PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Eleventh sitting) - 15 June 2023 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

I beg to move amendment 135, in clause 245, page 206, line 13, leave out from “wind” to end of line 18 and insert “activity” means—

(a) the planning, construction, operation or decommissioning of offshore wind electricity infrastructure, or

(b) the identification of an area for activity within paragraph (a) (whether or not any particular offshore wind electricity infrastructure is in contemplation).”

This amendment widens the definition in clause 245 to cover the identification of an area for offshore wind development. The amendment also changes the definition to “relevant offshore wind activity”.

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr Gray, as we plough on through this immense Bill.

Clause 245 is the first in a series of clauses relating to offshore wind infrastructure projects that will provide new approaches to delivering compensatory measures for environmental impacts and speed up and simplify the consenting process for offshore wind projects. They will do all that while continuing to protect and enhance our marine environment. The clause sets out some key definitions for the purposes of the subsequent new clauses relating to offshore wind infrastructure projects.

I will now briefly set out the Government amendments tabled last week. Government amendments 136 and 137 define “offshore wind electricity infrastructure” to ensure the offshore wind clauses capture all infrastructure in the UK marine area used or intended for use in connection with an offshore wind farm.

Government amendments 135 and 138 to 156 widen the definition of “relevant offshore wind activity” in clause 245 to cover the identification of an area for offshore wind development. That ensures all the clauses relating to offshore wind infrastructure projects apply to offshore wind spatial plans, as well as to individual projects. The amendments also change the definition to “relevant offshore wind activity”.

Clause 246 will allow strategic compensatory measures to be used to fulfil duties under the habitats regulations, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Scottish and Northern Irish equivalents. That should speed up decision making on offshore wind farm development consents while protecting and enhancing our marine environment. For some offshore wind projects, all feasible options to avoid, reduce or mitigate adverse impacts on protected habitats and species will be exhausted. Where that happens, the public authority must satisfy itself that sufficient compensatory measures for these impacts are secured before granting development consent.

The devolved Governments are responsible for consenting to some offshore wind projects in their areas. These provisions ensure that the appropriate public authority can consider applying strategic compensatory measures to offshore wind projects.

Clause 246 will enable public authorities to use strategic compensatory measures that have already been delivered or will be delivered in the future to fulfil their compensation obligations. As strategic compensatory measures could be delivered away from the site affected by the development, the Government are committed to working with devolved Administrations to agree how to manage such measures with cross-border implications.

Clause 247 enables the establishment, operation and management of one or more marine recovery funds. It allows the Secretary of State to delegate functions connected with the marine recovery fund, including to a public authority under a devolved Administration. It is our intention to delegate the functions necessary for devolved Governments to operate their own funds as appropriate. That will mean their marine recovery fund may deliver compensatory measures for the projects they consent. It will be an optional route for offshore wind developers or plan promoters to discharge requirements on them to compensate for damage to a marine protected site.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is leading work with the offshore wind industry and other stakeholders to develop a library of ecologically robust and commercially feasible strategic compensation measures. The marine recovery fund will deliver only measures that have been approved through this process. That will help to reduce time spent considering compensatory measures during the consenting process. It provides a mechanism to deliver approved compensatory measures strategically, using financial contributions from one or more developers or plan promoters.

Clause 248 will help speed up the consenting process for offshore wind projects. It will allow the habitats regulations assessment and marine conservation zone assessment processes to be adapted and streamlined. These changes will apply to offshore wind development in the UK marine area only. The clause will enable the modification of existing, and the creation of new, legislation for the assessment of the environmental effects on protected sites caused by the development of offshore wind. We intend to make regulations that ensure that environmental protection of protected sites is addressed earlier in the pre-application planning process. That should speed up the consenting process by providing greater certainty and reducing statutory nature conservation body resource spent on examination of well-understood mitigations.

The powers also allow for the development of guidance to outline how assessments of the effects on protected sites should be undertaken. We also intend to make regulations that provide clarity on compensatory measures, which should make it easier for developers and regulators to offset damage to protected sites, and to secure such solutions at an earlier stage.

Clause 248 will also allow the Government to consider enabling developers to provide broader compensatory measures, rather than so-called like-for-like measures, that improve wider marine ecosystems but are not targeted at specific impacted habitats, species or protected areas. I must emphasise, however, that a broader approach should be considered only where like-for-like measures are not the most effective compensation. We intend for consent decisions to remain subject to advice from statutory nature conservation bodies.

Clause 249 will help to maintain consistency in environmental assessment processes across the United Kingdom marine protected areas network. To balance that with our offshore wind ambition, we recognise the importance of engaging relevant parties on those important issues. Clause 249 will therefore ensure that the Government and the devolved Administrations work closely with each other, as well as with statutory nature conservation bodies and marine regulatory bodies, on any changes to the process, and consult on issues relevant to their waters. In addition to clause 245, clause 250 sets out some key definitions for the clauses relating to offshore wind infrastructure in this chapter.

With that, Mr Gray, I beg to move that clause 245 and Government amendment 135 stand part of the Bill.

As the Minister has said, we are making progress with this enormous Bill, part of which is the enormous clause 245 and everything that goes with it. Hon. Members will see that Mr Gray has undertaken a difficult task in accommodating these clauses, which cover various factors, and a considerable number of amendments in a single group for debate. I am afraid that that means that a considerable amount of unpacking is necessary, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for spending a little time doing so.

To put the Government and Opposition amendments in context, I will reflect briefly on how part 12 seeks to better incorporate in planning arrangements a combination of circumstances relating to offshore wind electricity generation. The reason for that is to ensure that those planning arrangements proceed much more efficiently, including by reducing the time spent getting consent for offshore wind developments. It also proposes bringing a number of other things into the zone—I will give one or two examples in a moment—in order to make the offshore wind planning process much more holistic, as opposed to current approach of wind farm by wind farm, and device by device. It is about making sure that the process can be carried out much more efficiently by speeding it up and redefining it. We must also try to ensure—and we will come to this in a moment—that we take a balanced approach towards speeding up the process, by considering environmental and conservation issues both offshore and in the North sea.

Various clauses in this group deal with different aspects of what we are trying do with offshore wind. Hon. Members will see that both the Bill and the Government amendments suggest doing so via particular routes. The purport of the Government amendments, as far as I understand them, is mainly to ensure that issues wider than just wind farms are included in the whole planning discussion.

Government amendment 136 states that “offshore wind electricity infrastructure” means

“a generating station, in the UK marine area, that generates electricity…or infrastructure, in the UK marine area, used or intended for use in connection with—

(i) an offshore wind generating station, or

(ii) the conveyance of electricity generated by an offshore wind generating station.”

That includes not just the generating stations themselves, but the cables, wires and other arrangements going to and from the stations, including to the point where they are landed onshore.

That is particularly important, given that it is inevitable—indeed, this should have been the case a long time ago—that offshore generation will be undertaken not by point-to-point arrangements with cables to individual wind farms, but by cabling systems that will, for instance, connect wind farms with nodal points to collect their power at sea and then convey that power via one common cable, perhaps to a particular landing station, as opposed to our current point-to-point arrangements.

The development of a grid highway in the North sea—or, indeed, in the Celtic sea—will be integral to the future operation of those wind farm arrangements. It is, therefore, quite proper that that should be considered in the overall planning arrangements. Government amendment 136 allows for that and also very helpfully states in its explanatory statement that it also covers bootstraps. I am sure that everybody knows what a bootstrap is. In a sense it has nothing to do with offshore wind. It is actually an interconnector cable that is anchored at one point on the shore—on land in the UK—and conveys a high-voltage current, via the seabed, to another land point, particularly to get around constraints of onshore cabling congestion.

While I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is trying to prosecute, surely we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are talking about how to sensibly protect the environment while establishing a broader regime for offshore wind, which has huge benefits for the environment. Can he understand that what he proposes might tip the balance towards making the perfect the enemy of the good?

The hon. Member makes a valid point. Certainly, we do not want to effectively veto the development of offshore wind by putting restrictions on it place by place, scheme by scheme, in such a way that those schemes cannot go ahead. However, the North sea and the Celtic sea, for example, are very large places. They have a great many sites that can be used for offshore wind development in a perfectly good and environmentally conscientious way, which allows for enhanced development to take place without trashing the marine environment. The issue is not whether we make the best the enemy of the good, but how we pursue the good in tandem with environmental considerations, while not stopping the progress of that enhanced development.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, and I will make this my last intervention. He has just described offshore wind as trashing the marine environment. I really do not think that we can leave that on the record. In fact, we could highlight the good about offshore wind development. One of the most destructive marine practices is bottom trawling, which is made much more difficult with wind turbines in place. Once installed, wind turbines actually create nursery environments for the marine life that I was so fortunate to study at university.

The hon. Member would be absolutely right again, had I said that offshore wind was trashing the environment. I think that when we get the record back we will see that I said, “so that we can proceed without trashing the environment.”

There is an implication there.

Okay. What I was trying to convey—perhaps I did not do so in quite the pellucid way I might have—was what we want to achieve with offshore wind development. As I have said, the Opposition are committed, along with the Government, to a huge increase in offshore wind, which we think can be achieved, most importantly, while taking proper note of the environmental considerations that surround those sites. As the hon. Member for South Ribble says, in the right places and under the right circumstances offshore wind can be, in the end, a substantial enhancement of the underwater habitat and environment.

I think my hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that some places are appropriate for offshore wind and some are not because of the nature of the marine environment. Does he share my concerns about existing protections? A lot of marine protected areas are described as little more than “paper parks” because they are not achieving what they are meant to. We need to enhance the protections for those designated areas. Just as in some places it is appropriate to fish and in others not, we ought to respect the fact that in some areas, marine protection has to be the No. 1 priority.

My hon. Friend is quite right. She will no doubt be thinking back to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which started to develop exactly the concept that she sets out—that there are right and wrong places for development. There are places that we should seriously ensure are protected as much as possible—marine conservation zones—and it would be really quite a sin to put development on those. There are also places where there are known marine traffic routes, and siting an offshore wind farm right in the middle of a major offshore traffic route would not be a good idea either. There are other areas where the communications required for offshore wind farms could themselves be subject to environmental considerations, and those need to be taken into account too.

After the 2009 Act was passed, a number of marine conservation areas were supposed to be set up. Many of them have not been, and those that were have not had the level of policing and enforcement that they should have had.

As Labour left government, we had plans for an ecologically coherent network of, I think, 113 marine conservation zones. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that we are now 13 years on and still far from achieving that? It is important that we do not go backwards on the issues that we are discussing today. Obviously, we need to go forwards, but going backwards would be even worse than remaining in the same place.

My hon. Friend is right again, and she recalls the exact number of conservation zones, which had escaped my memory. We might say that if we had those marine conservation zones in place now, we would be much clearer today about exactly what we will be doing as far as planning in the North sea and Celtic sea is concerned.

Lyme Bay fairly near me, which should be a marine conservation zone—I am not sure that it is—has cold-water coral features, and it would be quite lethal to those formations were we to develop offshore activities there. That is why that zone should be protected. Other areas further down—

Yes. I think, Mr Gray, you are drawing an analogy between floating offshore wind and tethered offshore wind and saying that I should restrict my remarks to tethered offshore wind rather than free-floating.

Indeed. I will endeavour to tether my remarks to the offshore wind in the North sea that we are thinking about.

What I was trying to get clear is not that Labour Members want to restrict unnecessarily or negatively the development of offshore wind—we want it to go ahead as quickly as possible and on as many sites as possible in the North sea—but that we want it go ahead on the basis of a proper regime that ensures that we equate environmental protection with the development that goes ahead. We are not at all sure that the compensation principle, which appears to be applied here substantially, is the best way to do that.

Amendment 164 very much goes along with what the Government have now put in their own amendment, so amendment 164 is probably pretty redundant. It seeks to bring in a more holistic picture of what it is to develop offshore activities and would, according to our explanatory statement,

“extend the fast-track consenting process for offshore wind to supporting marine development necessary to support the offshore wind project.”

The Minister might want to comment, but I think that is pretty much covered by the Government’s amendments, so I am happy about that.

Amendments 165 to 167 get rather more to the heart of what I have been talking about. Clause 248, which concerns the assessment of environmental effects, allows the Minister by regulation, among other things, to switch off a number of environmental protections—I will not read them all out because it would take a very long time—that are already in place and replace them with the compensation arrangement. We do not think it is right that those protections should be switched off, and with amendments 166 and 167 we seek to switch off the switching off. Amendment 166 would leave out subsection (4)(i), which refers to

“any relevant Habitats Directive rights,”

and amendment 167 would switch off subsection (5), which lists the provisions set out in subsection (4)(i)(i). As I said, it is a long list of sections of Acts and regulations that very much underpin marine environmental protection.

Having done that, we want to replace those provisions with a positive alternative, set out in amendment 165. As I said, we want the appropriate authority to

“have regard to the particular importance”—

I emphasise “have regard”—

“of furthering the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.”

The amendment also states that the appropriate authority

“may make regulations under this section only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the overall level of environmental protection or the level of protection for individual sites and species, and…before making regulations under this section, must publish a statement explaining why it is so satisfied.”

The amendment would also require the appropriate authority to

“seek advice from persons who are independent of the authority and have relevant expertise,”

and to

“include an explanation relating in particular to protection provided by”

measures such as the Marine and Coastal Access Act, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. The positive alternative we have put forward is that the Secretary of State should have regard to all those things.

As underlined by the brief exchange between myself and the hon. Member for South Ribble, I mean not that the environmental regulations have a veto on progress, but that the Secretary of State should have regard to them and should make regulations that are compatible with them as far as possible. If they are not compatible, the Secretary of State needs to provide a good explanation as to why, and the circumstances under which that projected development has gone ahead. The development arrangements should work with provisions such as the Marine and Coastal Access Act, rather than against them. That is a much more sensible way to proceed, with a combination of proper and rapid planning consideration and proper environmental protection.

As the hon. Member for South Ribble said, the ultimate outcome should be one where we have a settled marine environment, which is beneficial overall. That includes, for example, the additional assistance that fish conservation may receive from wind farms being in particular places, allowing species to flourish and expand out of the range of fishing vessels, under the shelter of the turbines and so on. The possibility of producing a beneficial outcome overall for marine environments as a result of our trying to develop these new sources of low-carbon power need not be an oppositional activity. It is not a zero sum game; we can have the two together. We think our amendments set out the right way of doing that.

I look forward to the Minister defending the alternative way, as set out in the clauses. The extent of what he has to say will determine whether we decide to divide on any of the amendments. It is important that we get this right together. Ideally, the Minister would come at least some way towards encompassing our alternative method, rather than that which is presently set out in the clauses.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. You must be delighted to have the Thursday afternoon shift this week. I agree with the Government amendments on the expansion of definitions and capturing other infrastructure required to facilitate service offshore wind generation, especially given the scale of the build-out still required and the renewable energy offshore wind targets that we want to see.

I agree with the principles of strategic compensation for adverse environmental effects in clause 246. Such considerations have been a stumbling block for Berwick Bank offshore wind farm, for example, so having regulations that provide clarity on environmental considerations and possible compensation for other projects is certainly welcome. The key test will be whether sufficient clarity is provided and workable. If we want to deploy renewable energy at a much quicker rate to achieve cheaper bills and eliminate reliance on fossil fuels, we need to be able to look at the environmental impacts in the round and come to sensible, balanced solutions. That means creating environmental equivalence or improvements elsewhere by implementing solutions away from sites if it is deemed that they cannot mitigate the environmental impacts of the site of infrastructure construction.

I have one word of caution; I may not be quite as concerned as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but we need to ensure that these regulations and processes do not become an avenue or vehicle for developers to choose a much easier, cheaper financial solution for them, rather than looking at all avenues to mitigate the environmental impacts at the construction sites. It is critical that robust analysis is undertaken by the relevant regulatory bodies. I realise that subsection (4) is not intended to ensure that everything is looked at and worked through to the nth degree, but we need to ensure that that analysis is not overlooked in the dash for renewable energy and that no shortcuts are taken that allow developers to choose an easy financial solution.

I turn to clause 247. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Scottish Government have concerns that the clause gives the Secretary of State the powers to operate a marine recovery fund in Scottish waters without the consent of Scottish Ministers. Indeed, the Secretary of State will have the powers to completely bypass the Scottish Government and appoint another person or authority, and that is replicated for other devolved Administrations. I understand that the Minister has had ongoing discussions with Gillian Martin MSP—the Energy Minister at the Scottish Government—and other officials on these matters, but as far as I know nothing has been agreed yet. That is why I tabled amendments 176 to 180 to outline my thoughts and put down a marker. Clearly, my amendments were not selected for debate and cannot be voted on, given when they were submitted, but they put down a marker. There is still a window in which the Minister can come to some sort of agreement with the Scottish Government on amendments. It would be good if he could provide the Committee an update on how close we are to a solution. Some form of amendment is still required to subsection (8) in that regard.

There may be issues with clause 247(4), which gives the Secretary of State broad regulation-making powers that could be used in a highly prescriptive manner to direct Scottish Ministers as to how they determine that a compensation condition has been discharged. Again, it should not have been too controversial to agree a way forward. That should be done with the consent of Scottish Ministers before implementation.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the collegiate working with the Scottish Government and officials. Nobody is trying to being awkward or territorial for the sake of it, nor are they trying to introduce arbitrary red lines. That is why we are giving the Government a bit more time, rather than pushing votes and extending the debate on this; we are trying to find a collegiate way forward. Again, I hope the Minister can give some insight about a solution with regards to subsection (4).

Finally, in relation to devolution, clause 247(9) allows the Secretary of State to cancel functions that Scottish Ministers have consented to under that clause, which seems anomalous. Again, I am looking for some sort of compromise to protect devolved functions in that regard.

Clause 248 does not provide sufficient certainty that Scottish Ministers will retain consenting functions in the Scottish offshore region or waters beyond 12 nautical miles. I understand that the Scottish and UK Governments have discussed this, but what is the timescale for a possible agreement? I believe that the Scottish Government have suggested draft amendments, so what is the UK Government’s view on them?

Subsections (7) and (8) of clause 248 are too broad. They could alter executively devolved powers and fundamentally shift existing arrangements for the consenting and licensing of offshore wind projects in the Scottish offshore region. Does the Minister appreciate those concerns, and does he have a plan to resolve the situation?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Gray.

I declare an interest, given that we are now talking about renewables: my husband is a company secretary of an organisation called Sheffield Renewables, which is a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield. Although I hope that Sheffield will not become the coastline—if we do everything right so that vast swathes of east Yorkshire, including Selby, are not under water—I thought that it would be prudent for me to declare that interest at this stage.

As a former shadow Minister for nature, this part of the Bill strikes a chord with me. There are things to welcome in the clauses, but I share some of the concerns that have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. In fact, I agree with the words of an Environment Audit Committee report in relation to the development of offshore wind: we should

“be extremely sensitive to biodiversity considerations given the obvious risks of disrupting important habitats”.

That is important because the Bill represents an attempt to tackle not only the carbon crisis, but the nature crisis. What is bad for one is bad for the other, so it is important that we bear biodiversity in mind with every step we take through the Bill, not least because nature is a massive carbon sink. The UK already faces massive nature depletion—we have has some of the worst nature depletion in Europe—so it is right that we debate how the Bill takes such considerations into account.

I fear that clause 248 provides wide powers to ignore habitat regulations, marine Acts and general duties around assessment, which is problematic. There is also something of a misalignment between some of the wording in the Bill and that in the Environment Act 2021. When that Act seeks to alter habitat regulations, there are a lot of caveats, and it might be worth the Minister considering whether it would be right to have those caveats in the Bill, given that both measures represent Government policy and strategy.

I hope that the Bill does not conflict with 13 by 2030, which we have had a conversation about, and the protection of marine areas. I also hope that we will discuss protections. I particularly support our amendments 166 and 167, because it is important to have that switch-off or death switch, I suppose—I am trying to think of a way of phrasing it. We need to keep those protections in place where we can. If we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking that the impact on the environment off-sea will not affect us, we are really missing the point. It would have been nice if there had been a reference to blue carbon in the Bill. Obviously, that has not materialised—I understand why, because the Bill is predominantly to do with energy—but we are missing measures in that space as well.

It is incredibly important that the Minister considers amendment 165, particularly as it outlines some of my concerns about the Bill’s alignment with the Environment Act. It is quite clear that the Bill could do more to ensure that environmental protections exist and that we are not cutting our nose off to spite our face with some of our activity.

I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test, for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and for Sheffield, Hallam for their comments.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made some pertinent points, and I understand his concerns around consult and consent throughout the Bill, especially in regard to consent for licences for offshore wind, but I would just say that negotiations are ongoing. There has been very good discussion and work between UK and Scottish Government officials. That is all part of the wider legislative consent motion negotiations, which are ongoing, so I cannot go into the specifics of each case that he mentioned. There are ongoing discussions about these specific clauses with the Scottish Government. By the time of Report and Third Reading, we will hopefully—well, certainly—have more to say about how those discussions have proceeded.

I turn to the comments made by the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Sheffield, Hallam—we are seeing so much of each other that perhaps we are becoming hon. Friends. I understand the concerns around whether marine protected areas will be substantial enough to protect the areas of sea that we are discussing. Now that we have established the MPA network and it is substantially complete, DEFRA is working very quickly— as we speak—to implement management measures to deliver protections in the marine environment.

We heard a question of whether we are just watering down the environmental assessment process and if we will cause further damage. Absolutely not—I give my guarantee. The Government are committed to the environmental protection of the marine environment, and developers and the relevant public authorities will continue to be required to undertake environmental assessments ahead of consent being given. That will ensure that developments are located where there are low environmental sensitivities and where impacts can be avoided, reduced or mitigated; or, where that is not possible, that suitable compensatory measures are identified early in the processes. I hope that that addresses some of hon. Members’ concerns.

I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling amendment 164, because it is important. We recognise the importance of extending the fast-track consenting process to offshore wind, as he recognised. We have proposed a substantial amendment with the Bill’s offshore wind environmental improvement package. The Government will support accelerated offshore wind deployment and reduce consenting time while protecting the marine environment, all of which the hon. Member was calling for. His amendment is therefore sadly redundant, as he said, so I hope that he will find it within himself not to press it.

I turn to amendment 165. The Government are committed to ensuring high standards of environmental protection and the offshore wind environmental improvement package seeks to ensure that the acceleration of offshore wind can be delivered in a way that continues to protect the environment and to meet our ambitious net zero targets. Through the offshore wind environmental improvement package, we intend to enable the environmental protection of protected areas to be addressed sufficiently early in the pre-application planning process to inform adequate and ecologically robust mitigation and compensatory measures. That in turn should improve the quality of the information coming into the examination stage of an application. The package will enable the Government to improve environmental assessments for offshore wind projects to ensure that we have a consenting system that works for our marine environment.

The new powers to amend environmental assessments will enable us to consider moving away from the EU’s case law and interpretation of these measures, and to tailor the approach to the United Kingdom’s circumstances, while maintaining important environmental protections. Development consent decisions will also remain subject to advice from DEFRA’s statutory nature conservation bodies.

The amendment would impose a requirement on the appropriate authority to seek independent advice before making regulations under clause 248, but clause 249 already requires the appropriate authority, before making such regulations, to consult statutory nature conservation bodies and such other persons as they consider appropriate.

Clause 251 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of setting our arrangements for emergency planning and response to marine oil pollution incidents. Currently, the emergency oil pollution planning and response regime applies to offshore oil and gas activities as well as harbours and onshore handling facilities. In recognising the energy transition and progress towards net zero, the clause will enable a pollution planning and response regime for emerging offshore technologies such as offshore carbon dioxide storage, combustible gas storage, and hydrogen production and storage.

Similar to offshore oil and gas activities, emerging technologies such as offshore hydrogen production and storage will require infrastructure such as subsea pipelines, surface installation and wells. Infrastructure of that kind may act as a pathway to causing oil pollution in the marine environment during its installation, operation or indeed decommissioning stage. Persons responsible for such infrastructure will be required to have an emergency plan in place.

In recognising the importance of ensuring that such a plan remains valid and effective, provisions may be made in relation to the implementation, maintenance and review of such a plan. Reporting requirements of any marine oil pollution incident may also be set out under the clause. Such regulations may provide for the circumstances in which a report must be prepared, and by whom and to whom such a report must be submitted. The content and format of such a report may also be set out in regulations.

To ensure compliance with emergency marine oil pollution planning and response requirements, the clause makes provision for allowing the inspection of infrastructure to take place. An example of the types of provision such regulations can make is provided in the clause. Regulations may make provision for the meaning of any terms or expressions used, for how functions can be conferred on any person, for the charging of fees in relation to matters set out in regulations, for the management of information, for criminal offences and civil sanctions, and for the purpose of securing compliance with the requirements set out in regulations. Criminal offences may not be punishable with imprisonment, nor shall any civil penalty exceed the sum of £50,000. Regulations that contain aspects in relation to the creation of new criminal offences or revisions to existing criminal offences, the imposition of civil penalties or the setting of a civil penalty amount shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 252 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of ensuring consideration of implications for sites designated for protected habitats and species when making decisions in relation to offshore oil and gas activities. Such activities include emerging technology types, such as hydrogen production and storage. As with the existing regime, regulations may be made to make provision for obtaining consent from the Secretary of State prior to undertaking a geophysical survey in relation to the activities mentioned.

Furthermore, the regime will be enhanced by an ability to attach conditions to consents, to ensure that the potential impact of such activities is minimised. For activities that are linked to specific licences issued by the North Sea Transition Authority—the NSTA—for reserved matters, or to a licence issued by Scottish Ministers for devolved matters, regulations may provide that the activity cannot be granted a specified licence without a habitats assessment being undertaken by either the Secretary of State or a Scottish Minister.

Subsection (4) contains a power to enable regulations that provide for directions to be given. Where it becomes apparent that an offshore activity has or may have an adverse effect on a relevant site, the power will enable the Secretary of State to give directions to the consent holder to take mitigating steps. That also applies where the deterioration or disturbance of habitats or species within an offshore site could be significant in relation to the conservation objectives of the relevant site. The consent holder will have to comply with any direction issued.

This delegated power may be used only when the Secretary of State considers that it contributes to the protection of relevant sites, to ensure continued high standards of environmental protection. The meaning of the term “relevant site” is to be set out in regulations, but it is intended to be framed in a way that encapsulates sites designated under other UK regulations for protected habitats and species. Further examples of how the powers in the clause may be exercised are provided for in the clause.

Regulations may make provision for the meaning of any terms or expressions used, for how functions can be conferred on any person, for the revocation of survey consents, for the charging of fees in relation to matters set out in regulations, for the management of information, for criminal offences and civil sanctions, and for the purpose of securing compliance with the requirements set out in regulations. As with clause 251, criminal offences committed under clause 252 may not be punishable with imprisonment or a fine exceeding the statutory maximum, nor shall any civil penalty exceed the sum of £50,000.

In recognising the nature of the provisions included in the clause, regulations shall be subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move that clause 251 stand part of the Bill.

Yes, Mr Gray, I intend to take part—briefly, the Committee will be relieved to hear. As the Minister has mentioned, the clause concerns the development of new forms of activity in the North sea that might be seen as analogous to those involving oil and gas, but are actually not. However, the activities might share quite a lot of infrastructure and other things, so it is appropriate that the arrangements for responding to such circumstances are analogous to the arrangements for oil and gas.

This part of the Bill is very different from the last one, in that it tries to ensure that developments go ahead in a safe and reasonable way, that we have plans in place should there be problems, and that those plans are based substantially on the plans that are in place already for oil and gas. That is my understanding of the clause, and I hope the Minister can confirm that. Other than that, I do not have anything much to say about clause 251, which seems sensible for the future.

It is noted that in clause 252, on the effects on habitats of offshore oil or gas activities—new things such as carbon capture and storage—no one is switching anything off in that area, which is also something that the Opposition support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 251 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 252 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 253

Charges in connection with abandonment of offshore installations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause amends existing powers to allow for the making of a charging scheme in respect of decommissioning functions, under part 4 of the Petroleum Act 1998, to charge for regulating decommissioning of offshore oil and gas. The decommissioning of offshore oil and gas installations and pipelines on the United Kingdom continental shelf, or UKCS, is regulated through the 1998 Act, and the responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of that Act are complied with rests with my Department.

Owners of oil and gas installations and pipelines are required to decommission their offshore infrastructure at the end of a field’s economic life. The current powers allow us to charge for regulating offshore oil and gas decommissioning activity at only two fixed points in the regulatory process. The existing charging framework is no longer fit for purpose. Currently, the Government are unable to recover the full costs of undertaking the regulatory functions from industry, leaving the taxpayer liable for the shortfall. Furthermore, the current regime is too inflexible and will be unable to recover the full costs of decommissioning the offshore carbon storage infrastructure of the project.

Clause 253 will amend the 1998 Act to allow for the establishment of a new charging regime for activity related to the regulatory functions for the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas installations. The clause will also make amendments to future-proof the cost recovery mechanism in line with the “polluter pays” principle of environmental law, as already established. Maximising our cost recovery will enable us to ensure a sufficiently resourced regulator. That will ensure that we do not cause the industry to delay decommissioning projects, which would adversely affect the industry’s contributions to reducing emissions and achieving their net zero ambitions.

Further details of the new charging regime, including how it works and what rates will be charged, will be set out in the scheme itself, which will be established administratively and then published. The charging scheme is intended to be in line with other charging schemes operating for complex regulatory functions within my Department and elsewhere across the Government.

I have a question on clause 253, which makes provision for decommissioning where, clearly, the decommissioning of new forms of offshore installation cannot be undertaken. When the well is exhausted—obviously there is not a well to exhaust under these circumstances—the decommissioning has to be under other circumstances. An example would be when the carbon capture and storage site has been agreed to be full, and is capped off.

On traditional oil and gas decommissioning, there are provisions for sanctions on companies that have responsibility for decommissioning but do not actually carry out the decommissioning. Does that carry across to the new forms of offshore activity? Or should there be legislation to ensure that when someone is up for decommissioning, they really do it and do not abdicate their responsibility? That is not just a question of charging; it is a question of responsibility for the future.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s important question, it is the intention, through this regulation and the existing regulations, that those who are responsible follow through with their commitments to decommission—the “polluter pays” principle has been well established. Nothing in this regulation would stand in the way of that. Nor, we hope, would it put barriers in the way of that. What the regulation seeks to achieve is a new updated charging regime to enable the decommissioning to take place in such a way and in such a fashion that it does not leave the taxpayer liable for any shortfall from the operator who is liable for the decommissioning of an asset in the North sea.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 253 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 254

Model clauses of petroleum licence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Currently, the North Sea Transition Authority can only retrospectively challenge a change in control of a petroleum production licence. Clause 254 will allow the NSTA to consider a proposed change of control of a petroleum production licensee before it takes place, to ensure that the governance, technical and financial capability of a licensee in possession of a such a licence remains appropriate.

Companies that wish to drill and extract petroleum must do so under a petroleum production licence granted by the NSTA to the licensee under the Petroleum Act 1998. Prior to issuing these licences, the NSTA satisfies itself that the prospective licensee company and any parent company are fit to hold the licence and will meet their obligations.

At times during the life of a licence it may be the case that the ownership and control of a licensee should pass to a new parent company or person. An undesirable change of control could undermine investor confidence in the commercial environment, making the United Kingdom continental shelf a less attractive place for investment. The NSTA is currently able to take remedial action to a change of control of a licence holder only after such a change has occurred. This is seen by both the NSTA and industry as being inefficient and of limited effectiveness in preventing harms, both to wider industry and the Government.

Clause 254 sets out the amendments that schedule 19 will make to the model clauses in the Petroleum Licensing (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 2008 and the Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 2014. The changes will introduce new before-the-event powers for the NSTA regarding the change of control of a licensee in possession of current and future seaward or landward petroleum production licences. The clause also sets out how provisions inserted into a petroleum production licence by schedule 19 may be altered or deleted.

Schedule 19 amends existing legislation to replace the current after-the-event powers in relation to a change of control of petroleum production licensees with powers intended to apply before a change of control has taken place. The schedule has a similar effect to that which schedule 6 has in relation to carbon storage licensees.

The schedule will introduce a requirement for licensees to apply in writing to the NSTA for consent to a change of control at least three months before the planned date of the change. Following receipt of an application, the NSTA may give unconditional or conditional consent, or refuse consent to the proposal. Conditions imposed may be financial and/or relate to the timing of the change of control and/or relate to the performance of activities permitted by the licence.

In the case of conditional consent or refusal, the NSTA must give the licensee the opportunity to make representations and must consider those representations. The NSTA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, unless it writes to interested parties to notify them of a delay in its decision making. The NSTA’s decision on an application and any conditions must be given in writing.

The schedule also introduces amendments in respect of the NSTA’s powers of revocation and partial revocation of a licence, intended to replace the existing after-the-event powers with before-the-event powers. The NSTA will be able to revoke a licence if its prior consent has not been obtained for a change of control. The NSTA will therefore be able to regulate the suitability of petroleum production licensees in a more robust and timely manner. This will reduce risk and boost confidence in a sector that will play a key part in helping the UK to achieve its net zero goals.

Clause 255 introduces information-gathering powers in relation to a change or potential change of control of a petroleum production licensee in the same way that clause 101 does for carbon storage licensees. Currently, the NSTA does not have information-gathering powers to assist it in considering a change of control in respect of a petroleum production licensee. In some instances, the NSTA is therefore limited in conducting proper due diligence to determine whether a change of control of a licensee is undesirable.

Clause 255 will allow the NSTA to request that a relevant company or person provide it with any information it may require in exercising its functions in relation to a change or potential change of control of a licensee. The information will help the NSTA to consider the financial and technical capability, operational and commercial plans, and governance and fitness of the licensee in relation to its proposed controlling entity. This will provide the NSTA with the necessary information to appropriately consider an application for consent, or when considering whether to revoke a licence where a change of control has occurred without consent.

Information that would be protected from disclosure or production in legal proceedings on grounds of legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, confidentiality of communications is not included under clause 255.

I do not have much to say about the detail of the clauses, inasmuch as they appear to be sensible measures, but I gently point out to the Minister that when he presented the clauses he referred repeatedly to the NSTA as the authority, but of course the NSTA does not exist other than as a trading name. Indeed, clause 254 specifically mentions the Oil and Gas Authority, which is of course the real name of the organisation, as opposed to its trading name. We will come to that later in our deliberations, but I highlight to the Minister that issue or problem, which may be germane to his thoughts when we get to that discussion. Other than that, I have no issue with the substance of the clauses.

We have already debated this matter in Committee and I am sure that we will come back to it in greater detail. Of course, when I refer to the North Sea Transition Authority I am, legally speaking, referring to the Oil and Gas Authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 254 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 19 agreed to.

Clause 255 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)