Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 144, in

schedule 16, page 232, line 42, leave out

'either in addition to or'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 145, in

schedule 16, page 233, line 35, leave out

'either in addition to or'.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

The amendments are modest and helpful. They concern the process by which a person or a body wishing to install an offshore installation goes about doing so. Schedule 16 sets out the process by which the inquiry takes place if there are objections to the installation or to the safety zone; clauses 94 to 96 also apply in this regard.

When an individual or an organisation seeks to place an installation in an offshore site, as set out in clause 94, they must first obtain approval by means of a section 36 application of the Electricity Act 1989. When they seek to do so, they will consider several things, the first being whether an element of the application is covered by a local authority area which, in the case of most offshore applications it will not be. They will therefore consider that in terms of a potential inquiry into their application, it will lie within the purview of the Minister and the mechanisms set out in the previous clauses.

Secondly, they will consider whether a safety zone around the installation is likely to be required. In most circumstances, bearing in mind our debates, a safety zone probably would be required, but not necessarily in all circumstances. However, a person or organisation wanting to produce or invest in an installation would want a clear line of approach in terms of the decision-making process of the proposal for such an installation. They would want to know whether there was a safety zone and, if so, whether it was likely to be a matter of controversy and whether it would be the subject of the inquiry. They would also want to know whether the application itself was likely to be the subject of an inquiry. The fact that it would be the subject of an inquiry would not necessarily deter an investor wanting to set up an offshore installation. It is the certainty of the process that is important. My amendment would put certainty into the process, because as schedule 16 suggests, there could be a situation in which an individual or a company wished to put an installation into an offshore site and, because a local authority did not cover that site, the Minister

required an inquiry to be held. When that inquiry was being held the investor in the installation might be concerned about the safety zone. That may be a matter for separate side letters; there may be discussions and informal inquiries about whether there should be a safety zone and, if so, what it will consist of.

All of that occurs while the installation is not being built because if a section 36 application succeeds and it is built, the subsequent question of the safety zone means that the safety zone has to fit around the installation that is built; it cannot require that the installation has to be removed. While that installation is not built and it is on paper, there is a question about the certainty of investment; the investor will wish to know about the safety zone and how the process by which it will be determined is carried out.

As section 16 currently stands, it appears that the Minister can discuss via other devices such as side letters and other processes the definition and extent of a safety zone and that, suddenly, at the end of the process—within perhaps three days of the investor considering that it has come to an end and they can therefore start work on their installation—the Minister may decide that there should be an inquiry after all. The process will then be set back and put into a state of uncertainty again because nothing has been placed on the sea bed for a long period. I am certain that our Minister would not do that, but that is not the point. The point is that the perception of those who are considering investing in the process is that this is a hurdle that they might have to overcome. That creates uncertainty.

The amendment addresses that problem. It is proper to consider whether to have inquiries at each stage, but it should be made clear at the beginning of the process if there is to be an inquiry. If there is not to be an inquiry and the process is to proceed by other means, that should also be made clear. The amendment does not in any way abridge the rights of people or organisations—or, indeed, interested non-governmental organisations—to make objections, or the rights of the Minister to consider what is the best way to proceed. It simply suggests that the Minister ought to make that process clear as the process of application takes place, so that when the application is finally determined with regard to installation and the safety zone, it is safe to proceed; certainty is thereby secured.

I hope that the Minister will support the amendment or give me assurances about how the outcome can be secured in terms of the process by which installations are decided and become reality.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

I must confess that I was rather puzzled when I read amendments Nos. 144 and 145 because I could not quite work out their purpose. I thought that they might be intended to tease out an understanding of this situation and to advance the position that they would bring about, rather than to be definitive amendments. I have listened with great interest and I am not certain that I am that much further forward than when the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead)

started, but I fully accept that that is my mistake, my error and my weakness, on which the whole Committee can agree without any difficulty.

I am all for placing duties on the Secretary of State where necessary. The Committee will remember that when we started on clause 1, I was one of the people who said that the Secretary of State should have a duty to ensure the integrity and security of electricity and gas supply. As we know, the Minister weaselled out of that one fairly quickly. The Secretary of State has instead been given carte blanche and will have little responsibility if there is any trouble.

In this case, however, I cannot see why the hon. Member for Southampton, Test wants to tie the Minister's hands by creating what I can describe only as a ''go, no-go'' situation. I cannot see why the flexibility of the middle route should not be available. Had the Liberals tabled the amendment, I would think that it was a wrecking amendment designed to cause all sorts of trouble, but obviously the hon. Gentleman does not want to wreck the Bill; he wants to improve it. I will therefore listen with great interest to what the Minister says in accepting or rejecting the hon. Gentleman's comments.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test produced the example of a safety zone. That may be necessary, but does he really think that it would be sensible for the Minister to be able either to do nothing except tick the box, or to have a public inquiry? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman looks at his amendment, he will see that that is what it would achieve. It would mean that the Minister had either to reject the objections that were put forward, or to go to a public inquiry. There seems to be no halfway house.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I am obliged to him for his detailed interest in what I am attempting to achieve. However, if he looks at paragraph 4(3)(b) of the schedule, he will see that it says

''if he''—

that is, the Minister—

''thinks it appropriate to do so''.

The Minister can therefore pursue different methods of determining whether there should be a safety zone not including a public inquiry, but if he considers it appropriate, he may determine that there should be such an inquiry. It is not an either/or situation. My amendment is designed simply to ensure that the route is clear when the decisions are initially considered, not right at the end of the process.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

I can go along with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but if he reads paragraph 4(3)(b) of the schedule, he will see that with his amendment it would say, ''must cause a public inquiry to be held, instead of any other hearing or opportunity of stating objections to the application.'' That is how I read it, but what he has just said seems slightly at variance with that.

It is unusual for me to try to help the Minister and defend him in moments of trial and trouble—we all know that Ministers are in a degree of difficulty at the moment and I want to help them over this blip—but

the flexibility that would, in my view, be removed by the hon. Gentleman's amendment should not be removed. We are into, if people will pardon the terrible pun, uncharted waters. We will be doing things that will gradually assume planning law, regulation and accepted practice. I sincerely hope that the Minister will keep the flexibility that is in the Bill. I shall look to see whether he either insults me as a result of my complete lack of understanding of the situation or lets his hon. Friend down gently.

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

We heard a little from the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services this morning about public inquiries and the procedures that will be used on land. I find the amendments quite interesting, as presumably they are probing the terms of a public inquiry for offshore installations. We know that those who contest planning applications, and particularly those who press for public inquiries, may do so more as a delaying tactic than because they have any conscientious objection to the planning application.

I am sure that the Minister is about as familiar as I am with the public inquiry procedures, because they involve a different Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, are the original schedule 16 and the helpful amendments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test based on having the same procedures for a public inquiry into an offshore installation as an onshore installation? Will a time limit be set for the length of any such public inquiry, so as not to delay the process unnecessarily?

I think—if I understood the hon. Member for Southampton, Test correctly—it would be the Department of Trade and Industry from which a public inquiry would be sought. If that public inquiry proceeded, but the Department still had objections to its conclusions, to which body could an appellant appeal about those conclusions?

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

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test was very clear in his exposition of the two amendments. For the sake of clarity and to help the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), let me set out what we believe the provisions would achieve—or rather, what we would not want them to achieve. We certainly would not want a decision on a safety zone notice to be held up for a long time after a section 36 consent has been granted just because the Secretary of State decided, fairly late in the day, to hold a public inquiry. That is the nub of my hon. Friend's legitimate concerns. We do not believe that that would be the result of schedule 16, but we will look into the matter again in the light of his comments, and that will be reflected on Report.

If my hon. Friend is happy with that explanation, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment. I do not believe that there is a specific time limit on a public inquiry. The procedures for a section 36 consent will be the basis of consideration of safety

zones. Paragraph 6(9) sets out further information on that. I hope that I have explained that better for the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire and others, although I do not think that I could improve on the excellent explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. With that, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that, although he believes that schedule 16 does not cause the problems that I outlined, he will look at it again. That indeed is what I was attempting to achieve by raising the issue through the amendment. There may be methods other than my amendment by which some of my concerns could be dealt with. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 16 agreed to.