---

Planning Bill

Yes, that is, I think, the explanation. I move on to amendments moved or spoken to by other noble Lords. Amendment No. 115 of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks to determine the position of underground electricity lines. My understanding is that they benefit from permitted development rights and are, therefore, not included in the scope of the Bill. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the IPC can require sections of a proposed overground electricity line project to be constructed underground if there are strong reasons for doing that. The noble Lord made some good points about the desirability sometimes of underground lines, but reflected on their cost, which is huge. He may also know that the ecological balance is not entirely clear. My understanding is that for underground lines to match to performance of overhead lines, four separate trenches have to be built or, perhaps more appropriately, dug. That can disturb sensitive habitats and damage archaeological heritage. There is a debate about that issue, but the position is covered by permitted development rights. The noble Lord asked an extremely interesting question about electricity lines to France, know as interconnectors, which allow us to obtain electricity from the French grid and vice versa. We had a fascinating debate about Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the position with France would be the same as it is for Northern Ireland: lines that were above ground would need consent under the Electricity Act 1989, but that consent would transfer to the IPC if the threshold was met. To the extent that interconnectors are on or under the sea-bed, they will need consent under the Coast Protection Act. Under the provisions of the draft Marine Bill, marine licences would replace those consents and will be dealt with by the proposed Marine Management Organisation. I shall come later to how that organisation will relate to this Bill, because it is of considerable interest to noble Lords and, indeed, to me, who will presumably have the pleasure of piloting the Marine Bill, when it is ready, through your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raised an important point on pipelines for the transmission of carbon dioxide. He will be aware that we are moving to a higher dependence on gas imports and that is why we have included various onshore gas supply infrastructures in the Bill. Increasing dependence on imports means a requirement for additional offshore gas supply infrastructure. Existing gas import pipelines from Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands need consent under the Petroleum Act. Innovative offshore gas supply infrastructures, including the offshore storage of gas and the unloading of liquid natural gas tankers, is addressed through provisions in the Energy Bill. Carbon capture and storage technology is still evolving, although one has hopes for, and has expectations of, its potential for the very reason that the noble Lord mentioned. Obviously, without knowing what form this might take, it is difficult to be definitive about what pipes might be used to transport carbon dioxide. Were carbon capture and storage to come forward as part of a generating station application in the future, we think that it could be included as an associated work to the power station application. I believe that the provisions relating to associated works and the guidance on that to be given by the Secretary of State are set out in Clause 111. The noble Lord then went on to ask whether a national CCS pipeline network would be developed. The advice I have received is that it would be too expensive to be treated as an associated work to a generating station. However, a CCS pipeline might sometimes qualify in its own right under Clause 20. ““Pipeline”” is defined in Section 65 of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 as a pipe for the conveyance of anything other than air, water, water vapour or steam. Clause 34 allows the Secretary of State to direct that certain applications be referred to the IPC if she considers the project to be of national significance. As the planning White Paper explains, a key reason for introducing this power was precisely to ensure that we were able to deal with changing technology, such as for carbon capture and storage. In addition, Clause 14 allows the Secretary of State to add a new type of project to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects so long as it falls within certain fields and in certain areas. I note that we will shortly be debating amendments which seek to take that discretion away. However, I hope that noble Lords will bear in mind that for the very reason that we cannot always anticipate new technology, we need to have provision in the Bill to allow for the legislative framework to apply to new situations. Having said that, I must not anticipate the exciting debate that we will have shortly on that matter. I consider it to be one of the most important provisions in the Bill in that it provides the basis for dealing with future technology changes which will be to the benefit of the national interest. Amendments Nos. 122, 126 and 127 deal with offshore generating stations. Under the Bill, the IPC would be responsible for determining applications for onshore generating stations with a capacity of more than 50 megawatts and offshore generating stations with a capacity of more than 100 megawatts. For onshore projects, we have set the threshold at 50 megawatts to match the provision in Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. We proposed a threshold of 100 megawatts for offshore projects because they tend to be larger and have a less significant impact on people than those on land. We think it is sensible that the threshold for offshore projects which will be dealt with by the IPC is set at a higher level compared with onshore projects. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor—