| Energy Bill [Lords]
|
|
Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in
Clearly, one of the Bill's oversights—as picked up in the evidence taken and conclusions drawn by the Transport Committee in its report, ''Navigational Hazards and the Energy Bill''—is the failure of the Department of Trade and Industry to consult properly with the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The amendment is a helpful suggestion to the Minister that there should be proper consultation at the earliest possible stage. It seems that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the correct body for these purposes. Will the Minister tell the Committee what stage consultations with the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have reached? When were they consulted on the clause and other relevant parts of the Bill? The Transport Committee was critical, although one hesitates to use unparliamentary language and say ''damning''. Conclusion 4 of its report states that it is obvious that just as the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency were not properly involved in the strategic environmental assessments, their advice was not heeded at the tender stage. I urge the Minister to regard this little amendment sympathetically. Through which organisation does he propose to apply civil law if not through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): I hesitate to make any contribution to this debate, but if I were writing to the letters pages of some tabloids about the Bill, I would sign my letter, ''Confused from South-West Hertfordshire''. A lot of Column Number: 297 my colleagues say that I am permanently confused, which does not add much to the debate, but I really do not know where we are on these clauses. I do not know where the responsibility lies if something goes wrong.My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, who trained as a Scottish advocate and has knowledge of the law of the sea, asked several questions about previous clauses that to my mind have not been adequately answered. I am no legal expert, and I am not too certain where I would be leading the Committee if I debated any of these points at length, but the position seems to be that nobody knows where the ultimate responsibility lies. In responding on the last clause, the Minister said that in the event of a prosecution, this would be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions in England or for the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, but for the procurator fiscal in Scotland. Clause 88 carries these words:
Norman Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Page: I have almost finished my remarks. It is obvious that I am completely unclear about what the clause does. I am sorry to say that we have not had an adequate explanation, and if someone could tell me exactly what this all means as regards a clean line of law and authority I would be grateful. The people who will build those installations want a clear line of authority and want to know where they stand in law. They do not want to break new ground in creating case law. They want to know where they are from day one, not expensive legal fees. Mr. Weir: I will not attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, as there is much confusion over jurisdiction. I do not fully understand what the hon. Member for Vale of York is getting at in amendment No. 160, which states:
Perhaps the hon. Lady will sum up and explain the role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in civil law, as opposed to the enforcement of criminal Column Number: 298 sanction. I can perceive a role in criminal law, but I am less sure where a civil law role would arise for that agency in relation to offshore installations.Mr. Timms: I think the hon. Gentleman is right. There is a bit of a misunderstanding about the amendment. Clause 88 is intended to apply civil law to renewable energy installations and related cables. That means that questions arising out of acts or omissions in relation to installations and cables can be determined by the courts. Such matters arise usually out of relationships between parties, such as contractual relationships. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency does not have a role in that context. The agency has a role in enforcing aspects of the criminal law, under, for example, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is mentioned in clause 87(2), but not in civil law. The amendment is not appropriate for that reason. However, the hon. Lady used the amendment to raise wider issues. She referred to the report published last week by the Transport Committee. The Government will respond to that fully in due course. However, there was wide consultation on the establishment of the renewable energy zone in our consultation document, ''Future Offshore'', issued in November 2002. That publication was of course agreed by all Departments, including the Department for Transport, before it was issued. There was strong support from respondents for the concept of the renewable energy zone. The Department for Transport is party to the sustainable energy policy network, which is taking forward the whole gamut of the commitments in the energy White Paper. Miss McIntosh: Is the Minister aware of the submissions in evidence to the Transport Committee? The consultation to which he refers was an exercise purely in dealing with those bodies that are normally consulted by the Department of Trade and Industry. Not one shipping interest had seen or been consulted about the document. That is where some of the problems—we shall come to them later—derive from. Mr. Timms: Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been helpful if some of those who did not respond to the consultation had done so—they certainly could have done. I am pleased that good communication has now been established, and I hope that the same difficulties will not arise again. In response to the points made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), the Orders in Council apply the law to the renewable energy zone—otherwise it would not apply. Thereafter, however, prosecutions of the offences are to be dealt with—I described this earlier and, indeed, he referred to it—with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales, and in Scotland separately through the Lord Advocate. The Order in Council is needed to apply the law, but beyond that there are separate arrangements for pursuing prosecutions in England and Wales and in Scotland.
Column Number: 299
3.45 pmNorman Baker: I hope the Minister will respond to my point, which arose from what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said, about Orders in Council. I should like clarification about the procedure. Clause 85 provides for Orders in Council, which are, under subsection (6), subject to negative resolution procedure. However, in clauses 86 and 88, the Orders in Council do not appear to be so subject, except in the narrow terms of clause 89(3). Can the Minister explain the rationale behind the inconsistent application of the negative resolution procedure? Mr. Timms: I am absolutely confident that we are being wholly consistent and I look forward to sending a letter to the hon. Gentleman explaining precisely why those clauses are as they are. Miss McIntosh: We have had an interesting debate. Let me return to the confusion that I created in the mind of the hon. Member for Angus. The Minister must know that if an individual, or Parliament as a body, is to respond to a consultation, the consultation document has to be addressed to that individual or body so that they are aware that it exists. It is clear that the document was not directly addressed to any of the shipping interests that are deeply concerned by the clauses—identified by my hon. Friends in the other place—that the Government now seek to remove. The Government are compounding their mistake by failing to consult the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the British fishing and marine industries, the major ports group and others who might have an interest. Those might not be among the contracting organisations to which the Minister referred, but they could have interests that run counter to those covered by the clause. My suggestion was intended to be helpful. I hear what the Minister says, and hope that he will be willing to be corrected when we come to discuss why the shipping interests were not consulted. We would be hard pressed to find any section of the fishing industry that was formally consulted and invited to respond to the consultation. Having made those points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 89 and 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 8 June 2004 |
