|
Miss McIntosh: This morning, we heard from the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services that consents under clause 102 fall under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which apparently does not require a statutory assessment of navigational safety. If the application for consent were made under the Coast Protection Act 1949, such a statutory assessment would apply. A debate on this issue took place in another place. Does the Minister agree that it would be better to alter the practice for consents under clause 102 so that the relevant legislation was the Coast Protection Act and a statutory assessment of navigational safety would take place?
What will the balance be to extinguish the public's right of navigation? This morning, I was accused by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) of being minded to extinguish all rights to renewable energy in preference for navigation. I repeat that we seek a balance, but it would be helpful to know what assessment of the safety provisions the Minister will make.
We have already considered the scenario of recreational craft being forced into the commercial shipping channel, making it more dangerous for yachts and smaller boats. As to larger boats, we took compelling evidence of the dangers to which commercial shipping would be subjected because of the relative speed at the points of entry, where these installations will be, and in the very busy shipping lanes. I do not believe that the Minister would deny that. It would be helpful to know what the safety assessment will be. Indeed, it would be helpful to know that there will be a safety assessment before the public right of navigation is extinguished.
Speed and manoeuvrability are factors. Many of the commercial ships are particularly deep and will not be easy to manoeuvre. This morning, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said that the Government are not minded to put extra markings in place—presumably, that will be the responsibility of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—so commercial ships will be pressurised to move away from the new installations, which will put them in danger.
It would be very helpful to know whether the Minister is minded to adjust the Government's applications for consent to the relevant legislation that would allow for a statutory assessment of navigational safety. Also, will he explain on what grounds the public right of navigation would be extinguished under the clause?
Column Number: 378
Nigel Griffiths: The clause provides the Secretary of State with powers over navigation where the applicant is applying at the same time for a consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct and operate a generating station.
Clause 103 applies where the applicant already has a section 36 consent and wants to apply for a declaration extinguishing the public right of navigation in respect of that generating station. I am advised that the clause will apply in a very limited number of cases because it applies only to section 36 consents issued before the commencement of a section 201 consent. The clause includes a process to ensure that the generator's application for a declaration is made known, so that there is an opportunity for persons with an interest to give their views to the Secretary of State or to Scottish Ministers as appropriate. Those views are taken into account before a decision is taken.
The hon. Lady referred to safety. It is simply not factual to say that navigational safety is not considered under the Transport and Works Act 1992. It is taken into account before an order is made under that Act. The Bill's powers over navigation are less about safety than about the risk that a developer, having received a consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for a development, is sued for installing the wind farm in the water and causing a ''public nuisance''. That is why the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Application of civil aviation regulations to renewable energy installations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: Clearly, the Minister will explain the implications for civil aviation regulations. I am mindful of the fact that civil aviation space, which will be particularly affected, is heavily congested on the east coast and will be shared with Ministry of Defence airspace. Most of the near misses in this part of the country relate to the east coast of England.
3.45 pm
It would be helpful to know in which circumstances civil aviation regulations will pertain. Will the Civil Aviation Authority be the relevant authority? It appears that the CAA is enabled to regulate aircraft. I would be interested to know in what circumstances the CAA would be requested to apply for regulations under clause 104. Bearing in mind the fact that, presumably, oil rigs and nuclear power installations are particularly under threat from—dare one say it—an 11 September-style attack, does the Department envisage consequences for the safety of our shipping, which is proving particularly vulnerable in relation to the oil supply situation in the middle east, should such
Column Number: 379
an installation be subjected to an attack from the air? Will the Minister explain the background to the drafting of clause 104?
Nigel Griffiths: I am happy to do that. The effect of the clause is to enable the CAA to regulate aircraft in the neighbourhood of an installation in a renewable energy zone. It also covers the lighting of such an installation.
Wind turbines are tall structures and they pose a potential threat to low-flying aircraft. It is therefore important that the CAA has the powers to regulate both the lighting of such installations and the aircraft that fly in their vicinity. The CAA already has such powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in respect of installations in territorial waters. Clause 104 gives it the equivalent powers in respect of installations in the renewable energy zone and aircraft flying in their vicinity. The CAA charts are updated at regular intervals; it is a legal requirement for pilots to carry an up-to-date chart at all times to avoid risks when flying. The clause gives effect to what is a long-standing safety procedure in the UK, which has given us one of the best safety records in civil aviation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Amendments of 1989 Act consequential on Chapter 1 of Part 3
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Stunell: I seek clarification from the Minister, particularly in relation to subsection (5), which refers to the extra-territorial operation of the Act. Does the clause extend all criminal and civil law offences to the areas covered by the legislation or does it refer to the offences that are specifically provided for in the Bill—those related to the licensing of and trespassing in zones? I looked at the explanatory notes, but they are silent on the point. It would be helpful to the Committee to have a clear understanding of what the Minister is asking us to approve.
Nigel Griffiths: I am consulting my notes on the nature of the proceedings. I understand that the clause amends the Electricity Act to give it extra-territorial application. Proceedings in England and Wales can be issued only with the consent of the Secretary of State, which is provided for in the Bill. In Scottish law, criminal proceedings may be brought only by the Lord Advocate as the head of the Crown Office, so there are no specific provisions for Scotland in the Electricity Act. As a result of chapter 1 of part 3 of the Bill, the provision has extra-territorial effect. I will certainly come back to the Committee with details of the severity of the penalties and the nature of the offences that the provisions cover.
Column Number: 380
Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I would find it helpful if he were able to advise the Committee—either in writing or during our later discussions—of the effect of the provision. It is not that I seek to obstruct it, but we should be clear in our minds precisely what we are approving when we agree to the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106
Other amendments consequential on Chapter 1 of Part 3
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): This clause is interesting, because it draws on a whole range of previous legislation: the Continental Shelf Act 1964; the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885; the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; the Energy Act 2004; the Petroleum Act 1998; and last, but not least, the Electricity Act 1989. Therefore, it is a complex clause and it may be that some of the previous legislation, which dates back more than 100 years, is outdated and needs consolidation.
This morning, the hon. Member for Vale of York drew the Committee's attention to a ten-minute Bill, the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, introduced by her hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). Outdated legislation is being used and a set of complexities underlies it. That complexity is outlined in clause 106(4) where a proposed new section 47A is to be added to the Petroleum Act, outlining the factors that the Secretary of State needs to be taken into account.
I use the example of clause 106 to say to the Minister that one of the things that needs to be examined is a consolidation of legislation as it affects the sea bed. That is a point that other Committee members have made during the course of the discussions on the Bill; we have strong planning law when it comes to terrestrial matters, but when it comes to the marine environment our legislation lags a long way behind.
Perhaps I could draw the Minister's attention to the marine environment report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was published in March. It strongly recommended that:
''The current legislative and institutional framework governing marine environmental protection is too fragmented and complex, which is to the detriment of both economic development and environmental protection.''
We have had much discussion during the past few hours about economic development and the competing demands on the marine environment. I simply ask the Minister whether in the course of preparing the Bill—particularly clause 106—he has borne in mind the demands from groups such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds? What is needed to underlie the Bill is a new marine Act. I know that discussions
Column Number: 381
are taking place within Departments about that and I would be grateful if the Minister would bring us up to speed on them.
| 
