Clause 115 - Duty to inform Secretary of State
Energy Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in

clause 115, page 92, line 40, leave out 'or'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 143, in

clause 115, page 92, line 42, at end insert ', or—

(c) to participation where the person does not have a serious executive role in those activities.'.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I will not detain the Committee for long on these amendments. They are the final part of what I have to say. Rather like in the ''Three Colours'' trilogy of films, this is an attempt to colour in, in different ways, the question of certainty in the commissioning of projects. With these amendments, I seek to clarify who is included in the requirements of the various clauses that we have just agreed to.

Amendment No. 142 would delete the word ''or''. Although that appears to be a small change, it would clarify the circumstances in which someone may be caught by the provisions. Amendment No. 143 would distance from being liable someone who was only very peripherally involved in the process. The clauses rightly seek to spell out distinctions; for example, between principals and agents. However, the Bill appears to draw the net rather widely in terms of who might be involved. That may create a climate of uncertainty in the process about who may be liable in cases of decommissioning. My amendments seek to clarify that by putting a boundary around the question, while accepting the principle that, as Stanley Holloway said, ''someone's got to be summonsed.'' Who that person is must be closely and carefully defined to provide certainty in the commissioning process.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

The purpose of the duty to inform the Secretary of State when a person becomes responsible for a renewable energy installation or a related cable is so that the Secretary of State knows who owns or has a material interest in the installations or the line. Offshore wind farm projects can change hands rapidly. There is nothing wrong with that; it is to be expected in an emerging industry. The Secretary of State must be able to keep track of those changes so that she can make the decommissioning scheme work effectively.

The categories of legal persons classed as becoming responsible for an installation or related line, and who therefore have a duty to inform the Secretary of State, are listed in subsection (2). We must place a duty not only on those who initially begin to construct, extend, operate, use or decommission the installation or the

line, but on those who subsequently join a project and begin to participate in such activities. In other words, we need to catch the other people who have a material interest in the project.

Subsection (8) makes it clear that any person participating on behalf of another person or providing services is excluded. That will exclude subcontractors, staff employed by developers, and staff employed by those providing services such as banking. The clause is not aimed at such people. It is not necessary to accept my hon. Friend's amendment, which covers employers of persons participating in the transaction.

The next question is whether the amendment intends to exclude anyone else from the duty in subsection (1). I am advised that the terms are difficult to construe legally and might, for example, exempt a person providing a large share of the finance for a project who does not hold an executive role. The Secretary of State would want to know who that person was, and the amendments would—deliberately or inadvertently—deprive the Secretary of State of the potential to acquire that knowledge.

I hope that I have sufficiently explained that serious point and that my hon. Friend understands the thinking of the Secretary of State when drafting the Bill. She has taken on board the key fears and concerns, but she is also determined to have proper safeguards for an area of development in which ownership can rapidly change. I hope that that explanation satisfies my hon. Friend.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

Once again, I would be grateful to the Minister if he ensured that, as the investment programme gets under way, the law of unintended consequences does not appear to apply. He made good points about the powers that should be available to the Secretary of State for ensuring that responsible people are properly responsible, but those who are not seriously responsible should not be caught up. I take his point that it is difficult to define in law, for example, the role of a sleeping partner, who perhaps has a substantial interest that is not clear on the surface. Nevertheless, if, as a result of attempting to define that in the law, someone without a serious interest is caught, greater uncertainty could be introduced. I hope that, as the Minister said, it is not the Government's intention to catch those people in the net, and that that will become the reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 116 and 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock till Thursday 17 June at five minutes to Nine o'clock.

O'Brien, Mr. Bill (

Chairman

Atkins, Charlotte

Blizzard, Mr.

Challen, Mr.

Griffiths, Nigel

Key, Mr.

McDonald, Mr.

McIntosh, Miss

Murphy, Mr. Denis

Page, Mr.

Picking, Anne

Robertson, Mr. Laurence

Ruffley, Mr.

Stewart, Ian

Stunell, Mr.

Timms, Mr.

Tipping, Paddy

Turner, Dr. Desmond

Walley, Joan

Weir, Mr.

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr.