|
Clause 91
Modification of licence conditions for offshore transmission and distribution
Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 174, in
clause 91, page 69, line 13, at end insert
'for bringing it, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 175, in
Column Number: 300
Amendment No. 176, in
Amendment No. 177, in
Norman Baker: First, a word for the Minister. He is going to write to me about the negative resolution procedure. I am sure that that will be one of the most riveting letters I have received for some time, and I look forward to receiving it.
I am always struck by the Government's wise choice of words in the framing of legislation. I am struck in particular by the wisdom of that choice in clause 96(7). Referring to the publication of notices, it says that they should be brought
''to the attention of persons likely to be affected''
by them. That seems an entirely sensible procedure, and it is very wise of the Government to have included those words in that clause. Here, we have a similar situation in relation to the modification of licence conditions, but those words do not appear. Indeed, it says only that the publication must be
''in such manner as the Secretary of State—''
or GEMA—
''considers appropriate'',
without using the wise words of qualification used in clause 96(7). I seek, as always, to help the Government by inserting the words that they wisely use elsewhere but, by some curious omission, fail to include here.
Mr. Timms: I appreciate the intentions and kind thoughts behind the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am sure that we would all want to minimise any uncertainty for those likely to be affected by the licence modification. However, I am not convinced that the amendments are necessary. The changes to the licence conditions will be published in a way that will make them available to those affected. Administrative law already requires that. The formulation has been used in the past—in the Utilities Act 2000—and I am not aware of any problems that have arisen from those precedents.
Of course, the Secretary of State and GEMA, the regulatory authority, will want to undertake the publication activities under clauses 91 and 92 as quickly as possible, but writing into the Bill the requirement that they should be performed as soon as is reasonably practicable would not add any great rigour to the processes. Rather, it would lengthen the Bill by inserting something that is not a very stiff test. I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to make the test stiffer. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the amendments achieve a great deal.
Column Number: 301
Norman Baker: The amendments would not add to the Bill unduly; in which case, presumably the Minister will argue that the words in clause 96(7) are unnecessary and should be deleted. Would he welcome an amendment to that effect?
Mr. Timms: No. Clause 96(7) uses different language, because a safety zone notice needs to be publicised to all users of the sea. Licensed conditions are relevant to licensees, so the wording is not necessary.
Norman Baker: I shall leave students of legislation to examine that exchange and to see what they make of it in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 161, in
clause 91, page 69, line 24, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'twenty four'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment: No. 162, in
clause 92, page 70, line 38, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'twenty four'.
Miss McIntosh: These two little amendments are intended to be helpful and in the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire. One could describe them as probing amendments, providing an opportunity to ask the Minister why the Department has allowed the Secretary of State only 18 months to apply to vary the activities required under the licences. It would seem in the two cases that it would be more helpful to allow the Department and the industry to modify the licences of those who have been awarded them by granting them a marginally longer period—24 months, or two years—rather than a year and a half.
There will be some very complicated issues, as offshore wind installations are being set up and operated for the first time, and this is a very complicated area of the law. It is incumbent on the Government and the Department to allow a longer period to elapse. The time limit of 18 months is too short. The amendments give us the opportunity to hear from the Minister why the particularly short time frame identified by the Government in clauses 91 and 92 has been limited to 18 months. We believe that 24 months might prevent recourse to the courts or to the law.
Mr. Page: I will be commendably brief. Having had some responsibility for granting offshore licences, I can say that there is a significant difference between laying cables on land and laying cables at sea. In some seasons, the North sea can be remarkably rough. It can cause an immense amount of trouble, and it takes time for the swell to settle after a storm.
Is the Minister absolutely satisfied that 18 months will be long enough for the work to be carried out? The only reason for the amendment is that I want to ensure that whoever gets the licences has the opportunity to operate within a sensible time frame, and need not take
Column Number: 302
risks at times of inclement weather and danger. It is a simple probing amendment. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Mr. Timms: This is about modifying the standard conditions of transmission and distribution licences and associated codes. I hope that the weather will not have too much impact on the time that it takes to do the work. I think that 18 months is about right. We need sufficient time to make the necessary modifications to the transmission and distribution licences under clause 91, and to the transmission co-ordination or system operator licence under clause 92, in order to set up the regulatory framework offshore. However, we want to minimise the period of uncertainty for those likely to be affected by the changes. I think that the Committee will agree that, in principle, the shorter that time the better. Nevertheless, we need to ensure that there is enough time for the job to be done properly. On that basis, we reached the view that 18 months is about right.
The 18 months runs from the date of commencement of the power in both cases; we can delay the bringing into force of the relevant provisions until such time as we are ready to begin the process of licence modifications. Time need not be wasted at the beginning of the work.
The BETTA clauses, which the Committee will come to later, make similar provision for an 18-month window. We would not wish to have a different time period for making the modifications provided for in clauses 91 and 92. Consistency is a further point in favour of the 18-month period.
Miss McIntosh: I am mindful of the excellent and helpful contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, and of the Minister's clarification. Were the Minister to accept the amendment, one could amend the BETTA clauses, or the worse clauses. However, I am grateful for his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
Extension of transmission licences offshore
Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in
clause 92, page 70, line 4, leave out 'one or both of'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 128, in
clause 92, page 70, line 4, at end insert 'areas'.
Amendment No. 129, in
clause 92, page 70, line 5, leave out 'an area of'.
Amendment No. 130, in
clause 92, page 70, line 6, leave out 'an' and insert 'the'.
Column Number: 303
Norman Baker: It could be argued that the amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) are not significantly different from the Bill. Modestly, however, we think that our wording is better.
The amendments give us the opportunity to raise an important issue. When powers are exercised by the Secretary of State, that should be done with consistency and in a manner in which those affected would reasonably expect them to be exercised. It seems to us that our amendments to clause 92(2) would give the message that there would be such consistency of treatment. In responding, I hope that the Minister will say how the power is likely to be exercised and what steps will be taken to ensure consistency in decision making.
4 pm
Mr. Timms: The clause enables the Secretary of State to modify the co-ordination licence so that the authorisation and conditions of the licence apply to the transmission of electricity within an area of the territorial sea or an area of the UK continental shelf, or both. Taken together, the amendments would mean that all the territorial sea and the continental shelf would have to be treated in the same way.
We may not need the flexibility that we built into the provision, but we are not certain that we do not. Until we have done more detailed work on the extension of the co-ordination licence offshore and carried out the consultation provided for under clause 92(5), I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be sensible to retain the flexibility that is built into the drafting.
|
