closed
carbon dioxide stores, and in relation to any inspections that might be
needed prior to the termination of a licence. In summary, I am
confident that the provisions in the Bill will provide the necessary
environmental, safety and financial protection properly to regulate the
inspection of closed carbon stores prior to, or as part of, the
termination of licences. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to consider
withdrawing his amendment.
Charles
Hendry:
Given the Minister’s assurances, I am happy
to beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
4.30
pm
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Charles
Hendry:
I am glad to have the opportunity to raise
a couple of additional questions.
Clause 30 talks about the
circumstances in which a licence may be terminated. Would the Minister
clarify the circumstances? Would he give us examples of what he has in
mind? Operators need to have that level of guidance, given that they
are to invest tens of millions of pounds in these facilities. They need
to know in what circumstances the licence could be removed from them.
We are not looking for an exhaustive list but some indication of the
level of offence that would result in such a draconian step.
The Minister said earlier that
one did not include the obvious in the Bill; one only included the
unusual and less obvious. The challenge to him is to come up with a
range of less obvious activities and offences that might require the
licence to be revoked in these ways. It would be important for those
being asked to invest to have greater
clarity.
What about
compensation where a licence is withdrawn? Licences could be withdrawn
because a new technology comes forward which gets rid of CO2
in a different way—maybe a science which we do not yet
understand. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East may say it is
impossible that this might be developed, based on his own scientific
knowledge but, on the grounds that we should not rule things out, it
could be that a day will come when the Government deem that capture and
storage is no longer the appropriate way to deal with
CO2.
In such circumstances would it not be right
for operators to be entitled to compensation where they have invested
millions of pounds in good faith but the Government have changed their
policy for dealing with CO2?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I will see how far I can progress in tackling the
hon. Gentleman’s specific questions in the time
allowed.
Operators as
commercial entities cannot be responsible indefinitely for carbon
dioxide storage facilities, as we have discussed, due to the time
scales and the geology involved. We expect licences to include
provisions requiring the carbon dioxide store to be monitored for a
period after closure to ensure their safety and security. Only when
there is sufficient evidence to confirm that the stores are safe would
we expect to consider the termination of licences.
Carbon dioxide storage licences
provisions under clause 19 of the Bill may stipulate the procedure for
terminating the licence after certain requirements are satisfied,
relating, for example, to the safety and security of the store or the
payment of a surrender fee. I might be able to answer quite quickly.
However, where the licensing function is being carried out by another
authority, the Secretary of State may wish to restrict by regulations
that authority’s discretion in accepting termination of
licences, for example, by placing the licensing authority under an
obligation not to agree to the surrender of a licence until it is
satisfied that the store is safe and secure. The regulations may also
prescribe circumstances additional to those stipulated in the licence
in which termination may be accepted.
It is important to provide
that, after termination, the long-term stewardship of the carbon store
is undertaken by a responsible entity in order to ensure
that risks associated with such stores, if any, are minimised. The Crown
Estate has agreed to take on this function, which is an inherent part
of its ownership of the rights of the geological space in which the
carbon dioxide is stored. The regulations would allow the Secretary of
State or another body to which this function may be
transferred—for example, the Crown Estate—to undertake
commitments both of a non-financial and financial nature in relation to
the stores that are no longer subject to a licence. Such commitments
may include the duty to carry out monitoring or to remediate any
leaks. The Crown
Estate may have to be reimbursed for any costs incurred in carrying out
the long-term stewardship of the closed carbon dioxide stores. This
clause gives the Secretary of State the power to take on financial
obligations in relation to such stores, which may include providing an
indemnity to the Crown Estate.
There may some misunderstanding
about the meaning of termination. This clause relates to the surrender
of a licence. We would consult on when the termination takes place but
it is likely to be when it is safe and secure.
The hon. Gentleman asked me
about compensation for licences that are withdrawn, and the clause
deals with the termination of licences at the end of their operating
periods. Compensation falls outside the scope of the clause, so we must
consider the matter a little further. I see the point of his question,
and, with his permission, it may become part of the increasingly
impressive letter that I will write to
him.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 30
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
31 to 33 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
