Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in

clause 85, page 65, line 13, leave out from 'State' to end of line 15 and insert

'shall by order designate that those parts of a Renewable Energy Zone which would fall within an area to which the law of Scotland would pertain as an area in which the Scottish Ministers are to have functions.'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 159, in

clause 85, page 65, line 15, at end insert

'after consultation with Scottish Ministers'.

No. 29, in

clause 88, page 67, line 16, at end insert

'but the said Order shall specify that any area to which Scottish law would normally pertain shall be subject to the law of Scotland, Scottish waters being defined by the co-ordinates set out for the boundary in the Continental Shelf Jurisdiction Order (S.I./1968, 891).'.

No. 30, in

clause 88, page 67, line 17, leave out from 'section' to end of line 19 and insert

'shall ensure that the Courts of Scotland shall have jurisdiction in respect of areas in which Scottish law would normally pertain.'.

No. 31, in

clause 96, page 74, line 19, leave out from 'must' to end and insert

'secure the consent of the Scottish Ministers'.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

The amendments relate to the three clauses setting up the renewable energy zones and the civil and criminal law that will apply to them. There is some confusion in these matters. Clause 85(5) states:

''The Secretary of State may by order designate the whole or a part of a Renewable Energy Zone as an area in relation to which the Scottish Ministers are to have functions.''

Subsequent clauses deal with the application of civil and criminal law within the zone and the Scottish Ministers may have a function determined by Order in Council. The Library research paper on the Bill gives a background to the clause with reference to article 2 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which recognises that coastal states have jurisdiction and sovereignty over territorial waters, and part VI of the convention gives coastal states certain rights in relation to the sea bed of their continental shelf. In the UK, that is given effect by the Continental Shelf Act 1964. Part V gives coastal states the right to establish economic zones.

I understand that a renewable energy zone is to be designated by Order in Council. The Bill states that Scottish Ministers are to be consulted. So far so good, but earlier the Minister seemed to indicate that the size and extent of the zone have not been finalised. It is not clear how much of it will be off Scotland's shores and to what extent Ministers and Parliament will be involved in the issue.

In response to a query on the matter in the other place, Lord Whitty replied:

''An Order in Council could potentially cover civil or criminal law matters that are wholly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998, wholly devolved or a mix of both . . . In the case of wholly reserved matters the Order in Council would be subject to the negative resolution procedure in the Westminster Parliament . . . Where the Order in Council deals with wholly devolved matters it would be subject to annulment of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. Where the content of the Order in Council includes both reserved and devolved matters it would need to be subject to the procedures of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2004; Vol. 657, c. GC335.]

Again, so far so good, but it is not clear exactly which part of the area will be subject to Scottish law.

As the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said earlier, a footnote to the regulatory impact assessment states that the renewable energy zone extends beyond the territorial seas of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and is excluded from the devolutionary arrangements set out in the Scotland Act 1998, the Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The legislative proposals in regard to territorial waters recognise where appropriate the competence of a devolved Administration. That suggests that there is no Scottish involvement outwith the immediate territorial waters, but that is wrong in principle and in practice.

The United Kingdom is different from most coastal states in that it has two completely different legal traditions—Scots law and English law. It is not correct to say that the Scottish Parliament's jurisdiction, and therefore Scots law, extends only to territorial waters. I refer hon. Members to section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998—

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give a little more voice. The air conditioning is noisy and the Hansard reporter would like hon. Members to speak a little louder.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. I shall try to speak up.

As I was saying, to suggest that there is no Scottish involvement outwith the immediate territorial waters is wrong in principle and in practice. The UK is different in that it has two differing legal traditions. I was referring to section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998, which defines various terms in the Act. It defines Scotland as including

''so much of the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland''.

Section 126 goes on to define the Scottish zone, which is important for fisheries matters, as

''the sea within British fishery limits''—

the limit under section 1 of the Fishery Limits Act 1976—

''which is adjacent to Scotland''.

The effect is that Scots law applies to that area of fishing jurisdiction, adjacent to Scotland, which is much greater than the territorial waters.

The situation is further compounded by the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, which defines the boundaries of Scottish waters. The area is much greater than simply the territorial waters. That is important because the authority of the renewable energy zone, as I understand it, is based on the Continental Shelf Act 1964. The 1968 order defined the English area, the Scottish area and the Northern Irish area within UK territorial waters. I shall not bore the Committee by going through the various latitudes and longitudes of that.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

Oh!

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I will if the hon. Lady insists, but I think that we shall have a quiet meander down the road of constitutional law this afternoon.

The order states that

'''the Scottish area' means the areas included in the sixth designated area, those parts of the first, second and fifth designated areas which lie north of the Scottish border and that part of the seventh designated area which lies north of the Scottish and east of the Northern Irish border''.

That means that the areas of sea within UK waters that lie adjacent to Scotland—north of the border between Scotland and England—are the areas to which Scots law applies as regards fishery and oil installations.

The order refers to which law will apply in each area. It states that

''the law in force in Scotland shall apply for the determination of such questions arising out of acts or omissions taking place in the Scottish area'',

so Scots law applies in those areas. The Scottish sector of the UK sector—if I can put it that way without tying myself in knots—is much greater than simply the territorial waters. Scots law governs fisheries as well as offshore oil and gas exploration. Should a crime be committed on an oil rig off the Scottish coast, a Scottish police force would deal with the matter and a Scottish court would hear the case.

As the Bill stands, that might not necessarily be the case in respect of an offshore wind or wave facility, especially as we do not know the exact extent of any future zone or Order in Council that would define the extent to which the Scottish Parliament, and therefore Scots law, would have jurisdiction. It would be possible for the UK Minister to decree that English law applied to the whole of any renewable energy zone outside strict territorial waters, and the consultation with Scottish Ministers would be a case of, ''Well, there you go. That's it.''

That may seem a minor point, but there is a recent precedent in that, in 1999, there was a change in territorial waters for fisheries jurisdiction, which resulted in a large part of southern Scottish territorial waters for fishery being transferred to English jurisdiction. As a result, if I look out at the sea from the southern part of my constituency, I gaze upon English territorial waters in respect of fishing, though not in respect of other matters. That is disgraceful.

Amendment No. 28 would ensure that in any area where Scots law currently applied for other purposes, it would also apply to the renewable energy zone, so that where Scots law applied for oil exploration, fishing and other matters, it would also apply to offshore energy. Amendment No. 29 would define that area with reference to the 1968 order, which defines the extent of Scots waters for these purposes. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 would make the appropriate changes to the clauses relating to civil and criminal law.

This is an attempt to include certainty, clarity and consistency in the application of law to our seas. I hope that the Minister accepts the absolute sincerity of that and the need for certainty, and that he accepts the amendments without further ado.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendments and for the knowledge of Scots law that he has demonstrated. The Committee will recall that I am a Scottish advocate, albeit a non-practising one, and I studied the international law of the sea as part of public international law. Sadly, that was before the UN convention on the law of the sea was adopted in 1982. I had the privilege of being taught by the Government adviser, Patricia Byrnie, who was deemed to be a leading expert on the international law of the sea. I shall speak to amendment No. 159 to resolve the conundrum that I tried to address under clause 84. I was quickly and rightly brought to book, as this is the relevant clause.

The Bill is silent on where the renewable energy zones will be. We are simply trying to establish the principle of extending the UN convention on the law of the sea beyond the territorial waters. Not only do we not know where the zones will be, but we do not know how large they will be.

The zones will have implications for Scotland. Will the Minister explain how they will be interpreted and tell us which law will be applicable to them? Will they, for the purposes of the UN convention on the law of the sea, have the same legal status as offshore oil rigs? As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) will be only too well aware, Shetland made a claim that some oil wells were in Shetland's territorial waters and so did not pertain to Scotland. That happened when I was studying the international law of the sea, admittedly some time ago, and it is another dimension in this regard.

Can the Minister confirm that the renewable energy zones will have the same legal status, be that under English or Scottish law, as offshore oil rigs? That has consequences for the rest of this chapter. Clearly, a renewable energy zone is going to be on a much greater scale and it will not be limited to a small area such as that occupied by an oil rig. We should consider this matter from the point of view of causing navigational hazards and the ability of lifeboats to go out in the event of an emergency, as well as of other fishing interests, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and recreational craft.

There was a lengthy debate in the House of Lords on this. As the Library note states and the hon. Gentleman quoted, Lord Whitty replied specifically about the status of an Order in Council applying criminal or civil law. My particular concern is that there will be circumstances in which article 85 will apply to Scots law, with a renewable energy zone being positioned in waters that are beyond UK territorial waters but deemed to be part of Scotland. The Bill is silent on that point. I do not know whether the Minister would see that as a West Lothian question, an extension of that question or the opposite of it.

I should perhaps not read out page 31 of the regulatory impact assessment again, as I referred to it this morning and the hon. Gentleman has just read it out. However, a footnote states:

''The legislative proposals in regard to territorial waters recognise, where appropriate, the competence of the devolved administrations.''

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

There is another problem. If Scots law does not apply all the way out to the site of a renewable energy zone, we could have a situation in which different laws apply to the installations and the pipes bringing energy ashore, many of which will land in Scotland.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

Indeed. There is another difficulty of not knowing where and what size the zones will be. The pipes bringing back the generated electricity will be longer the further out the zones are.

I am a member of the Transport Committee, and we have seen that the proposed second round of consents for wind farm developers is currently looking only at English waters and channels. The wind is strongest near the land, where the farms are also more economically viable from the point of view of bringing the electricity back to land. They are therefore generally situated in shipping channels with heavy traffic. That is why this debate is important. Will the Minister explain why subsection (5) says simply:

''The Secretary of State may . . . designate the whole or a part of a Renewable Energy Zone as an area in relation to which the Scottish Ministers are to have functions''?

To sum up, we are asking the Minister to confirm the status of the waters, bearing in mind the fact that the Electricity Act 1989 sets out the law in one way while the Scotland Act 1998, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, says that all matters of regulation except water are reserved matters outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Minister needs to give us clear direction on what matters are devolved and what are reserved. The source for my information is a book that I have not brought with me but whose title Hansard noted in one of our first sittings. It says specifically that all matters except water are reserved, so by implication water is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

We are speaking to amendment No. 159 in the most helpful way possible, because we believe that it is incumbent on the Minister to have the earliest possible consultation with the Scottish Ministers, not just for the benefit of those who are fortunate enough to serve

under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien, but to help resolve those conflicting and competing uses of the water, which is the subject of the clause.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I warmly welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. O'Brien—warm is the appropriate term this afternoon. I have listened with interest to the speeches made. I am hesitant about stepping into such a debate, given the expertise in particular aspects of the law shown by both hon. Members that have spoken, but I will have a bash.

I shall deal first with amendment No. 28. The purpose of clause 85 is twofold. The first is to vest the rights that are exercisable by the UK in respect of renewable energy under part V of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, so that they can be exercised by the Crown Estate. The second is to give a power to establish the renewable energy zone around the UK within which those rights are exercisable.

Subsection (5) gives a power to the Secretary of State to designate the area within the UK renewable energy zone over which Scottish Ministers will exercise functions. I have an open mind about the waters that the area will cover. We will have to think carefully and consider the precedents that have been established for other activities, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus. Once we have come to a conclusion about the area over which Scottish Ministers will have functions, criminal and civil law can be applied to renewable energy installations within it using the powers under clauses 86 and 88.

The hon. Gentleman proposes reversing that by using the area over which Scottish law currently applies in respect of oil and gas activities under the 1968 statutory instrument. However, renewable energy is a new activity and we want to consider all options for designating the area rather than automatically adopting that one. We will certainly consider it, but we want to consider them all.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but my concern is that if we designate a different area, oil platforms and offshore wind platforms in the same area could operate under two different laws. Surely that is not an acceptable way to operate. They should operate under the same law.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

That could arise wherever the boundary is drawn; there could be installations close to each other on different sides of the boundary and we must live with that. That issue could be taken into account when deciding exactly where the demarcation will be drawn.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I am sorry to be pedantic, but it is not just a case of where the boundary is drawn. If the whole renewable energy zone, or a large part of it, was determined to be under English law, where oil areas are currently under Scottish law, different laws could apply to two different installations in areas far into Scottish waters. Does the Minister accept that?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point and that would have to be taken into account when coming to a decision. However, I would not want to close down the range of available options.

On amendment No. 159, I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York that the Secretary of State should have discussions with her Scottish counterpart before designating the part of the renewable energy zone over which Scottish Ministers will have functions. Scottish Ministers would not normally have devolved competence in the renewable energy zone, which lies beyond territorial waters, but they can exercise devolved functions beyond territorial waters occasionally. However, Scottish Ministers cannot decide over which parts of the zone—which will extend around the whole UK—they will exercise functions under the Bill. I would not want to write a formal requirement, as suggested in the amendment, into the Bill.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I am not in practice, so I do not have a vested interest, but I do not think that the Committee would wish to be a hostage to fortune at this stage. Both the hon. Member for Angus and I have identified a potential loophole whereby one rule would apply to renewable energy zones in Scottish waters and a totally different one to English waters. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend. A potential way forward would be for the Government to reconsider the matter and explain their findings on Report. If there were such a loophole or potential difference of interpretation, it would be highly unfortunate. I cannot believe that that would be the Government's intention.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I do not think that there is a loophole, although it is true that there certainly will be a difference. That applies to wherever the boundary is drawn. What is important is that should be clarity about that, and there will be. There is certainly no fundamental difficulty with operating two different arrangements in two different offshore areas.

Turning to amendment No. 30, the same point about not binding Scottish Ministers applies. I agree also with the principle that Scottish courts should have jurisdiction to take proceedings in respect of civil law questions relating to renewable energy installations and related lines in Scottish internal and territorial waters, as well as waters designated in clause 85(5). Having given an undertaking that the Order in Council under subsection (2) will follow that principle, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment, the drafting of which is defective in that it provides only for Scotland.

On amendment no. 31, clause 96(4) says:

''Before issuing a notice under this section, which relates, wholly or partly, to—

(a) an area of Scottish waters, or

(b) an area of waters in a Scottish part of a Renewable Energy Zone,

the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers.''

That reflects an agreement that we have reached with Scottish Ministers. The Secretary of State will, of course, listen carefully to Scottish Ministers' views, and will do everything that she can to accommodate

them. It is certainly reasonable to assume that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers will reach an agreement; I do not think that there will be any difficulty with that, because we strongly share with Scottish Ministers a commonly held objective to encourage renewable energy. We already work closely with colleagues at the Department for Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive to ensure that there is a common, UK-wide approach to marine safety policy and regulation. When agreement is not possible—although one can envisage that in the future it will be—the Secretary of State must be able to take the action that she thinks is proper, taking account of the consultation with Ministers and the public that will be required for a safety zone. If there were a requirement to obtain the agreement of Scottish Ministers, the danger would be that she would be unable to act if such an agreement were not forthcoming, and such an impasse would not be in the interests of marine safety.

I should like to respond to a couple of points made earlier in the debate. The hon. Member for Angus referred on a number of occasions to the continental shelf. However, the renewable energy zone is not based on that. It derives from article 56 of part V of the UN convention law of the sea, which deals with the exclusive economic zone. The continental shelf derives from part VI of the convention. There is that difference, and the continental shelf part of the convention relates to oil and gas development, not to renewable energy, which is raised in part V.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I should like to respond to a point that the hon. Lady made earlier, which may be helpful. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to make an order applying civil and criminal law—Scots or English—to an installation and to a safety zone. It does not apply to the renewable energy zone by itself, but to the installations within it. When the order has been made, the position will be clear.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

The clarification I was seeking is compounded by the Minister's reference to the part VI of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which, as he said, refers to the continental shelf, and to oil and gas exploration. Is he saying that the renewable energy zone has a different legal base? It will set more alarm bells ringing if there is no protection for shipping, which currently enjoys the public right of navigation around oil rigs. Will it enjoy the same rights to navigate around a zone?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

It is the same convention, but part V rather than part VI applies. In part V, article 56 refers to

''activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of a zone such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds.''

That is the basis of the Bill's renewable energy zone provisions, rather than part VI, which sets out the arrangements relating to the continental shelf.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I mentioned the difference between parts V and VI when I spoke earlier. However, I am not satisfied with what the Minister said because it seems to be a recipe for complete confusion. I cannot understand the Minister's reluctance to include in the Bill that Scots law will apply in respect of renewable energy installations, as it does in respect of oil installations. There are wind farms off the English coast and several projects in the pipeline for wind farms off the Scottish coast. Many will be in areas where there is oil and gas exploration, although some of that is coming to an end.

Earlier, the problem of pipelines or cables bringing energy ashore from wind farms was mentioned. Many of the pipelines from those installations will pass through Scottish waters and end up in Scotland, however they are defined. It appears that we are to have different laws in respect of oil and gas and renewable energy and possibly fishing. That is a recipe for disaster, as there will be uncertainty about which law applies in a given situation.

The Minister said that he would consider the matter but he is unwilling to give a clear commitment. I therefore wish to press the amendment to a Division.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

The Minister is even more familiar with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea than I am. I will not press our amendment but I put down a marker that we may wish to return to the subject. The hon. Gentleman seems to have confirmed that there will be a separate legal basis for zones under part V of the UN convention, as opposed to oil and gas exploration under part VI. That will have consequences when we discuss later clauses.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I welcome the opportunity to have a short debate on the clause and in particular the implications for both the clause and the Bill generally of the UN convention on the law of the sea. We had a short debate this morning on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who sought to discuss some of the marine environmental issues. Quite properly those issues come under this part of the Bill.

As the Minister said, article 2 of the convention sets out the

''Legal status of the territorial sea, of the air space over the territorial sea and of its bed and subsoil''.

Part V sets out the exclusive economic zone. There are some quite wide ranging measures, which I am sure the Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Lewes, would wish to support. Article 57 states:

''The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.''

I presume that the Minister can confirm that the zones will be within that scale.

Mention is made of the conservation of living resources, and article 61 calls on the coastal state to determine the allowable catch of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone. One surprising feature of this part of the Bill, bearing in mind that Lord Whitty from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs steered it through the House of Lords, is that the Government pay little regard to how they will meet their obligations under article 61. What steps has the Department taken on this?

The utilisation of living resources in the exclusive economic zone is set out further in article 62. It talks about highly migratory species. I am sure that the hon. Member for Angus accepts that fishing policy is one of the most contentious policies at the moment because, in my humble submission, fish do not swim around with a Union jack on their backs.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

Or a saltire.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

Indeed. It is difficult to say in whose waters these fish belong. The coastal state Government also has a duty under article 64 towards the highly migratory species listed in annex 1. Specific obligations are set out in respect of marine animals, anadromous stocks and so on. I cannot pronounce some of the terms, so I will not go through them article by article. However, part V of the UN convention, which we heard from the Minister is the legal basis for what we are discussing, sets out rights and responsibilities on the part of the Government. Coastal states are enabled to establish the zone and given back

''sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources''

and the production of energy from the water, both currents and tides, and wind. I do not disagree with the measure; I simply wait to hear from the Minister how it will be pushed through.

The Library note is a little confusing in that regard. The Minister seemed to indicate with a nod from a sedentary position his agreement that the safety zone would not be more than 200 miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. The note says that the UN law of the sea convention specifies that the safety zone is not to exceed a distance of 500 m from the installation unless the International Maritime Organisation agrees that it can be larger. We shall come on to discuss in some detail some of the issues relating to navigation, so I shall not raise them now. I wonder at what stage the Minister, either through his Department or, more likely, the Department for Transport, will enter into

discussions with the IMO with regard to the distance of 500 m from the installation that will be based in the exclusive zone.

I welcome clause 85. International law has long recognised that each coastal state has jurisdiction and sovereignty over its territorial waters, but no comprehensive legal framework is in place for offshore renewable energy developments beyond the territorial waters. We therefore need the legal basis set out in the clause.

My concern, to which I have alluded, relates to the Government trying to create a zone through the Bill. Within that, we shall see whether consents can be applied for installations in what happen to be some of the busiest shipping lanes. At a time when the Government and the European Commission seek to boost not only international shipping but coastal shipping and short sea shipping routes, the Minister will be aware that there will be a direct confrontation between the two policies of developing renewable energy zones and allowing commercial shipping to develop, as we hope it will. I seek elucidation from the Minister.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

On a rather different tack, may I raise a couple of obtuse constitutional and procedural points relating to the clause and ask the Minister for an explanation?

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

You usually do.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

No, this is unusual. Under clause 85(4), it is proposed that the powers will reside with ''Her Majesty'', who

''may by Order in Council designate'',

yet subsection (5) has a different formulation. It states:

''The Secretary of State may . . . designate''.

It is not clear to me what the difference is. Perhaps I should know more about constitutional law than I do, but what is the difference between the effects of the wording in subsection (4) and that in subsection (5), both of which appear to be subject to the negative resolution procedure under subsection (6)?

On another obtuse point—it is nevertheless worth raising, given the number of times that the words ''Her Majesty'' appear in the Bill—there is a difference between the personal possessions of the monarch and the Crown in Parliament, which is the formula that we use for many of our activities. The wording in subsection (1) is ambiguous in that regard, and I wonder whether the Minister has taken advice on it.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

As the hon. Member for Vale of York rightly said, a legislative framework is already in place to govern the development of renewable energy resources—wind as well as tide and wave power—around our coast to a 12-nautical-mile limit of territorial waters. Beyond that, international law governs our rights and obligations, and it is the UN convention—UNCLOS—that gives coastal states the

right to explore and develop wind, tide and wave resources to produce energy in a 200-nautical-mile offshore zone, which we are calling the renewable energy zone.

The hon. Lady asked about the distance, and it is 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In practice, the zone will not extend for anything like 200 nautical miles around much of the UK coast because it would run into other countries. In those cases, the zone boundary will extend to the median line.

The hon. Lady asked about the significance of vesting powers in Her Majesty, which is the form used. Subsection (1) vests in Her Majesty the rights set out in part V of UNCLOS to explore and exploit the water and wind resources of the renewable energy zone. The practical effect is that the Crown Estate will have similar powers to those that it exercises already as owner of the sea bed in territorial waters to negotiate site licences with developers who want to build projects in the renewable energy zone beyond territorial waters.

Wind power is the most advanced renewable technology at the moment, but we are looking further ahead than that and putting in place a framework to enable wave and tide projects to proceed when they become feasible on a significant scale. The constitutional basis is to ensure that the responsibilities will be exercised by the Crown Estate for the renewable energy zone in the same way that they are in territorial waters.

The hon. Lady asked about other aspects of part V of the UN convention. I should make it clear that we are not constructing an exclusive economic zone; we are exercising only the rights that the convention gives us on renewable energy to establish a renewable energy zone. This part of the Bill puts in place the arrangements to do that.

The fishing provisions in part V, to which the hon. Lady referred, do not apply. As she said, several of the issues will come up under later parts of the Bill, but I do not think that there are problems in restricting ourselves to the renewable energy powers that the convention gives us.

I hope that I have covered the points raised by hon. Members and that the Committee is content to agree to the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.