Clause 102 - Extinguishment etc. of public rights of navigation
Energy Bill [Lords]
3:30 pm
Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)
I will deal with the amendments separately, as one has slightly more merit than the other, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so.
A provision such as amendment No. 32, which would insert
''may not disrupt any other area of significant economic activity'',
would probably have halted the North sea oil and gas industry in its tracks in its infancy. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman hinted at that. That does not negate the need for consultation, however, and I will come to that in discussing amendment No. 33.
If we accepted amendment No. 32, anyone who incurred a loss because of a structure being located in a certain place—by having to go round it or having their access blocked—could sue the developer for causing a nuisance. The addition of the term ''significant economic activity'' could also cause confusion, because as far as I am aware, it is not a recognised economic term. It would be hard to define.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will be reassured if I tell him that amendment No. 33 would largely duplicate provisions elsewhere in clause 103 that require the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to consult appropriate bodies before deciding how to tackle the right of navigation within a wind farm. Again, use of the term ''significant economic activity'' would cause confusion because of the difficulty in defining it.
I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman on the fears of giving any party an apparent economic veto and reassured him that the need for consultation is already covered, so it is not necessary to duplicate it with amendment No. 33.