SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CONSENTS

HC Deb 21 October 1976 vol 917 cc1723-5

Mr. Skeet

I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 10, line 28, leave out `,in particular,'.

I can move the amendment economically, and I hope that the Government will be accommodating. The amendment seeks to leave out the words "in particular". They are important because under Section 9 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 no conditions are laid down on consents, either mandatory or discretionary. The Secretary of State has prescribed conditions which appear to be open-ended. If the words "in particular" were omitted, the conditions would be limited to: the description or origin of the gas, or the quantities to be supplied, used or disposed of, or the manner of supply or use. Retaining the words "in particular" in the clause would mean that there could be many other conditions. None of them has been itemised.

Can the Minister of State give me some idea of why he wants these words in the clause and what the additional conditions are likely to be if the words are retained? Will he give an assurance that any conditions will be spelt out to an investor well before he enters into the potential investment? Will the Minister also give an assurance that the conditions will not concern the size of the project, the technology to be used or the location and manning of the plant? Those matters should be left to the judgment of the companies concerned. This is important, because companies have to risk their investment and if they do not understand the conditions in advance they might find that what they hope to be a profitable exercise turns out to be totally non-viable. I hope that the Minister can satisfy me about that. In Committee an enormous number of commitments were made on the gas clauses, and this is one of the problems with which it would be difficult to live.

Dr. Mabon

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who was useful in Committee. His attitude towards the Government changed when he realised that we were being constructive and sensible and that we were willing to talk to industry. I acknowledge that. But there is still a lingering suspicion in the hon. Gentleman's mind that we shall misuse these powers if they are not made more precise. I must protest in the nicest possible way that we could not forecast every possibility. I shall not make the point that it was a Conservative Government who passed the basic Act. It is probable that we would have done the same. But they could have not foreseen, and neither can we now, every possible condition in every context at any given moment and have it absolutely "spot on".

We have to have a right of an option to cover what we cannot foresee. We have had occasions in flaring, for example, where we have exercised powers under the petroleum production licences to prohibit flaring except with consent. There have been five cases so far, all containing conditions about the amount of gas to be flared. None of them has given rise to misgivings because they were discussed with those concerned before we imposed the conditions.

I do not believe that it is possible for us to administer this fairly without being in close relationships with those immediately concerned, not only looking after their interests but looking after the general interest.

I should be attracted by the amendment if I knew that the Department and the industry could anticipate every eventuality. But they cannot.

My argument for rejecting the amendment is two sides of the same coin. The first side is that the Government would be hampered if they were denied the right to impose relevant conditions in addition to conditions of the sort referred to expressly in the subsection. The other side is that the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) are based on the false premise that the Government would use Clause 10(5) to impose irrelevant or mischievous conditions. I do not accept that. No Government would behave mischievously in this manner, but they must take into account relevant conditions. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Mr. Skeet

That has clarified the position. The Minister seeks to confine Clause 10(5) to relevant conditions only. They will be of the general description of those included in the phrase in particular, be framed by reference to the description or origin", and he will not go outside those for the conditions that he is to impose.

I think that that will satisfy many of the difficulties that I have in mind. It is with pleasure that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.