| Energy Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): What a pleasure it is to serve under you this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. I have a suspicion that your calming influence will reduce the temperature in the Room, which would otherwise be unbearable on such a hot day. There is another reason why the amendment of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has some merit. If a reserve were declared around an appropriate area, it could act for not only for the safety Column Number: 365 of objects on the sea floor, but the whole question of marine safety. I am referring in particular to the issue of legacy wrecks around the world. About 60,000 records of wrecks are kept by the UK Hydrographic Office, and 20,000 of those are named vessels. If those vessels are below 200 m and therefore not likely to be a danger to shipping, they are recorded but not charted. In the western hemisphere, there are 422 records of UK military legacy wrecks alone.The point is that no assessment has yet been made of the damage that could be done through pollution if those wrecks are disturbed. They could be disturbed by the foundations of a turbine or, if we develop tidal stream technology, the action of tidal interference. A system for recording those locations would have merit, and I shall be interested in the Minister's response if he refers specifically to legacy wrecks. Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) makes an interesting point. Its validity as to this debate slightly escapes me, although there are merits in his argument. Let me address the amendment and the issues that it raises. I am advised that the idea of a marine protected reserve implies the total exclusion of all vessels. That would not be practical in terms of access by the operator of a wind farm to the installations for periodic maintenance. There is also the wider issue of recreational activities such as sailing or fishing. When those activities can safely take place in an offshore wind farm, we would not want to prevent them from happening, and I am advised that the amendment would threaten them. The renewable energy industry and fishing industry liaison group, which was established by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, is looking at whether some fishing activities could continue in a safety zone. We want to ensure that the maximum possible use that is acceptable to the local community is made, and the amendment would block off such uses. There are several types of designated marine nature conservation area. It is important not to confuse the ability to establish a wind farm with the laudable aim of creating protected marine reserves. Any resolution of the confusion that has inadvertently been introduced by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove should be left to another Bill. Mr. Stunell: I hope that the Minister will not think me unkind, but he is struggling. I live 2 or 3 miles from the boundary of the Peak District national park, which is reserved in a similar way to that outlined in my proposal. Trains and roads run through the national park, and people live and work there, but it is a major reserve for nature and recreation. Although the Minister was reading accurately from his brief, perhaps his heart is not in this and he recognises that there is scope to take a small but significant step forward. Column Number: 366 Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I also lived in the Peak District, as I mentioned to the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services earlier, and there are no pylons in the national park. Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman must have a different view of the park from mine, but let us skip over that for the moment. I urge the Minister to consider carefully whether he has the opportunity to add value to the Bill through the amendment; he can achieve two goods. If he says to the Committee that the area would have to be treated like the Amazonian jungle with all human activities excluded, he will be saying that there will never be a marine conservation area near to the United Kingdom coast, because no such area could be created. By putting forward a vision of total perfection and a total return to nature, the Minister is seeking to shoot down a moderate and sensible step forward. However, it is clear that, having read his brief and stuck to his guns, he has little intention of giving in. We will return to the issue because an opportunity is being wasted, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to probe the Minister further and to allow him to familiarise himself in more depth with his brief on clause 96. I referred earlier to the Government's need to perform a strategic environmental assessment before a safety zone is created. I listened carefully to what the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said this morning, but I am not convinced as to why the Minister is not persuaded by our amendments. Luck would perhaps have been more on my side had you been here, Mr. O'Brien, but the Minister was not persuaded by our arguments for safety zones being the norm. My hon. Friends and I would be grateful to discover in which circumstances the Government would be minded to set up a safety zone. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred to the excellent briefing that Committee members received from English Nature. I am simply presenting the argument on that organisation's behalf to elicit the Minister's comments. It would argue that clause 96 could go further, and that there could be wider benefits for safety and for marine life were the exclusion zones in the form of safety zones extended. The Minister will have missed my reference this morning to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has produced a Bill on marine conservation, which I think will be discussed tomorrow afternoon. I do not know whether the Department will form a view on that in connection with clause 96. In the terms of English Nature, it certainly appears that the Department, working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, could do more—particularly in the context of Column Number: 367 a strategic environmental assessment—to secure the stewardship of marine life in connection with setting up offshore wind farms.The English Nature brief makes the compelling point that the speed with which offshore wind developments are being sought, and the scale of the developments, are unprecedented and out of step with the strategic environmental assessment work, and that there has been little opportunity as yet to learn the lessons from the first round and apply them to round 2 developments. If the Department of Trade and Industry is not in favour of safety zones for every installation, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister set out what the criteria will be for persuading the Department to create a safety zone around a particular installation. Nigel Griffiths: I hope that I can be helpful to the hon. Lady in saying that there are a number of precedents for establishing safety zones. To see that, one has only to consider North sea and other oil installations around our coast for which the criteria have been set out. It is also important to realise that safety zones are created at different times in the construction and development of offshore sites. A safety zone may be required during a critical construction phase, but not later. I can assure the hon. Lady that there were sufficient precedents in that respect to allow us to frame clause 96. The legislative underpinning is the Coast Protection Act 1949. That is what established practice all these years later is based on. We must ensure that the safety zone regime is adequate—we believe it will be—to safeguard the area of water around or adjacent to a renewable energy installation, and that it is assessed at the various stages of its development and management. Any decommissioning may involve a safety zone, as is the case for other offshore installations. I am informed that an applicant for a safety zone will have to make a case based on safety grounds to the Secretary of State. That case will be assessed by the DTI in conjunction with the MCA. If the installation is to be located where there is minimal traffic and the waters are judged to be safe, the case for a safety zone may not be made. If the case is not made, a safety zone will not be considered appropriate.
3 pmWhere a safety zone is considered necessary, it can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the installation and of the waters where it will be located. I am advised that the fullest consultation will take place with interested parties before the Secretary of State takes a decision on the application—a process that is set out in schedule 16—including provision for a public inquiry to be held where the issues raised are deemed to be of particular importance. It is vital that the clause is in the Bill because it allows the Column Number: 368 Government to provide a safety zone, which is designed to minimise the risk to life and property. I hope that the Committee will accept the clause.Question put and agreed to. Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 15 June 2004 |
