I am not speaking to the amendment; I am speaking to Schedule 2 on page 737.

It was just factual, in terms of the line reference.

I move amendment No. 163: In page 200, line 19, after “seabed),” to insert “which for the avoidance of doubt shall not be a terminal, building or installation used for the liquefication of natural gas or the importation, offloading, storage or regasification of liquified natural gas,”.

I move amendment No. 164: In page 200, to delete lines 20 to 25.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 165: To delete paragraph (h).

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 165: In subparagraph (i) of paragraph (i), to delete “natural gas” and substitute “green hydrogen”.

I move amendment No. 166: In page 200, line 28, to delete “natural gas, biomethane, hydrogen” and substitute “biomethane, green hydrogen”.

I move amendment No. 167: In page 200, line 28, after “renewable gas” to insert “, which shall not include gas produced by means of hydraulic fracturing”.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 169: In paragraph (e), to delete “whether or not any preconditions to the exercise of that power have been satisfied”.

I move amendment No. 170: In page 204, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(a) perform its functions in a manner consistent with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and the duties and obligations imposed by that Act.”. This amendment adds to the amendments on LNG that have just been voted through, including the choice not to accept our amendment explicitly excluding fracked gas. As such, the vote was to say that fracked gas should be allowed to be included in the forms of liquefied…

It is not agreed.

This is different from the grouping list that was circulated. Am I correct?

Yes, perfect.

I second the amendment.

I thank the Acting Chairperson. I may have to change around the order of the amendments as I address them, so I will effectively begin from the end. On amendment No. 17, I am concerned about the provision as it is worded. I hope that concern is inadvertent but it could have an unforeseen consequence. The provision as it is currently worded would mean that within the scope of this Bill, the definition of State authorities would be subject to subsection (8) of section 156, in that the definition of State authorities …

Through the Chair-----

I am not the speaker at the end but I think it is important that we have accuracy.

On a point of order-----

My point of order is that I do not want the House to be misled on the compliance. It has been established that it is not compliant with the Aarhus Convention. The Minister of State has just said again-----

We have already had a statement-----