---

Energy Bill

moved Amendment No. 2: 2: Clause 4, page 3, line 42, at end insert— ““( ) The Secretary of State shall consult with relevant environmental bodies, particularly in relation to marine plans, when granting licences. ( ) In this section, ““environmental bodies”” means government departments and their agencies with particular responsibility for environmental issues.”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 is grouped with Amendment No. 7, which is consequential. The purpose of the amendment is to question the Government on what progress they have made on making sure that the provisions in the Bill match up with the Draft Marine Bill. The Minister looked rather shocked when we brought in a copy of the Draft Marine Bill. I am overjoyed that I am not going to be dealing with that Bill; there are 497-odd pages and then a section on impact assessment at the back, which is another 100 pages. The issue raised by the Marine Bill is that this is draft legislation. Some of the provisions in this Bill refer to future infrastructure, which might affect the Marine Bill. The Government will say that there is joined-up government on all those issues. However, there is a slight contextual issue in that a number of different departments are involved in this Bill, let alone with the organisations involved with the Marine Bill; that is, DBERR and Defra. Under which department will some of the provisions for carbon capture and storage fall? When this amendment was raised in another place, the answer was that these provisions would all be protected under the habitats directive. Therefore, even if new and novel devices go through, the marine areas will be protected. However, the Marine Bill in draft form is now coming to this House. I notice that since it was drafted there has been a slight change on page 14 referring to coastal access. One of the provisions was the exclusion of gardens and parks, which we now hear are not going to be excluded. But that is a whole different area which many colleagues will deal with under the Marine Bill. If Royal Assent is given to this Bill before the protected marine areas are designated by the Marine Bill, will any designation or licences that are given not be affected by the Marine Bill, as they would be retrospective? This amendment is to ensure that the Government can give us an assurance that all departments and/or their agencies will look carefully at that potential conflict. Structures on the seabed also fall under the Crown Estates and the operators. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have worked out precisely who will be responsible for dealing with any conflict of interest between areas designated for carbon capture and storage, and whether such areas would then be considered for protected marine status. I could go further into it but this is just a questioning amendment rather than one to be pushed at a later stage. Are the Government happy that areas of carbon capture and storage will not change marine protected area designations? Of course, there might be a conflict of interest between the two groupings. Will this Bill, as it comes first, affect the protected area status? I beg to move.