Energy Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 15 June 2004.

Standing Committee B

Energy Bill [Lords]

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Before we begin our debates, may I remind the Committee that, as the fans are on, it would assist Hansard if hon. Members spoke into the body of the Room and, in particular, if those at the back spoke up?Clause 94 Consents for generating stations offshore

Clause 94 - Consents for generating stations offshore

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 186, in

clause 100, page 77, line 36, leave out 'may' and insert 'is likely to'.

Clause 100 stand part.

Amendment No. 164, in

clause 101, page 77, line 41, at end add

'in consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.

Clause 101 stand part.

New clause 17—Collision within a renewable energy installation—

'The Secretary of State for Transport shall set out procedures to be followed to prevent a collision taking place within a renewable energy installation, and procedures to be followed in the event of a collision within a renewable energy installation.'.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed, on the opening day of Royal Ascot. When we last met, we heard a substantial speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who went through every possible reason for retaining clauses 100 and 101. You would call me to order, Mr. Sayeed, if I attempted to emulate that speech—not that I could—but I shall remind the Committee of certain aspects.

Clauses 100 and 101 refer to the problems that might be encountered for shipping and navigation if we build wind farms in the sea. We have heard, both in this Committee and in outside debate, that it might be more acceptable to build wind farms in the sea rather than on land. There are many environmental objections to building wind farms on land, but that is also true for building them in the sea. My hon. Friend outlined a number of those problems, the most important of which is the possible danger to shipping. She also mentioned the problems for recreational activities, such as yachting and fishing.

Last year, while attending the Conservative party conference in Blackpool, I had an interesting meeting with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is still the largest membership charity in the country—the Minister is nodding, so that must be right. Its members wanted to discuss the problems that might be caused to the common scoter by the proposed site off Morecambe bay.

There are many issues as to exactly where wind farms should be built in the sea. When we look to the skies we may see aeroplanes, but it is not true that they can fly anywhere. In the same way, it may seem that the sea is a vast area, but there are problems associated with building wind farms just anywhere.

The issue was previously considered by the Transport Committee, which stated:

''Clauses 100 and 101 must remain in the Bill.''

My hon. Friend talked about the Chamber of Shipping, the British Marine Aggregate Producers Association and UK Major Ports Group, which all have concerns about the issue. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated:

''We do indeed intend to retain the substances of those clauses.''

That is open to interpretation; it depends what she means by ''the substances'' of the clauses. No doubt the Minister will tell us what she means.

Furthermore, the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), stated on Second Reading:

''The Committee believes that at some point a major problem such as a collision is inevitable.''—[Official Report, 10 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 46-92.]

Those are strong words indeed. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed my points and, more importantly, the substantial points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York a few days ago.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

I listened at great length to the hon. Member for Vale of York during the previous sitting. She said that the question of navigation and shipping, which is covered by clauses 100 and 101 and amendment No. 170, is a red line issue. By the end of her speech, I could see what she meant, but I would put it rather differently. The debate on this part of the Bill is the key test of whether members of the Committee really are committed to renewable energy and the targets set out by the Government.

Clause 100 does not just say that navigation interests must be taken into account; it says that wind farms may not be established where there is

interference. In effect, it is a veto clause and amendment No. 170 is a wrecking amendment. The hon. Lady said that the amendment is intended to be constructive, but it is obstructive. It offers no further definition of certain terms contained in clauses 100 and 101. Clause 100 simply talks about interference. It is not clear whether that interference is a risk to safety or something that merely requires an alteration to a sea route, rather like a footpath diversion. That can be a purely commercial matter.

Clause 100 also refers to recognised sea lanes, but is not clear whether they would be defined as those habitually used or those that exist purely as a matter of historical record. It might be more reasonable if they were defined as something regularly controlled or managed by dredging. Are we to define them according to the density of traffic? It appears not, according to the hon. Lady, because at times she seemed to be referring to just one or two pleasure boats.

Clause 100 refers to lanes that are recognised as being ''essential to international navigation''. Are we then to consider the density of international sea traffic? Again, the hon. Lady went further than that and it was reinforced this morning by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who talked about recreational sailing and so on, which goes far beyond international sea traffic. The Opposition appear to want to give any navigational interest an absolute veto over any wind farm development.

Amendment No. 170 would be even more of an obstruction to offshore wind development than the fairly widely drawn clauses 100 and 101, because it talks not only about interference, but about a threat. It talks not just about navigation, but about shipping interests, which is an incredibly wide term. The entire burden of proof would be placed on the offshore wind developer. The hon. Member for Vale of York did not answer the question I asked on Thursday about what an offshore wind developer would have to do to demonstrate no threat. That is a pretty hard test.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that the public right of navigation should be overridden by the power to place wind farms at sea?

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

I am saying that we have to take a balanced approach to this. There is a legitimate shipping and navigational interest, but we have to balance that against other important matters such as the need to develop renewable energy through wind farms offshore. Our debate on the clauses and the amendment is not about balance, but about introducing an unreasonable veto. If the debate was about balance, the amendment would not be necessary because wind farm legislation already has to comply with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea.

As part of the process for establishing those wind farms, each development must already have an environmental impact assessment—a rigorous and

demanding procedure that must give weight to navigational interests and set them in the context of other interests. The proposals we are debating would privilege shipping above all other interests, and those hon. Members who tabled them did so not purely for shipping, as they have a deeper motive. Shipping is being used as a convenient tool to undermine offshore wind development.

Honesty is needed in answering the question, ''Are we all committed to renewables?'' Everyone says that they are, but I was amazed to read in Hansard reports of debates in the other place involving outright hostility to offshore wind farms, which was also evident on Second Reading. The argument is that offshore wind is unreliable and expensive and that the Government are ignoring other renewable energy sources, but wind is a renewable source that is reasonably technologically advanced—enough to allow commercial development. Other technologies are not yet in that position, although I expect tidal current to be there in about five years. If we are committed to renewable energy and to meeting the target we need to set for it, it must be wind—now.

Let us bring further honesty to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and other members of the renewable and sustainable energy group visited Germany to examine wind development. We went to the German Energy Agency and learned that the Germans are about to move into offshore wind development in a big way. We heard about none of these problems from the Germans, but they asked us why we are going offshore when we have so much capacity onshore, as it is harder to develop wind power offshore than onshore. The honest answer is that it is difficult to make progress with onshore wind, whether we call that nimbyism or something else. Onshore wind development has become bogged down in the planning process and is often rejected.

Offshore wind development probably is more expensive, but by going offshore we thought that some of the opposition met by onshore development might be escaped. The heart of the opposition to onshore is that people do not like the idea of windmills being sited too near their property because they think that will devalue it. That is not unreasonable, but it makes wind farm development very difficult.

The proposals are a new way to try to block wind farm development. Shipping is a legitimate interest, but why is it being elevated and exaggerated in this debate?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Gentleman says that we are exaggerating the problem. Is the Chamber of Shipping exaggerating it?

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

The Chamber of Shipping is trying to put its point in the melting pot, but it is not leading the argument. It regularly contacts me on all kinds of matters, but first out of the trap on the issue was not the Chamber of Shipping but people who seem to have a downer on offshore wind. The record of debates in the other place shows that people who are leading on

the matter have strong views on nuclear energy. The Government have the right policy—creating a 10-year window to try to get renewable energy off the ground, while not ruling out nuclear energy because it might be needed later to keep the lights on—but some hon. Members appear to have such a strong belief in nuclear energy that they do not want to wait that long. They want to wreck renewables now. That is what amendment No. 170 and clauses 100 and 101 are all about, and I hope the Committee rejects them.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

May I direct the Committee's attention to amendment No. 186, which is to clause 100 and stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)? I enjoyed the contribution by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), but I point it out to him that renewable energy zones will be needed as much for tidal, tidal stream and wave energy as they are for offshore wind turbines. Although I share some of his views, he needs to recognise that we require a robust process to handle the different interests, not simply for a short-term fix on offshore wind, but for what could be a major source of energy for the United Kingdom, using other water technologies over the coming decades. It is important to get this right, and he should not be too dismissive of what clauses 100 and 101 are designed to do.

It is also important that there should be a proper balance between the different interests affected by such a development, and amendment No. 186 would be a small step towards rebalancing clause 100. It says that zones may not be established where interference ''may'' be caused. We simply want the clause to refer instead to where interference ''is likely to'' be caused, because the word ''may'' allows anyone to claim anything about anything and we need further modification.

If the Minister is inclined in principle to accept the need to balance the different interests that underpin the intentions behind clauses 100 and 101, he may well say that further modifications might be necessary, in which case we would consider them carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and I are strongly in favour of rapid development of offshore wind. We have no wish to obstruct or slow that down. However, it would be wrong for Government Members simply to dismiss that wish as nimbyism. It is necessary to ensure that shipping and trade are safeguarded, so it is necessary to ensure a proper balance between the establishment of the zones and the continuation of safe and secure sea routes to and from the UK. Those who are dismissive of the clauses need to take account of the Transport Committee's views. Of course, that Committee comes from a certain direction—I suppose a transport Committee would—and it brings a particular point of view to bear on this issue, but it is not a trivial one that should simply be dismissed because it does not suit the mood of the moment in this Committee.

I hope that serious consideration will be given to retaining clauses 100 and 101. We fully accept, however, that they need some modification so that there is a proper balance between the different

interests. Amendment No. 186 represents a small attempt to achieve that by not making the criteria so open-ended that they could have the effect described by the hon. Member for Waveney. We need to produce a procedure that involves not simply fixing offshore wind as quickly as possible, but establishing a proper way to determine how to use our offshore resources for decades ahead. Clauses 100 and 101 and amendment No. 186 represent sincere attempts to achieve that.

Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con) rose—

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Mr. Robert Key.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I must point out, Mr. Sayeed, that I am just slightly slimmer than my hon. Friend.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

But I am much younger.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

As far as I am concerned, everyone in the Room is much younger, which is why I shall not continue beyond the next election. [Hon. Members: ''Shame!''] Yes, but Government Members do not agree.

I was not intending to comment on this group, but two things have encouraged me to do so: first, the inaccurate and intemperate remarks of the hon. Member for Waveney and, secondly, the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York that the Government intend to remove clauses 100 and 101, which I found shocking. If the Minister is prepared to shake his head to indicate that the Government will not remove those clauses, I shall comment no further.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that the Government accept the import of clauses 100 and 101. I shall ask the Committee to leave those clauses in the Bill, so that, on Report, I can bring back a revised form of words that will deal with some of the difficulties in the current wording to which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred. I hope, therefore, that I have spared the Committee what the hon. Gentleman might have said.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I thank the Minister for his comments. However, he has left a degree of uncertainty because, as much as I trust the Government, we are not clear about how they will change the wording of clauses 100 and 101. I do not wish to cause the Minister offence, but I must ask why those alterations were not introduced much earlier. The clauses are not a huge surprise; they have not suddenly emerged today. The Bill emerged from the House of Lords on 24 April, and the clauses were passed before then, so the Government have had more than two months to table amendments to them. Why should such amendments be tabled on Report rather than in Committee? Such amendments should be considered in Committee; the amendments tabled on Report should be those that

flow from the Committee. Such amendments should not be tabled at the far end of the process when we have a timetable that pushes us against the buffers.

I shall not comment on the marine safety aspects, because my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York has quoted quite extensively from a letter from the deputy director-general. However, it will not do any harm to repeat his statement that the clauses are

''essential to the protection of over 125,000 ships a year and their crews that will pass within close proximity.''

That is an awful lot of ships and people.

Has the Deputy Prime Minister approved any of the amendments? The Labour party is in uncertain waters at present; there could be some seismic leadership changes. Undoubtedly the Deputy Prime Minister will be a key figure in any changes, and I would hate to see the Minister get into difficulty. I want to see the Minister go from strength to strength, because he is a genuine and likeable chap. I wish to see him rise through the system. He brings some sense to what has been happening.

It is obvious that there has been a lack of consultation by the Government with groups such as the Chamber of Shipping, the Major Ports Group, Trinity House and even the Department for Transport's Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The Minister has said that the Government will table amendments to improve clauses 100 and 101, and we look forward to them. However, as I have said, they should have done that in Committee. The Government, with their huge majority, are in danger of treating various aspects of the democratic process with a degree of contempt. As the wheel turns—which it will—they must not be surprised if everything does not revert to what they want.

To touch on the amazing comments of the hon. Member for Waveney, I cannot see why support for nuclear and support for renewables should be mutually exclusive. Why cannot we have both? He tried to make out that it is one side against the other. Also, with his talk about land and sea, he seemed conveniently to forget that the installations at sea—which I want to see—will be considerably larger and more robust, and will generate much more electricity, than those on land. That is one reason for their going out to sea; they will be so big that it would be not practical to have them on land. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the objections that people would have—whether one calls that nimbyism or not—but the prospect of wind farms being vastly increased in size and noise means that putting them out to sea is the logical step.

The hon. Member for Waveney also mentioned safety, and I point to the figure of 125,000 ships quoted by the shipping representatives. If we had a planning application, would we stick the development in the middle of the M1? Of course not. We would put it to the side, so that it would not be run over by cars and so we could have both the planned development and safe roads.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the current drafting of clauses 100 and 101 and amendment No. 170 goes way beyond the interest of safety?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

That is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, but I do not see it in those stark terms. If clauses 100 and 101 were to remain, I doubt if my hon. Friends would press any of the related new clauses or amendments to a vote. However, there must be a requirement in law concerning the impact of offshore energy installations on users of sea lanes essential to international navigation.

The explanatory notes make that point in paragraph 262:

''Article 60(7) of UNCLOS''—

the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—

''states that artificial islands, installations and structures and the safety zones around them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation.''

The hon. Gentleman would throw that convention out of the window; the Conservatives are saying that it should be recognised and respected. That is a considerable difference.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Gentleman again, but I obviously did not make myself clear or perhaps I was misheard. I referred to that UN convention. My argument was that, because it exists, the wording of amendment No. 170 is unnecessary. While I am on my feet, may I ask whether he regards recreational yachting, referred to by the hon. Member for Vale of York, as essential international shipping?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I see no reason why, when accommodating international shipping, we cannot accommodate recreational sailing and fishing fleets. That does not mean that we would not have zones for wind farms, but they must be established in a way that is safe for maritime shipping lanes. Recreational yachting cannot be allowed to take place anywhere, because, as the hon. Member for Waveney said, that would make this a wrecking amendment. We do not want to wreck the clause; we want safety aspects to be properly recognised.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The British marine industry and the Royal Yachting Association raised that point. Their concern is that there will be additional safety issues if recreational sailors are forced towards commercial shipping routes. I am sure that the Committee is familiar with the map produced by the Crown Estate, which shows where wind farms can be placed other than in international shipping lanes.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I hope that the hon. Member for Waveney will take comfort from that. The wording of the Government's amendments to clauses 100 and 101 is still a mystery; the amendments are still in the bowels of the Department and will be revealed only at the last moment when it will be impossible to table amendments. That is not satisfactory. I am not sure whether any form of protest can be lodged through you, Mr. Sayeed. I realise that your job is to ensure that there is peace, harmony and fair play on both

sides, but I am shouting ''foul''. The Government have had more than two months to table amendments, but either they have not bothered or do not want to. They will slip them in on Report and use timetables to push them through. That is wrong. I would like to think that the Chairman's Panel could make recommendations; the Clerk can relax because I do not expect an instant answer. I speak for the whole Committee in expressing those concerns.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that we should know the Government's intentions at an early stage. He should take comfort from the fact that we will at least see something on Report. A written answer yesterday suggested that we will not learn about the relationship between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Nirex until after the Bill has gone through the Commons.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I shall stay out of that argument. In fact, on the hon. Gentleman's point, I defend the Government. They have had various papers for considering the issue of energy for only a year or so; the Energy Bill has only existed for about a year. They have not had time to think about the problem. The hon. Gentleman must give them more time to work out solutions. We cannot move too quickly because the Government will run into trouble.

A further area of concern is the Government's inconsistent attitude to maritime safety. Ministers have constantly rejected the idea of allowing the development of energy installations at sea without a strategic framework, because it would mean that the impact on other maritime users could not be judged. The regulatory impact assessment rejects a laissez-faire approach in paragraph 3.9 on page 25, saying that

''it would not enable developments to proceed in a strategic manner nor would it satisfy environmental concerns. Furthermore the effect on other users of the sea could not be considered.''

Later, on page 27, it says:

''The economic impact on other marine users such as the fishing and shipping industries could not be assessed or controlled effectively.''

I cannot think of a more important overriding duty to the maritime trade, which carries the vast bulk of our imports and exports, or to our hard-pressed fishing industry than to provide for the protection of the sea lanes essential to international navigation and—to keep the hon. Member for Waveney happy—the establishment of zones so that our wind farms are not in the middle of vital sea lanes. That is how we should progress.

I am aware that my name is attached to new clause 17, and I have a degree of embarrassment regarding that. The new clause states:

''The Secretary of State for Transport shall set out procedures to be followed to prevent a collision taking place within a renewable energy installation''.

I am a great one for putting responsibilities on to Secretaries of State, but to expect one to prevent accidents in the zones by some magical process is, to put it delicately, for the birds.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

It is a wrecking amendment.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right; that would be a wrecking amendment. I delicately suggest that, while the sentiment is in the right direction, the obligation perhaps should be to reduce the chances of a collision.

I turn now to the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 186, which substitutes one of our old friends ''may'' and ''shall'' with ''is likely to''. It is a variant on a theme that I can only assume is a step up from a probing amendment. We should not get into a debate on conditional tenses of verbs and statistical probabilities, and I feel that it would be better to leave the drafting well alone. The existing wording of clause 100 ensures that new installations and safety zones may not be established where they will interfere with the use of sea lanes, and I do not believe that there is much to be added by supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment. However, I understand that it will be helpful as a probing amendment to draw out the requirements from the Minister.

The Government's definition of the future seems to have been borrowed from a writer called Ambrose Bierce, who wrote ''The Cynic's Word Book'' of 1906. In it, he defined the future as:

''That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true, and our happiness is assured.''

Throughout life, I have always adopted P.C. Johnson's motto, which is:

''Cheer up! The worst is yet to come!''

As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York said at the start, there is a sad inevitability that there will be a collision in a zone with a wind farm. Statistically to say that it will never happen is unreal, and the Government should take that on board. If they are prepared to make various requirements for the aviation industry on how these big windmills should be marked, the same should surely apply for the maritime world. I have endeavoured to point out a few deficiencies in the Bill, such as how the authors have overlooked the needs of the maritime industry. We all await with bated breath the last-minute amendments to clauses 100 and 101.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Listening to the debate I became rather depressed at the apparent entrenchment of attitudes on both sides of the Committee for and against offshore wind farms. Shipping and maritime interests and offshore wind farms are not mutually exclusive. I support the principle of offshore wind farms. They have a lot to recommend them, not least because we are almost unable to proceed with onshore wind farms as a result of the mounting objections to them.

As the hon. Member for Waveney rightly said, if we are serious about renewable energy we have to look seriously at development offshore. On the other hand, he is wrong to dismiss the leisure industry. On the west coast of Scotland leisure boating is a considerable

economic interest and it is also growing on the east coast. The development of Arbroath harbour in my constituency for leisure craft is being looked at as a means of compensating for the decline in fishing. Fishermen themselves, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept, have a real interest in what is happening in the North sea.

We need to reach a compromise between maritime interests and the new offshore energy industry. It would be disastrous for this country if we ignored other maritime interests and tried to push ahead with offshore wind. We could run into exactly the same problems as we have with onshore wind and become bogged down in public inquiries and complaints and objections from the maritime, shipping, fishing and leisure industries. The RSPB was mentioned. A huge range of interests can have legitimate concerns about offshore wind and they should be brought on board at this stage.

Clauses 100 and 101 go a long way to ensuring that maritime interests are protected. I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments on the two clauses. Like the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) I am disappointed that we have not seen the wording. That will be important. As long as those interests are consulted and taken on board prior to the installation of wind farms offshore, it will be a major step forward.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Vale of York said about maritime interests and I agreed with much of it. However, I cannot support amendment No. 170. I am concerned by the wording:

''the applicant can demonstrate that there will no threat posed to navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters.''

That is an impossible standard for any developer to meet. There will always be danger of collision and other accidents at sea. Even in shipping lanes without wind farms there are accidents at sea, sometimes with disastrous consequences. The Braer oil disaster off Shetland springs to mind.

A compromise is needed between maritime and shipping interests and wind farms. Shipping is important to the UK, particularly Scotland. Many ports are already suffering difficulties, not least because of the costs associated with new regulations brought in to deal with the perceived terrorist threat. Any further threat to ports could be commercially disastrous for them. However, a balance needs to be struck on these issues, so I am not prepared to support the present wording of amendment No. 170. I am prepared to support clauses 100 and 101 on the basis of the suggestion that they will be amended, but I urge the Minister to take on board the need to take account not only of shipping, but of fishing and the leisure boating industry.

No one will be 100 per cent. happy with what is produced, but it has been proved in the North sea that the issue is not new. When North Sea oil was first found and explored and when rigs were proposed, there was a dispute between fishermen and the oil

industry about navigation rights. That was exactly the same problem. However, it has been dealt with and there is relative calm between the industries now.

The North sea oil industry will have a considerable interest in this issue, because off Scotland many wind farms and oil rigs will be in similar areas. A considerable amount of shipping is generated by the North sea oil industry, not least in relation to the supply of rigs. All the interests must be brought together and a compromise reached. No one will be 100 per cent. happy, but we hope that we will at least have the development offshore, without the huge problems that we are running into onshore, which threaten to derail the whole process of renewable energy.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We have had an interesting debate on the amendments, and a good deal of attention has focused, rightly, on what the Transport Committee said in its interesting report. The Government will respond to that report in due course, but I want to raise now one point that the Committee made. It said that

''most of our witnesses felt that the Energy Bill itself provided an acceptable framework for subsequent development''.

However, some of what the hon. Member for Vale of York said gave a rather different impression of the Committee's conclusion. It is important to balance what she said with what I have just quoted. At some points last week, it sounded as though she was telling the Committee that she was strongly in favour of renewable energy except those forms of it that were economically viable.

There is a danger in thinking that some future form of technology will allow us to make the transition to a much greater dependence on renewable energy in an impact-free way. The truth is that there is no such technology. We are looking at building up investment in renewable energy to at least £1 billion a year for perhaps the next 10 or 15 years, and it is not possible to have a programme on that scale with no impact. The question for the Committee and the House is whether we should manage the impacts as the Bill suggests, or stick with conventional forms of generation and all the problems of climate change and security of supply that they lumber us with. The fact that all members of the Committee say that they support renewable energy requires us to square up to managing the challenges.

Yesterday, I was in Edinburgh looking at the prototype of the Polamis device, which is one of the first wave generating units. It will shortly be towed to the European marine energy centre in the Orkneys, put through its paces there for a period of months and benchmarked to see how it gets on. That is promising technology, and the Department supports a number of other wave and tide technologies. I think that they will be important for us in future.

Of course, when we have substantial installations of that type of equipment, there will be issues about other maritime users and others who need to be thought about as well. That is what we have to do; we must manage the impacts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has said—my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said it last

week—we must not put up hurdles that make it impossible to develop offshore renewables. I am familiar with the criticism that the Government are—

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Obsessed.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury says, I am familiar with the criticism that the Government are obsessed with onshore wind farms, but the hon. Lady accused us in last week's sitting of being preoccupied with offshore wind farms. There is a constant tendency to say, ''What is happening at present in renewable energy is not what we want, but there is something else in the future.'' When we get to that something else, it turns out that there is a problem with that, too. The reality is that we must square up to how we can manage these impacts, and so benefit from renewable energy, as the Bill proposes.

As to amendment No. 170, the necessary safeguards to minimise the risk of an offshore wind farm to navigation are already in place.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I tabled an amendment on marking, which was probably unnecessary. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend can assure me that the renewable energy zones will be marked with the appropriate buoys and shown on Admiralty charts.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance about marking on Admiralty charts, although at present the safety zones around oil and gas installations are not physically marked. I envisage that the same will apply to the safety zones we are discussing.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

Therefore, it would be worth considering putting marks around the renewable energy zones in accordance with the normal buoyage convention, because if the projects are tidal stream zones or wave farms they may not be immediately obvious, as wind farms are.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about our position when we have wave and tide generating equipment, and his suggestion will certainly be considered at that stage, but I will not make marking a requirement for all the safety zones because, as we know in the case of oil and gas, it is not necessary.

Joan Walley (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North)

I do not want to make any waves, but what discussions is the Minister having on the matter with the Chamber of Shipping and Trinity House? How will he ensure that we can reach the third way, to which the hon. Member for Vale of York referred?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I think I can reassure my hon. Friend. I had a useful meeting, and exchanged letters, with the Chamber of Shipping, which provided the basis for a very satisfactory resolution of its concerns and those expressed by others. I am confident that when we reach consideration on Report there will be general satisfaction with the outcome.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The Minister referred to an exchange of correspondence, which will be of great importance in assessing the final outcome of any compromise that is proposed. Is he willing to publish the correspondence?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am happy to send a copy of my letter to the Chamber of Shipping to each member of the Committee.

On subsection (11) of amendment No. 170, the risk to navigation is already assessed under the Coast Protection Act 1949 consent process. There is no question of an offshore renewable installation being sited where it would pose an obstruction or a danger to navigation. The Coast Protection Act can also include provisions that require developers to adopt an active safety management system to enable an operator to shut down a wind farm in the event of an emergency such as a vessel colliding with a turbine or a major pollution incident. Provisions covering such a system, which must be approved by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, have more recently been included in transport and works orders and will be covered in any future wind farm consent.

On subsection (13)—the need to consult on site changes within the section 36 process—at the time developers submit an application, it will be on the basis of a firm site location that cannot be subject to change later. When an application is submitted, the developer is required to issue a public notice covering details of the application and the proposed site so that interested parties can make representations to the Secretary of State. Consent would be given or refused on the basis of that application. If the developer wanted to use another site, that would have to be the subject of a separate consent application, notified to the public in the normal way.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister will recall that on Tuesday I asked him—to satisfy my own ignorance on the subject—who is the relevant planning authority, because that is not made clear in the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The consent applications are made to the Department of Trade and Industry; the Secretary of State will therefore issue the consent.

With regard to the new clause, site selection is important in terms of minimising the risk of collision. The consent process provided for under the Coast Protection Act deals with that. Safety zones around installations are a further aid to safety, although the automatic creation of safety zones around every installation would not be a good idea. However, it is certainly right to consider whether a safety zone is needed.

In response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), I referred to marking safety zones around structures on Admiralty charts. The general lighthouse authorities, on behalf of the Secretary of State, direct developers on the safe marking of renewable energy installations, ranging from painting and marking individual wind turbines to using marker buoys around the site where appropriate, and using other markers such as lanterns,

fog detectors, foghorns and radar reflectors. Some of those measures have already been put in place for the North Hoyle and Scroby Sands offshore wind farms.

On the emergency procedures that wind farm operators should follow in the event of a vessel colliding with a structure or a major pollution incident, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency requires developers to adopt an active safety management system. A pollution incident, such as an oil spillage following a collision, would be dealt with under the national contingency plan, which is administered by the MCA. If a vessel were to sink in water depths that constituted a danger to surface navigation, it would be the responsibility of the general lighthouse authorities to ensure that the danger was appropriately marked.

We will need a flexible process in which developers and operators work under the general direction of the general lighthouse authorities, the MCA and the search and rescue services to devise procedures and markings appropriate to each installation. Those arrangements would need to be subject to periodic review and to evolve in the light of experience and new information over time.

Amendment No. 164 raises the matter of consultation. I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York that, were the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to assess the cumulative effects on the safety of navigation of installations and safety zones around them, it would be essential for there to be consultation with both the Secretary of State for Transport and the MCA. I hope that putting that assurance on the record in Hansard will be helpful.

It is not appropriate to include in the Bill a requirement for one Secretary of State to consult with another, because legally—and practically—they are indivisible and act collectively. The reference to the Secretary of State covers all Secretaries of State. Moreover, the MCA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport, which exercises the functions of the Secretary of State for Transport. So again, legally, no separate reference to it is necessary.

An additional point is that, in Scotland, the functions of assessing the effects of installations are devolved to Scottish Ministers, so the reference to the Secretary of State would not be right.

We have had much discussion about clauses 100 and 101. As I said in an earlier intervention, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an undertaking on Second Reading that we would retain the principles enshrined in the clause, but would want to introduce amendments to make it workable. I am not in a position to table such amendments for the Committee's consideration. I would have liked to have done so, but the work involved in getting them right has made it impossible and I apologise for that. We will table them on Report, but, contrary to what the hon. Member for Vale of York thought I would say, I ask the Committee to retain the current wording of clause 100.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I appreciate the Minister's emollient words. Will he consider publishing the proposed clauses as soon as possible so that there is opportunity for discussion before consideration on Report?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable request and I shall see what I can do to make the proposals available as soon as possible.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I endorse the remark of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. If the marvellous wording, which will apparently bring sweetness, light and harmony to those clauses, is not satisfactory, we will want the opportunity to table amendments in response.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I will do what I can to assist the Committee. The advantage of including in clause 100 the language of paragraph 7 of article 60 of the UN convention, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, is to make that commitment part of national law and therefore enforceable by our courts. The difficulty with the current form of words is that it creates a set of free-floating obligations. It is unclear who has responsibility for ensuring that those obligations are met and the circumstances in which they apply. The current wording could lead to confusion and litigation. We would like to avoid that, and the amendments that I shall table will ensure that we have a clear, workable provision.

Similarly, the main difficulty with clause 101 is that the reference to the Secretary of State will not work. Although safety zones are a matter for the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers are responsible for assessing whether renewable energy installations off Scotland are likely to cause an obstruction or a danger to navigation. We will consider that wording before proceedings on Report.

Unlike the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, I think that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove made a good case for amendment No. 186. I accept that the use of the word ''may'' in clause 100 introduces vagueness to the provision. When we reconsider the wording of that clause, I will consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I intend to use his alternative wording in the version of the clause introduced on Report.

The hon. Member for Vale of York pressed me on the question of funding research. The Government's undertaking in the other place still stands to fund research on the effects of wind farms on ships' communications systems. A number of additional studies have been identified as priorities for Government funding to help to improve our understanding of the potential impact of offshore wind farms on navigation and to provide clearer guidance to developers and decision makers. We will support that work to ensure maximum confidence in our knowledge of the impacts of the developments.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. People say that a week is a long time in politics, and a great deal has happened since the Committee last adjourned. I thank the Minister for his conciliatory speech. I shall respond to the points raised

by the hon. Member for Waveney, who, unlike me and other members of the Transport Committee, may not be quite so familiar with the report.

In reaching an accommodation, it will be the wish of the Committee that the Bill—as the Minister rightly said, the Select Committee concluded that it is a good framework and basis on which to build—should be workable and should recognise the fact that a number of interests are at play.

I commend to the Committee the map drawn up by the Crown Estate, and in particular I refer the hon. Member for Waveney to the round 2 wind farm sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned the proposed site on the approaches to Morecambe bay. I refer the hon. Gentleman to sites on the accesses to the Humber and Thames estuaries.

Like my hon. Friends, I express utter amazement at the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the role played by the recreational boating industry, especially considering his constituency. He will have a hard enough task at the next election, and he does not need me to draw attention to that fact. Having had the honour and privilege to serve north Essex and south Suffolk—as well as, originally, north-east Essex—for 10 years, I had many meetings with the boating industry and, in particular, the recreational industry. There are many boat manufacturers along the coast—the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) referred to them, although they are not unique to Scotland—and they make a contribution to economic development. Such craft also bring a lot of pleasure.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

I can tell the hon. Lady that the installation of the wind turbines at Scroby Sands is already attracting great interest from recreational boat owners. The turbines are bringing more boat owners to our area, not fewer.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have received the same briefings as me, but he does not seem to be aware that both the Royal Yachting Association and the British marine industry have brought to the attention of this Committee, as is the case with the Transport Committee, the dangers of having such a large site without a safety zone. I bow to your experience as a navigator, Mr. Sayeed, but I believe that such an arrangement means that the recreational craft would be funnelled into commercial shipping lanes.

I pay tribute to the work of the Chamber of Shipping in alerting the other place and the Committee to that danger, but not only that body fielded the concern. The Port of London Authority, Trinity House, the British marine industry, the Royal Yachting Association and a host of other bodies representing the shipping industries also made their anxieties known, as did the fishing industry, as the hon. Member for Angus mentioned earlier.

I am sure the Minister accepts that to make the wind farms economically viable, authority will be sought to build them as close to land as possible, where the wind is strongest and transporting electricity cheapest. As

the map shows us, the round 2 wind farm sites will be, by definition, in some of the busiest, most lucrative commercial shipping lanes.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

For clarification, I should say that in all the round 2 areas, there is a margin of at least 8 km from the shore to the zones that the hon. Lady mentioned.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I welcome that clarification, but following a visit to a North sea oil rig on a placement with BP—the alarming experience of being landed from a helicopter on to an oil platform is not one that I want to repeat, although I obviously enjoyed it at the time—I understand that there is a safety zone around each oil rig. What is unique about wind farms is that there will be large spaces between each turbine, while the zone will also occupy a lot of space. I refer the Minister to my comments on the call in UNCLOS to have regard to other activities and urge him, as we will consider later, to place a safety zone around each installation.

The Department for Transport gave evidence to the Transport Committee, which published its findings on 4 May. I find it extraordinary that in the meantime the Government have not had the opportunity to draft the form of words. I echo the requests for us to be given advance warning and for the new form of words to be published so that we can carry out our own consultations. We do not necessarily wish to introduce our own form of words as we understand that clauses 100 and 101 are workable as they stand.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's acceptance of our arguments. He wrote to us to say that the Government wished to delete clauses 100 and 101 but we are now able to keep them. I pay tribute to the efforts of our noble Friends in the other place in achieving that.

We have had an excellent debate. We had to table an amendment calling for official consultation by the Department for Transport and the MCA because the Transport Committee recorded its disappointment at there being no consultation. Are the Government genuinely joined up, as it is regrettable that that consultation did not take place?

In view of the debate and the Minister's comments, and with the proviso that we may need to return to the matter if the new wording is unsatisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 179, in

clause 94, page 73, line 15, leave out subsection (4).

Subsection (4) prevents Scottish Ministers from exercising power under the clause unless they get the say so of the Secretary of State. We will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the purpose of that subsection because it seems entirely otiose to us. What is his objection to allowing Scottish Ministers to decide on some of these important matters relating to the offshore renewable energy industry in and around Scotland?

The clause deals with holding inquiries, setting conditions and granting consents. Those all seem entirely proper matters for Scottish Ministers to consider. In what circumstances would the Secretary of State consider transferring the powers? I refer the Minister to his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes on 10 June about the exercise of order-making powers in relation to clauses 85, 86 and 88. This appears to be another version of the same issue of orders being made by the Secretary of State.

There appears to us—on the face of it and considering the clause—to be every possible reason for those powers being exercised at regional or the Scottish level, so we are rather surprised to find subsection (4) here. We hope that this can be a short debate, the Minister can explain everything to us and we can all be happy, but that subsection appears to be an unnecessary and restrictive addition.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I, too, have some questions. Subsection (4) refers to section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides that Orders in Council can be made for Scottish Ministers to make provision in relation to matters that would normally be reserved to Ministers at Westminster. I presume that that is why this measure is included.

We had a debate last week on jurisdiction over the waters off the coast of Scotland, and, like the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I asked the Minister to confirm the reasoning behind the provision. In the debate on clauses 85, 87 and 88, I questioned whether the jurisdiction aspect of the Bill is correct and quoted to him the terms of the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, which defines Scotland's waters. That seems to have been overlooked in other clauses.

The subsection that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove seeks to delete relates to planning matters, which are devolved. In normal circumstances, Scottish Ministers would be responsible for all planning applications relating to renewable energy. The Minister may remember that there was a debate, I think last year, on the planning aspects of nuclear power stations in which it was shown that Scottish Ministers have the ultimate planning authority in those respects. I think it has been established that the Scottish Ministers are the ultimate planning authority in Scotland for all energy installations.

The question in this case seems to relate to jurisdiction in the seas. The Minister, if I remember correctly, and certainly the Bill, maintain that Scottish Ministers have jurisdiction only to the 12-mile limit as defined in certain sections of the Scotland Act. However, as I pointed out last week, that is not in all sections of the Act, and, in particular, no reference is made to the 1968 order. Will he confirm that if Scottish Ministers have jurisdiction in respect of the whole of defined Scottish waters in the North sea, they automatically have planning jurisdiction in respect of offshore energy installations?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I agree that Scottish Ministers should have responsibility for section 36 consents within the part of the renewable energy zone that will be designated under clause 85(5). It makes sense for Scottish Ministers to be responsible for all section 36 consents in offshore waters. The way to give effect to that decision is an Order in Council under section 63 of the Scotland Act, as clause 94(4) of this Bill makes clear.

As we have heard and discussed before, Scottish Ministers already have responsibility for deciding on applications for section 36 consents in respect of generating stations in Scotland, including renewable energy developments in the territorial waters adjacent to Scotland. However, as electricity generation is reserved to the UK Parliament under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act, that executive function was devolved by means of a transfer of functions order made under Scotland Act powers.

Use of those powers ensured that the executive devolution of functions could be considered by the UK and the Scottish Parliaments. That is the most appropriate way to do things and what we will do in this case. There are a number of benefits. For example, the fact that Scottish Ministers are acquiring new functions should be drawn to the attention of the Scottish Parliament, and this device allows that to happen.

I cannot go all the way with the point that the hon. Member for Angus put to me. Planning matters may be devolved, but the generation of electricity is reserved, so consent to a generating station is reserved, although by the device that I explained, it will be executively devolved.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The subsection states that the powers are not exercisable ''except'' in certain circumstances, but I think that the Minister is saying that they are exercisable only ''if'' certain circumstances apply, and giving a clear indication that it is his intention that the powers shall be transferred in due course. I see him shaking his head—or perhaps he is nodding; it does not usually appear in Hansard if a Minister nods his head. The phraseology implies that the powers will not be transferred in a normal situation, whereas I understand that he is saying—or nodding—that they will be transferred in that situation. Provided that the Minister nods again, which he has done, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this we may take New Clause 20—Assessment of offshore renewable generation—

'(1) The Secretary of State shall, within two years of the passing of this Act, present to both Houses of Parliament a report on off-shore renewable technologies that—

(a) identifies the areas most suitable for offshore generation of electricity, and

(b) includes an assessment of the environmental benefits and risks of developing generation in these areas.

(2) The above report shall include, but not be limited to, assessments for generation by means of wind power, wave power, and tidal stream energy.'.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and the Minister that this is a probing amendment. I appreciate that that will disappoint the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, but I am used to doing that.

There is an obsession in the Committee, especially in connection with this clause, with offshore wind farms. The purpose of the new clause is to draw attention to other technologies such as tidal waves and undersea turbines, which can use the advantages of our coastline. It suggests that the Government should carry out a strategic environmental assessment of the scope for developing those technologies.

Our coast is favourable to the development of many of those technologies. The Government have already accepted that approach in the work they have done on offshore wind, and the new clause would help the deployment of those technologies. It would allow renewables companies some stability, and the security of knowing that there was a way forward. The market would know that those companies would be making proposals, and ensure that they had access.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am quite supportive of the proposal, but I cannot see it being included in the Bill. The ingenuity being proposed for wind farms is being exploited in other areas, and I declare an interest. Wind farms are tying up with small gas deposits in the North sea, where they will generate electricity on site and use the expensive cabling to put the power into the system. For once the hon. Gentleman has got something right, and I congratulate him on the proposal.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I suppose it had to happen some time that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that I am right. I hope that because strategic environmental assessments are the direct result of an EU directive, we do not get the knee-jerk reaction that they must be wrong—not that I would suggest that Opposition Members react in that way.

There are technologies in which Britain has a head start, and as the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention, that provides several opportunities. The proposal would give British companies the opportunity to use the advantages of our North sea oil and gas technologies, and by promoting strategic environmental assessments and doing preliminary work, the Government would give a major boost to the renewables industry. It has been suggested that wave power could produce 87 turbo hours per year, but even if it provided a quarter of that, that would be a substantial increase in what is put into the grid—equivalent to the whole of the combined heat and power industry.

The new clause gives the Government an opportunity to accelerate their programme, which I have no doubt they will do at some point. However, if it is done early there will be many more benefits, which would tie in with the advantages of offshore wind.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I wish to repeat my earlier question to the Minister. We are told in the explanatory notes that the Electricity Act 1989, as it applies to the clause, is amended with regard to public inquiries. The clause refers to the jurisdiction of

''one or more relevant planning authorities.''

Which are the relevant planning authorities to which anybody wishing to contest consent would apply? The Minister's earlier answer did not cover that.

More generally, the regulatory impact assessment states:

''The main costs that the developers will incur will be those associated with putting together applications for consent for new developments.''

I have had a long correspondence with both this Minister and his fellow Minister—his lady colleague who responded to me about the costs. On the subject of wind farms, the Minister for Industry and the Regions replied that:

''The Transmission Issues Working Group reported in June 2003 that the overall cost to connect an additional 12 GW of renewable energy generation to the GB network would cost £2.1 billion. National Grid Transco, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy are currently revising these costs.''—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 884W.]

What would the costs be to the developer of the consents procedure for one wind farm? Were that consent to be applied, what are the costs of connecting to the grid? We requested that information from the developers, as well as the comparative costs of offshore and onshore farms. I welcome the Minister's commitment to increase research, and we await the studies with great interest. However, presumably he will confirm that the cost of consent and connecting to the grid will be much greater for offshore wind farms than for onshore wind farms.

I admit to being a squirrel, and I have here a cutting from the business pages of The Sunday Telegraph of 23 February 2003, which says:

''Wind power will push up household electricity bills.''

The Government consistently accuse us of not being in favour of renewable energy. If renewable energy sources will push up the cost of household electricity bills, I am minded to be more cautious than to give offshore wind farms our 100 per cent. endorsement at this stage before a general election.

In a written question on Tuesday 25 May, I mentioned the diseconomy of part-time operation from both offshore and onshore generation and the economic impact of that, including the fact that back-up generation will be required to ensure security and stability of supply. I assume that the Minister stands by his reply that:

''Although wind generation is undoubtedly less predictable and more intermittent than conventional generation, when aggregated nationally, the implications for the operation of the electricity system are significantly mitigated. Work by the National Grid Company indicates that it will be some years before the growth in wind generation has a noticeable impact on overall reserve plant requirements, although there will come a time when additional reserve will be required.''—[Official Report, 25 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1567W.]

Will the Minister confirm that not only will this form of renewable energy be more costly to produce, but that, as we have been told, just one onshore wind

farm will require a subsidy of £2.1 billion? Will he also confirm that it will not be economically viable on its own, but will require back-up generation, so we are some distance from being able to say that onshore or offshore wind farms will be a regular source of supply?

Will the Minister also take this opportunity to put a figure on the cost if the consent under the clause is agreed and approved? I believe that he said that the distance would be no greater than 8 km. Will he confirm that the electricity will be underground, but that when it comes on to land there will have to be a separate application for consent to transmit it by pylons? He will be aware that feelings are still running extremely high in the Vale of York over the most recent overhead line transmission. Any offshore or onshore wind farm requiring similar pylons will be hugely unpopular. How will the Minister address that politically?

There are several issues to be addressed. First, we need to know which are the relevant planning authorities so that we can direct those who want a public inquiry to them. Will the Minister confirm the total cost of the consent for one wind farm? Will he also confirm that the sum required to apply for the consent to generate and transport electricity will be far higher for offshore wind farms than for onshore ones?

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I support new clause 20, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I am glad that it is a probing amendment because in this case, the Government probably do not need further primary legislation to carry out those activities if they so wish. It would be useful if they were to start sponsoring these activities now in anticipation of deploying tidal stream power in particular, which could provide something that other renewable sources have not been able to provide so far: predictable baseline power. Wind cannot provide it because it is variable. As you will know, Mr. Sayeed, the times of tides around our shores vary by as much as six hours. If we site tidal stream generating areas judiciously to take advantage of the different timings of tides, we can guarantee that a minimum percentage of that power will be available at any time of the day. The Government are uniquely placed to carry out the preparation for that strategic deployment. They can also relate that to the future development and strengthening of the grid. I advise my hon. Friend the Minister to consider setting out these assessments in the very near future, so that we know exactly where to put the machines as soon as they are ready for deployment in two or three years.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

New paragraph (7A)(7) of schedule 8 to the 1989 Act deals with an inquiry where a planning authority makes an exception. New sub-paragraph (7) limits the inquiry to land within the area of the authority by which the objection has been made, unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. Why is that provision necessary? If a planning authority makes an objection to a development outside the land

for which the authority is responsible, in what circumstances would my hon. Friend the Minister allow an inquiry? If we allow it, is there not a danger of becoming bogged down in ''inquiryism''?

This country has a serious problem with the time it takes us to make progress on major infrastructure projects, be they in energy or transport. Ours is a democratic society and we are proud of our model of transparent governance in which everyone has a say, but we must be mindful of our rate of progress. We might find out that we simply cannot move around readily enough to meet our economic needs, or that we do not have sufficient generating power to keep the lights on, because it takes us too long to build the infrastructure. I do not want to sweep aside the proper processes, but we must ensure that they are less slow.

Under new sub-paragraph (9), if the Secretary of State wants to allow an inquiry regarding a piece of land outside the area of the planning authority, two separate inquiries may be required: one on the land that falls within the area of the planning authority, and one on the land that falls outside it. If the Secretary of State were minded to go down that road, why would we need two separate inquiries? Is that not a recipe for confusion? Could we not at least roll up the inquiries into one, so that undue time is not spent on process and we achieve our aims?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

When the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East and for South-West Hertfordshire get together, I presume we have a White-Page amendment. The idea of more reporting and, hence, more accountability on the part of the Government for future energy needs and possibilities an important one, which my hon. Friends and I support. The Minister might wish to make the point that if clause 1 is redrafted, the provision will be considered for inclusion in it. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made the important point that, without foresight and planning at strategic level, some of the technological opportunities may be missed altogether. For what it is worth, I support the probing new clause.

The hon. Member for Vale of York outlined the finer points of the clause. She stated that investment in renewables potentially increases the cost to consumers of electricity. In fact, investment in anything potentially increases the cost of electricity to consumers—for example, investment in nuclear power certainly would as well. If there were no market intervention whatever, there would be no investment at the present time, because we have an apparent working surplus of generation capacity. Any further investment would be in gas generation, which does not solve the problem. We need to keep a sense of proportion when trying to link investment in generating technology to increases in costs. I am sure that the hon. Lady will reflect on that.

The hon. Lady asked the Minister to comment on the overall system costs of investing in offshore generation capacity, including the cost of bringing the electricity ashore and transmitting it to the point of consumption. The Minister might want to confirm in his winding-up speech that the greatest growth in

power demand is in south-east England and that if we want to reduce both power losses and investment costs of transmission, it would make sense to install the largest possible proportion of new generation capacity in or near the south-east. In that respect, I hope that the Minister will give some indication of his support for clause 129, which relates to micro-generation, which is certainly one way forward.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I agree with a good deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said when moving new clause 20. The DTI has already commissioned a study of the offshore renewable energy resource; it is due to be completed this summer and I confirm that the final report will be made available to Parliament. The objective of the first part of the new clause will therefore be met.

Renewable energy development within the renewable energy zone will be restricted to energy generation that harnesses the power of the wind or the sea. The study will include all potential renewable energy resources that fall within that description; it will therefore go as far as it can to assess the resource for all foreseeable offshore sources of renewable energy. As far as possible, that answers subsection (2) of the new clause.

Subsection (1)(b) of the new clause states that the report should include an assessment of the environmental benefits and risks of offshore electricity generation. A strategic environmental assessment will be a requirement under EC directive 2001/42/EC, which the UK has to implement this summer. As my hon. Friend knows, we are firmly committed to the strategic environmental assessment, or SEA, process. We initiated an SEA programme for offshore renewables before the directive took effect to assess the impact of offshore wind farms. Initially, we focused on the areas that we planned to make available to developers to apply for site leases in the round 2 competition for offshore wind farm sites. That exercise had a big effect on the areas being considered. For example, areas having the greatest environmental sensitivity in terms of visual impact or the potential impact on birds were excluded from the competition. That was the reason for the 8-km coastal exclusion strip to which I referred in an earlier intervention. The assessment of three strategic areas for round 2 is the first phase of a comprehensive programme of work to assess the potential impact of all the UK's offshore renewable energy resources.

The new clause suggests a time scale. I think that it will take a good deal longer than two years to complete the work. There will be two parts to the strategic environmental assessment programme, the first of which is gathering the necessary data through desktop studies and by sending boats out to sea. The programme is based on the waters around the UK being divided into eight strategic areas, and we already have the data needed for five of them. We hope to have completed the data collection for all eight areas by 2008, which is still some time away. In some cases, we might need to top up the information that we hold: for example, the first areas covered were considered with oil and gas in mind. Most of the information needed

for renewables is the same, but we are likely to require some additional data. The SEA programme is now integrated to cover renewables as well as oil and gas.

The second part of the process consists of taking the data collected and testing it against a plan or a programme. That is likely to take the form of an oil and gas licensing and exploration round or a competition for site leases for offshore renewables installations. We need a clear idea of the activity that is being contemplated, so that we can test the plans against the environmental data. The SEA process is designed to test essential issues such as the extent of development in a strategic area that could be undertaken without significant impact on the local environment. The basic data gathering will be finished by 2008. I am not able to say when the second part of the process will be completed for each area. That will depend on future decisions about when issuing more site leases might be appropriate. I agree with the intent behind the new clause, but I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we have in place the safeguards needed to ensure that inappropriate development does not take place.

To respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Vale of York, section 36(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 requires the obtaining from the Secretary of State of a consent for the construction, extension or operation of a generating station. The requirement for an Electricity Act consent, together with the requirement for a DEFRA licence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and a Department for Transport consent under the Coast Protection Act 1949, are the legislative tools by which Government regulates offshore generating stations. Clause 94(1) confirms that section 36 applies to generating stations in territorial waters, and extends the requirement for a licence to generating stations in the renewable energy zone. The hon. Lady asked who the relevant planning authorities are. The consenting authorities are those that I have listed. For offshore areas, there are no planning authorities in the normal sense because, by and large, planning jurisdiction extends only to the shoreline. Planning authorities in the locality may make objections if they choose to. Where an offshore development has an installation onshore, such as a substation, the planning authority has a role in relation to the onshore part of the development.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for that clarification. Will the Minister define ''in the locality'' further? Does that mean the locality of the place where the electricity is brought in to land? Also, will he confirm that people wishing to call for a public inquiry should apply to his Department? It is not clear in the Bill whether they should go there or directly to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Let me give a little more clarification. In terms of what ''in the locality'' means, each local authority has a planning role in relation to anything that takes place in its area, so in the case of an onshore installation linked to an offshore wind farm or

renewable energy generating device, the local authority for that area has planning jurisdiction in respect of that installation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is important that we know what the procedures are. The explanatory notes for clause 94 specifically refer to circumstances in which a public inquiry will be called for. Will the Minister tell us what the procedures would be?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The clause has an important purpose in respect of the role of local planning authorities in relation to offshore generating stations. Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act requires that applications for consent to construct, extend or operate a generating station under section 36 must be served on the relevant local planning authority. Where that local planning authority maintains an objection to the application, the Secretary of State must hold a public inquiry. That schedule was drafted before offshore generating stations were a reality.

The purpose of clause 94(2) is to clarify the role of local planning authorities if the application for consent relates to a generating station that is offshore and therefore not in a local planning authority's jurisdiction. We propose that local planning authorities should not have the right to force a public inquiry in respect of those parts of a generating station that are outside their jurisdiction, so they could not force inquiries into developments that were wholly offshore. However, local planning authorities retain the right to require the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry in respect of onshore developments associated with offshore works, if the onshore developments fall within their jurisdiction.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is as clear as mud. My question remains; if someone wishes to call for a public inquiry into an offshore consent, as the Bill appears to suggest is possible, to whom do they apply? Do they apply to the Department of Trade and Industry or directly to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? I am slightly more confused about the onshore situation after the Minister's eloquent explanation, but I am still concerned about public inquiries for offshore installations.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

People would apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I hope that I made clear the circumstances in which a local authority could force a public inquiry. It can do so if there is something onshore in its area for which it has planning responsibility. Of course, local planning authorities might well have an interest in generating stations offshore, particularly if they are planned to be quite near to shore. We plan to make the local planning authority a statutory consultee in the section 36 process through regulations under schedule 8.

There is no simple answer to the hon. Lady's question about the costs of connecting an offshore wind farm to the onshore grid. It will depend on where the offshore wind farm is and where it connects, which

will vary from case to case. One benefit of identifying the three areas that we did in the round 2 exercise is that several wind farms in close proximity to one another will be able to link up for their onshore connection, substantially reducing the overall cabling costs. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire was right to draw attention to the interesting proposal to bring together gas generation and wind generation offshore. That highlights the big cost of connection onshore. The more that can be shared, the more economically viable it becomes.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether investment in renewable energy would increase costs. The way in which the renewables obligation works means that electricity costs will increase. We need substantial investment to bring about the scale of renewable electricity generation that all members of the Committee have said they want, and that investment must be paid for.

The hon. Lady rightly mentioned the figure of £2.1 billion that has been identified for investment in the grid. Some of that money would be required anyway, because some grid assets are pretty old and need replacing. Some of it is entirely new and results from the more distributed pattern of electricity generation that we will see in future. However, there is no getting away from the fact that if we want investment, it must be paid for. The hon. Lady also asked about pylons.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Before the Minister leaves the point about costs, will he confirm that household bills will increase, because the bill for the £2.1 billion will be passed on to the customers of National Power, Scottish Power and all the other companies? That will increase the cost of electricity to householders and, presumably, businesses.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Investment in the grid will have to be paid for by electricity consumers. Ofgem is undertaking a price review exercise looking at all the electricity companies' proposals for investment, all of which will need to be paid for. We cannot have investment without the means to fund it.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the whole point of introducing NETA was to reduce retail electricity prices and have not consumers already benefited as a result of the Utilities Act 2000?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Electricity prices are close to a 30-year low. The Government have done a great deal to reduce prices. It remains our view that the operation of the competitive market will help to keep prices to the lowest level, but the necessary investment will have to be paid for.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked me about pylons. There is no such thing as a popular pylon; I have never seen one. We all accept that they are needed. Section 37 of the Electricity Act sets out the mechanism for obtaining consent and that consent is required for any overhead line. That applies onshore to all such lines, whatever the source of the electricity. I have no doubt that we will need some more pylons in future just as we have done in the past.

I hope that that covers the points that the hon. Lady made on clause stand part. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was concerned about there being a danger of too many public inquiries. I understand that concern. The Secretary of State has the discretion to hold a single inquiry or to hold two if she thinks that it is more appropriate. It is for her to judge the most appropriate way forward. The Bill allows some flexibility in how that can best be done. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to ensure that this process and these consents are issued as expeditiously as possible.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

Will my hon. Friend deal with the other issue that I mentioned? Under what circumstances would he allow an inquiry following an objection by a planning authority to a development outside the land for which it is responsible?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

It is difficult to set down precisely what the criteria will be. It will be for the Secretary of State to consider the objection from the local authority and to make a judgment about whether that objection is of sufficient weight that a public inquiry is required. If objections have been made by others the Secretary of State may choose to widen the scope of the inquiry to consider them. Neighbouring authorities might be affected and the clause allows the inquiry to be rolled up to deal with both sets of objections. As in a number of instances a judgment will have to be made by the Secretary of State here. Local authorities will not be able require that a public inquiry be held as they can onshore, but the Secretary of State will be able to agree to a public inquiry if she feels that is right.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

As the Minister outlined, we have seen the benefits of a strategic environmental assessment with the development of offshore wind and I welcome the fact that the process is underway. I am concerned that we might be taking too narrow a view because of bureaucratic convenience and I urge him to ensure that that is not the case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown could have mentioned a number of projects, such as Ocean Power Delivery Ltd. in Scotland, La Rance tidal power station in France, or the prototype being developed by the IT Power consortium in west Devon and Cornwall with the help of an EU grant. They indicate the tremendous potential of alternative offshore renewable projects. In not pressing my new clause, I urge the Minister to ensure that there is no undue delay and that the Government's leadership maximises potential for renewable projects.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96 - Safety zones around renewable energy installations

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 171, in

clause 96, page 74, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'for' and insert

'The Secretary of State shall, in connection with every application for renewable energy installations'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 172, in

clause 96, page 74, line 10, leave out 'he may'.

New clause 18—

'Each application for a consent under section 94 shall set out the location of a safety zone around installations.'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The purpose of the amendments is to press the Minister to insist that for every application for renewable energy installations a safety zone will be considered around them. This is the opportunity for him to explain the circumstances in which he envisages there not being a safety zone around a wind farm. The evidence heard by the Transport Committee was clear. Installations pose greater peril because they are in busy shipping lanes for recreational and particularly commercial traffic. There are safety zones around offshore oil rigs, so why will there be safety zones around only certain offshore farms?

According to the explanatory notes, the clause gives

''a discretionary power to the Secretary of State to issue a notice declaring one or more safety zones around a renewable energy installation.''

When the Secretary of State chooses to exercise that discretion, will his decision be debatable in the House? We are further told:

''The Secretary of State has the flexibility to declare a safety zone as appropriate for the main stages of the life of renewable energy installation—the construction, extension and decommissioning phases''.

The biggest potential problems with relation to this clause and little group of amendments may come about at the time of decommissioning.

I again pay tribute to the work of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It draws on its experience of the proposed offshore wind farm at Shell flat, Liverpool bay. According to a representative:

''our concern is not so much about birds being chopped up in the blades of turbines, but rather about the potential disturbance impacts for the scoters of regular boat trips to maintain the turbines.''

I draw the Committee's attention to today's Order Paper, which refers to a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has revived. It is similar to his previous Bill and has been introduced as a ten-minute Bill. Of course, I cannot find the reference to quote its title when I need it, but the Bill is about marine life and conservation. I am sure that the Committee would want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that.

As the Minister will know, there is a particular concern that Denmark and other European Union countries are more advanced in offshore wind farms than we are. As with onshore installations, the noise, the environmental factors and their effect on human health are causing increased concern to such an extent that houses in Denmark cannot easily be sold if they are close to onshore wind farms. There is growing concern about the disbenefits and dangers to marine life. I would be hard-pressed to claim that fish suffer disbenefits, but there is scientific evidence to prove that dolphins, porpoises and sea life can be damaged by the drone, for want of a better word, from the wind turbines. We should consider the cumulative effect; the Committee will be aware of the huge size of the installations that are envisaged. I urge the Minister to ensure that a safety zone is included in each case.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says that the available evidence for offshore installations is similar to that for onshore,

''namely that the development of wind energy need not be a problem for birds as long as proper environmental impact assessments of any proposed development take place''.

Will the consideration of such environmental impact assessments determine whether the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion under clause 96?

The RSPB is also concerned about the possibility of damage to marine life if there is not a safety zone during decommissioning. I would extend that concern, as we are concerned not only with protecting birds. As we have said, we have concerns for other users such as the shipping industry. Before I leave the subject of birds, the Committee will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is a leading twitcher and well known member of the RSPB.

New clause 18 is self-explanatory. It would provide:

''Each application for a consent under section 94 shall set out the location of a safety zone around installations.''

In my humble submission, it would greatly enhance the safety of the installations if the Secretary of State provided safety zones in that way.

The Minister may like to put on record the sheer size and volume of wind farms, particularly of those in the applications under round 2. Will he also be good enough to explain whether, when a safety zone is created, it will encompass all of the wind farm? The evidence that the Transport Committee took from the shipping industry was that it might be dangerous for ships to have to pass between individual wind turbines. It would be in the interests of all users—including birds, marine life generally and the shipping industry—for a safety zone to be considered. If the installations are to be treated differently from offshore oil rigs, perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee why.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Lady assures us that she is in favour of renewable energy, and even said once that she was in favour of offshore wind energy, but she comes up with ever more creative objections to it. I have heard no objections on the grounds of the impact of noise on house prices.

I have been to all the UK offshore wind farms: North Hoyle, off the coast of Rhyl, which cannot be heard from onshore; Scroby Sands, off the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, near Great Yarmouth, which is much closer to the shore than North Hoyle, but which I do not think can be heard; and Blyth, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy). I could not hear the turbines going round there either. There is no danger of people being troubled by the sound of turbines that are some miles offshore, and I think that we can comfortably assume that they will not cause difficulties.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was drawing a parallel, saying that just as with onshore wind farms, offshore ones are affecting Danish house prices. I do not know whether the Minister speaks Danish, but I refer him to the article in Berlingske Tidende, which interviewed me two weeks ago, and with which I have regular contact. It concluded that house prices have been affected. I was saying not that offshore would affect house prices but that onshore created such a noise that it has affected house prices. I also said that there is evidence that offshore wind farms damage marine life.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am glad that we have established that offshore wind farms are not affecting people's house prices; that is helpful. As I said earlier, all these changes have an impact, as one cannot invest £1 billion a year over the next 10 years without having an impact; the question is whether we can successfully manage that. We cannot, on one hand, say that we are in favour of renewable energy and, on the other hand, say every time there is a difficulty that we had better not go ahead. The hon. Lady falls into that trap from time to time.

The Transport Committee made it clear that it is in favour of automatic safety zones around all offshore wind farms, as the proposal would provide, and the Government will respond to the Committee's report in due course.

We should stick with the policy in the Bill that safety zones should be in place where there is a demonstrable need for them, rather than their being automatic. I can assure the Committee that appropriate safety zones will be established wherever there is a case for them on safety grounds, and I expect that that will be in most cases, but not in all. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is the Government's advisers on marine safety matters, and the Health and Safety Executive support a case-by-case approach and agree that it would not be right to apply a safety zone automatically.

It is unlikely that maritime users would support the hon. Lady's position. The fishing industry sponsored unsuccessful amendments to the Bill during its passage through the other place which would have exempted fishing vessels from the operation of the safety zone scheme. The hon. Lady has referred a number of times to leisure users; the Royal Yachting Association has concerns about the principle of safety zones because of the possibility that recreational sailors would find themselves facing criminal charges if they accidentally

entered a safety zone. Following written evidence from the Royal Yachting Association to its inquiry, the Transport Committee recognised that exceptions for smaller craft may well be appropriate. However, that is not picked up in the amendment. If we followed the approach suggested by the amendment, the Secretary of State would have to declare a safety zone around every installation and even around wind farms sited on sandbanks in very shallow waters where only small craft could navigate in any case. That may be the most likely instance in which a zone would not be required.

In light of all the interests that would be affected, it would not be appropriate to force a safety zone around every installation come what may. That would incur costs for the owners and for the Government in enforcing such a regime, and there would be instances of otherwise perfectly law-abiding innocent people accidentally entering a safety zone in a small boat and being guilty of a criminal offence. That would be disproportionate in the circumstances.

We are committed to ensuring that the waters around our shores are as safe as possible. We want safety zones where they are needed, but automatically placing a safety zone around every installation is not justified in this case. Neither the Bill nor I propose that there should be a parliamentary process surrounding the declaration of safety zones. It can be left to others to do that.

The hon. Lady asked about birds in connection with safety zones. I did not entirely understand her question. Safety zones are intended for the safety of navigation and to avoid ships colliding with wind farms. We cannot expect birds to respect safety zones around wind farms. Perhaps she was making a different point, but I do not think that safety zones impact on birds.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. On the last point, I think that the RSPB is particularly concerned about boats trips that will take twitchers out to areas close to new installations. That organisation has placed on the record the fact that although, like members of the Committee, it is broadly in favour of developing renewable energy sources, it believes that the pleas on one or two outstanding issues, which were raised in the House of Lords and which we have raised on its behalf here, have fallen on deaf ears.

I am afraid that I do not accept the Minister's platitudes. We are discussing installations that are much bigger and cover a bigger area than others and that are bang in the middle of commercial and recreational shipping lanes. I do not expect him to be an expert on transport. I am relatively new to this brief and I do not have the same command of the subject as him, but I have spent 20 years being involved, in one shape or form, with transport policy. I have the greatest respect for him, but it beggars belief that he does not see that a large installation placed in a busy commercial shipping lane will be an obstacle to shipping and to birds.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I will have another go. Not all offshore wind farms will be in such shipping lanes. In fact, I expect the number of wind farms that are to be quite modest. Some offshore wind farms will be on sandbanks in shallow waters, where in any case only small craft could go before the wind farms were there. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Lady accepts that placing an automatic ban on any small craft entering the area of those wind farms, without assessing whether that was needed, would be disproportionate and quite damaging to the interests of recreational and other users.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The laughter on the Benches behind me speaks for itself. When I was MEP for the part of Essex that includes Southend, East, I witnessed the alarming sight of one of the yachts to which the Minister referred stuck on a sandbank, probably because the crew's mariner skills were as extensive as mine. They broke the rudder and were affixed to the sandbank. We must accept that not everyone using the waters with recreational craft has the experience he thinks.

I draw the Committee's attention to UNCLOS, which clearly sets out in part II the requirements of a member state seeking to develop the renewable zone, as the Government wish to do. It clearly states what precautions a Government can take.

I do not find the Minister's reassurances satisfactory. He has not properly responded, but it is still not too late to explain why the installations are being treated differently from oil rigs, which are smaller hazards and further out to sea. We shall not press amendment No. 172 or new clause 18, but we want to put amendment No. 171 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 14.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 184, in

clause 96, page 74, line 43, at end insert—

'(i) shall be published and a right of appeal given within 28 days, to which the Secretary of State must consider any representations before confirming terms of notice.'.

The amendment would introduce a further requirement in relation to the notices issued under clause 96. The clause establishes safety zones and

subsection (6) states how the notice shall be presented. The amendment would add the additional requirements that the notice should be published—that may be inherent in its nature—and, more significantly, that there should be such a right of appeal.

That may appear to be a notional or technical point, but I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the whole process bypasses the standard planning process relating to onshore applications. The amendment would establish the fact that there ought to be a right to appeal against the notice, which should be as simple as possible. It should introduce as little delay as possible, but preserve the rights of those who feel that the notice is oppressive to them or their interests.

We discussed earlier the fact that there is a wide range of interests in respect of the outcome of such a safety zone notice. They include those who are adversely affected by a restriction on their access to the area, such as the fishing industry or leisure interests, or indeed the wider shipping industry. Those who were intending to invest in a safety zone might object to the restrictions placed on them and their operations.

This is a straightforward attempt to test the Minister on the requirement for an appeal. I hope he can accept this simple addendum.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I recommend that the Committee reject this amendment. The hon. Gentleman's point on publication is covered by subsection (7); a

comprehensive framework for considering applications to the Secretary of State for a safety zone notice is set out in schedule 16. There is provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations about such matters as the publication of the application and its service on particular persons. Everybody who wants to will have the opportunity to give their views to the Secretary of State on an application. There is provision for a public inquiry should the Secretary of State conclude that one is appropriate.

The decision by the Secretary of State is also subject to the normal rules of judicial review, so if the decision is irrational, or the procedure is not carried out correctly, it can be reviewed by the courts. We have provided a thorough and robust process. The hon. Member for Vale of York argued that we should have automatic safety zones in every instance. I do not agree, but it is right to leave the process as it stands without the additional complexity that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove would add.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I hear what the Minister says. I understand the balance that has to be struck between protecting the rights of all those with an interest in the matter and making progress. His reply is somewhat disappointing, but, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Clause 96 - Safety zones around renewable energy installations

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Before I call the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), I point out that the usual rules apply: all mobile phones in the Room must be switched off.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 163, in

clause 96, page 75, line 17, at end add—

'(11) Before issuing a notice, the Secretary of State must consult with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 165, in

clause 102, page 78, line 15, at end insert

', following consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.

No. 166, in

clause 103, page 80, line 20, at end insert—

'(f) consult with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am delighted to be here this afternoon to see you in your place, Mr. O'Brien. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but I was requested to show an interest in a debate on the Floor of the House.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. More voice, please.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am getting there. Would the Minister make a little less noise in pouring the water? I am getting more used to the Government's tactics during proceedings.

The Minister has made way for his colleague, the Under-Secretary, and it is nice to see him in his place. The Minister said that he believes it sufficient to make a commitment in the Committee, as I am sure his hon. Friend will echo this afternoon, to assure us that the Government are at one and that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will meet and consult the Secretary of State for Transport and the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister's response, but we believe it prudent to specify in the Bill that consultations should take place in relation to the safety zones around renewable energy installations. Although you are no longer a member of the Transport Committee, Mr. O'Brien, I know that you

continue to take an interest in the work of that august body. You will have been impressed by the conclusions reached from the evidence, given that, regrettably, those consultations did not take place. Why did they not happen before round 1 and 2 sites were considered? What steps have the Government taken to ensure that consultations will take place in future?

Amendment No. 165 would insert a similar requirement for consultation in clause 102. It is regrettable that there was a failure to consult with the official Government agency—the MCA—which is responsible for the markings, the buoys and ensuring that public rights of navigation are insisted on. It is important that a balance is struck among the traditional public rights of navigation enjoyed by a wide variety of interests—particularly commercial shipping, but to a lesser extent recreational shipping, fishing and other maritime activities—and that marine life should not be endangered.

I am sure the Minister will tell the Committee why—during the initial stages of consultation on part 3, chapter 1—his Department was persuaded that there was no need to consult the relevant Department, or, through that Department, the relevant maritime, navigation and shipping interests and the relevant agency, the MCA. Amendment No. 166 relates to clause 103, which covers further provision relating to the public right of navigation. The same arguments persist there.

If the Government are serious about making a success of their renewable energy commitments, the Committee and the interest groups to which I referred must be satisfied that the Bill will strike a balance in exercising the various interests. The Department clearly got off to a regrettably poor start by failing to consult the interest groups concerned. I would not want to conclude from that that the Government are seeking to extinguish public rights of navigation in every way, but that was certainly the impression left in certain quarters of the shipping industry. That leads me neatly to the conclusion that this is an opportunity for the Government to eat a bit of humble pie. That is a highly recommended diet: it is fairly light in calories, has a low cholesterol and fat content, and does not lead to any excess of weight that might cause distress.

I invite the Committee to support our humble amendments, and the Minister to explain why the Committee should be persuaded that, in view of the failure to take any account of, or to consult, the relevant Department, agency and interests, this will not happen again.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I could say that it is a great pleasure to be here again this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien, but I might be fibbing. However, it is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your wise chairmanship.

I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York that consultation between the Secretary of State for Transport and the MCA is essential before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry considers whether to issue a notice declaring a safety zone around a renewable energy installation, or, as the hon.

Lady put it, to extinguish the public right of navigation. I am informed, however, that she has been misinformed about the degree of consultation and co-operation that there has been so far.

I am content that our civil servants at the DTI have worked very closely with the MCA to draft the Bill. That co-operation will continue as we implement and operate the Bill's provisions. It is not, however, appropriate to write into the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry formally to consult the Secretary of State for Transport in view of the fact that, as the Bill is phrased, both Secretaries of State are legally indivisible and act together.

I am advised that the reference to the Secretary of State includes all Secretaries of State. The Secretary of State for Transport is therefore covered where the matter falls within his or her functions, which, of course, include the protection of navigation. I understand that the hon. Lady has been e-mailing the MCA, so she will know that it is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. It exercises the functions of the Secretary of State for Transport, so again no separate reference to it is necessary or appropriate.

I would hope that a party that is trying to show a public face that is against more regulation and bureaucracy will not press to a vote an amendment that, if accepted, would write in a requirement to hold further formal consultation and that might create more paperwork, particularly when we are ensuring that the appropriate Secretaries of State are consulted and are continuing the dialogue and close work that I am advised is already taking place between them and the MCA in framing the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the Minister for his remarks, but the evidence that we on the Transport Committee took is quite powerful. I remind him and members of the Committee of the Transport Committee's conclusion No 7:

''It is the Government's task to balance the need of the country for clean renewable energy with its need for ready and safe access to its ports by the shipping through which we trade. In doing this, it must take account of the very real risks that off-shore installations pose for shipping.''

Throughout all the conclusions—I will not rehearse them again—the Government's knuckles are firmly rapped. Conclusion No. 2 states:

''With little or no maritime representation on the steering group, it is hardly surprising that the . . . strategic environmental assessment made very little reference to navigational matters.''

However, I accept the Minister's assurance that the Government have, in all probability, learned the error of their ways, and one would hope that they do not revert to such poor consultations. Based on that assurance and what the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said this morning, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 185, in

clause 96, page 75, line 17, at end add—

'(11) The Secretary of State must ensure that all efforts are made also to make use of such areas for marine conservation purposes by designating, where practically possible, said areas as protected marine reserves.'.

It is a pleasure to serve with you again this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. The amendment was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and it takes us in a different direction from that of our earlier discussions. Until now, the emphasis has been on the damage, difficulty and anxieties caused if safety zones are set up and renewable energy sources developed offshore. We seek a more positive approach to the opportunities that will be available if or when such zones are set up. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that, where practical, areas set aside for renewable energy generation should also serve the purposes of marine conservation.

The reality is that an area of the sea floor and of the sea in which fishing, transient shipping and human intervention are reduced provides real opportunities for marine conservation. In fact, having additional structures on the sea floor can be positive rather than negative. I was struck by a small article I saw about the D-day landings, which stated that the remnants of the Mulberry harbours are still visible above water, but that below water they have become a small zoo of marine wildlife. Even in a circumstance such as that, the imposition of man-made apparatus on the beach and in the sea can be positive. We have all seen the underwater photographs, films and videos of the Titanic, which make that same point.

We say that there is an opportunity rather than just a problem, and that by using that opportunity and including a duty on the Secretary of State to take advantage of it, we could achieve some positive environmental advantages that go beyond the simple generation of renewable carbon-free electricity.

I should say that English Nature supports the amendment. It has written to say:

''We urge that serious consideration is given to including provisions to allow the expansion of such zones''—

renewable energy zones—

''to create conservation zones around installations.''

We are moving the amendment with a view to that taking its first step forward.

Some 80 per cent. of life on earth is under the ocean surface, and a huge amount of the living space that can viably be occupied by organisms is in the ocean. We have an opportunity, which I hope the Government want to seize, to develop that aspect by agreeing to our amendment.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

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

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 (Labour, Edinburgh South)

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.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

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.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

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.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

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.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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

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 (Labour, Edinburgh South)

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.

Where 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

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.

Schedule 16 - Applications and proposals for notices under section 96

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I beg to move amendment No. 144, in

schedule 16, page 232, line 42, leave out

'either in addition to or'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 145, in

schedule 16, page 233, line 35, leave out

'either in addition to or'.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The amendments are modest and helpful. They concern the process by which a person or a body wishing to install an offshore installation goes about doing so. Schedule 16 sets out the process by which the inquiry takes place if there are objections to the installation or to the safety zone; clauses 94 to 96 also apply in this regard.

When an individual or an organisation seeks to place an installation in an offshore site, as set out in clause 94, they must first obtain approval by means of a section 36 application of the Electricity Act 1989. When they seek to do so, they will consider several things, the first being whether an element of the application is covered by a local authority area which, in the case of most offshore applications it will not be. They will therefore consider that in terms of a potential inquiry into their application, it will lie within the purview of the Minister and the mechanisms set out in the previous clauses.

Secondly, they will consider whether a safety zone around the installation is likely to be required. In most circumstances, bearing in mind our debates, a safety zone probably would be required, but not necessarily in all circumstances. However, a person or organisation wanting to produce or invest in an installation would want a clear line of approach in terms of the decision-making process of the proposal for such an installation. They would want to know whether there was a safety zone and, if so, whether it was likely to be a matter of controversy and whether it would be the subject of the inquiry. They would also want to know whether the application itself was likely to be the subject of an inquiry. The fact that it would be the subject of an inquiry would not necessarily deter an investor wanting to set up an offshore installation. It is the certainty of the process that is important. My amendment would put certainty into the process, because as schedule 16 suggests, there could be a situation in which an individual or a company wished to put an installation into an offshore site and, because a local authority did not cover that site, the Minister

required an inquiry to be held. When that inquiry was being held the investor in the installation might be concerned about the safety zone. That may be a matter for separate side letters; there may be discussions and informal inquiries about whether there should be a safety zone and, if so, what it will consist of.

All of that occurs while the installation is not being built because if a section 36 application succeeds and it is built, the subsequent question of the safety zone means that the safety zone has to fit around the installation that is built; it cannot require that the installation has to be removed. While that installation is not built and it is on paper, there is a question about the certainty of investment; the investor will wish to know about the safety zone and how the process by which it will be determined is carried out.

As section 16 currently stands, it appears that the Minister can discuss via other devices such as side letters and other processes the definition and extent of a safety zone and that, suddenly, at the end of the process—within perhaps three days of the investor considering that it has come to an end and they can therefore start work on their installation—the Minister may decide that there should be an inquiry after all. The process will then be set back and put into a state of uncertainty again because nothing has been placed on the sea bed for a long period. I am certain that our Minister would not do that, but that is not the point. The point is that the perception of those who are considering investing in the process is that this is a hurdle that they might have to overcome. That creates uncertainty.

The amendment addresses that problem. It is proper to consider whether to have inquiries at each stage, but it should be made clear at the beginning of the process if there is to be an inquiry. If there is not to be an inquiry and the process is to proceed by other means, that should also be made clear. The amendment does not in any way abridge the rights of people or organisations—or, indeed, interested non-governmental organisations—to make objections, or the rights of the Minister to consider what is the best way to proceed. It simply suggests that the Minister ought to make that process clear as the process of application takes place, so that when the application is finally determined with regard to installation and the safety zone, it is safe to proceed; certainty is thereby secured.

I hope that the Minister will support the amendment or give me assurances about how the outcome can be secured in terms of the process by which installations are decided and become reality.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I must confess that I was rather puzzled when I read amendments Nos. 144 and 145 because I could not quite work out their purpose. I thought that they might be intended to tease out an understanding of this situation and to advance the position that they would bring about, rather than to be definitive amendments. I have listened with great interest and I am not certain that I am that much further forward than when the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead)

started, but I fully accept that that is my mistake, my error and my weakness, on which the whole Committee can agree without any difficulty.

I am all for placing duties on the Secretary of State where necessary. The Committee will remember that when we started on clause 1, I was one of the people who said that the Secretary of State should have a duty to ensure the integrity and security of electricity and gas supply. As we know, the Minister weaselled out of that one fairly quickly. The Secretary of State has instead been given carte blanche and will have little responsibility if there is any trouble.

In this case, however, I cannot see why the hon. Member for Southampton, Test wants to tie the Minister's hands by creating what I can describe only as a ''go, no-go'' situation. I cannot see why the flexibility of the middle route should not be available. Had the Liberals tabled the amendment, I would think that it was a wrecking amendment designed to cause all sorts of trouble, but obviously the hon. Gentleman does not want to wreck the Bill; he wants to improve it. I will therefore listen with great interest to what the Minister says in accepting or rejecting the hon. Gentleman's comments.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test produced the example of a safety zone. That may be necessary, but does he really think that it would be sensible for the Minister to be able either to do nothing except tick the box, or to have a public inquiry? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman looks at his amendment, he will see that that is what it would achieve. It would mean that the Minister had either to reject the objections that were put forward, or to go to a public inquiry. There seems to be no halfway house.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I am obliged to him for his detailed interest in what I am attempting to achieve. However, if he looks at paragraph 4(3)(b) of the schedule, he will see that it says

''if he''—

that is, the Minister—

''thinks it appropriate to do so''.

The Minister can therefore pursue different methods of determining whether there should be a safety zone not including a public inquiry, but if he considers it appropriate, he may determine that there should be such an inquiry. It is not an either/or situation. My amendment is designed simply to ensure that the route is clear when the decisions are initially considered, not right at the end of the process.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I can go along with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but if he reads paragraph 4(3)(b) of the schedule, he will see that with his amendment it would say, ''must cause a public inquiry to be held, instead of any other hearing or opportunity of stating objections to the application.'' That is how I read it, but what he has just said seems slightly at variance with that.

It is unusual for me to try to help the Minister and defend him in moments of trial and trouble—we all know that Ministers are in a degree of difficulty at the moment and I want to help them over this blip—but

the flexibility that would, in my view, be removed by the hon. Gentleman's amendment should not be removed. We are into, if people will pardon the terrible pun, uncharted waters. We will be doing things that will gradually assume planning law, regulation and accepted practice. I sincerely hope that the Minister will keep the flexibility that is in the Bill. I shall look to see whether he either insults me as a result of my complete lack of understanding of the situation or lets his hon. Friend down gently.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We heard a little from the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services this morning about public inquiries and the procedures that will be used on land. I find the amendments quite interesting, as presumably they are probing the terms of a public inquiry for offshore installations. We know that those who contest planning applications, and particularly those who press for public inquiries, may do so more as a delaying tactic than because they have any conscientious objection to the planning application.

I am sure that the Minister is about as familiar as I am with the public inquiry procedures, because they involve a different Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, are the original schedule 16 and the helpful amendments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test based on having the same procedures for a public inquiry into an offshore installation as an onshore installation? Will a time limit be set for the length of any such public inquiry, so as not to delay the process unnecessarily?

I think—if I understood the hon. Member for Southampton, Test correctly—it would be the Department of Trade and Industry from which a public inquiry would be sought. If that public inquiry proceeded, but the Department still had objections to its conclusions, to which body could an appellant appeal about those conclusions?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test was very clear in his exposition of the two amendments. For the sake of clarity and to help the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), let me set out what we believe the provisions would achieve—or rather, what we would not want them to achieve. We certainly would not want a decision on a safety zone notice to be held up for a long time after a section 36 consent has been granted just because the Secretary of State decided, fairly late in the day, to hold a public inquiry. That is the nub of my hon. Friend's legitimate concerns. We do not believe that that would be the result of schedule 16, but we will look into the matter again in the light of his comments, and that will be reflected on Report.

If my hon. Friend is happy with that explanation, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment. I do not believe that there is a specific time limit on a public inquiry. The procedures for a section 36 consent will be the basis of consideration of safety

zones. Paragraph 6(9) sets out further information on that. I hope that I have explained that better for the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire and others, although I do not think that I could improve on the excellent explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. With that, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that, although he believes that schedule 16 does not cause the problems that I outlined, he will look at it again. That indeed is what I was attempting to achieve by raising the issue through the amendment. There may be methods other than my amendment by which some of my concerns could be dealt with. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 97 - Prohibited activities in safety zones

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

On the face of it, the clause gives the Secretary of State considerable power to put in place regulations that would prohibit certain activities. We are told in clause 97(7):

''Regulations under this section may confer discretions, with respect to the granting or imposition in accordance with the regulations of permissions or conditions, on such persons as may be specified or described in the regulations.''

My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire coined the wonderful expression ''uncharted waters''. Clearly, these are wide-ranging powers that the Committee is agreeing to confer on the Secretary of State. What will be the procedure for the adoption of these regulations? Will they be passed by affirmative or negative procedure by a Statutory Instrument Committee in this House or will there be an opportunity for debate in the other place? I do not necessarily say that we disagree with the powers set out in the clause, but I am a little concerned about how wide ranging they are.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The clause prohibits entry into a safety zone except where permission is granted in a safety zone notice under section 96, which will be specific to the renewable energy installation in question, or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, which will apply to all safety zones. Such regulations would be passed by negative resolution. They are set out in subsection (8) and cover the general permissions that will apply.

The regulations are modelled on those that already apply to safety zones around existing oil and gas installations. They will cover such situations as vessels that are providing services to supporting services or goods to installations within the safety zone, vessels that have been saving or attempting to save life or

property or vessels in distress. I am not attempting to give the Committee a complete list, but I hope that that gives a flavour of the situations that we have in mind. The clause is an essential part of the safety zone regime. I hope that I have answered the hon. Lady's quite legitimate questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98 - Offences relating to safety zones

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have one little question. The Minister may be aware that the master of the Prestige is still under house arrest, presumably under international law provisions, in northern Spain after the disaster off the north coast of Spain. It would appear that clause 98, taken together with clause 99, which refers to the creation of a criminal offence, gives the Government wide powers to apprehend the master of a vessel. Has the Minister thought through the possible consequences of that? It would be good to hear that, as with clause 97, these powers are modelled on similar provisions in relation to oil and gas installations. I should be interested to know whether any person has been apprehended under those regulations.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am sure that we can make inquiries about that. I hope that it helps the Committee to know that we have set out in the Bill certain defences that are available to a defendant who could not have known that a safety zone was in existence, even if reasonable inquiries had been made. We have also provided for a situation where the master of the vessel or the person responsible has shown that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the contravention of the safety zone. I am advised that that defence might apply where the navigational gear of a vessel had been damaged and, despite every reasonable effort being made, it could not be repaired and the vessel was blown or carried by the currents into the safety zone. We are covering the practicalities.

Clause 97, which makes violation of the provisions of a safety zone notice or regulations under clause 90 a criminal offence, is an essential part of the safety zone regime. I hope that, with that explanation, the Committee will agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 99 to 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102 - Extinguishment etc. of public rights of navigation

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in

clause 102, page 78, line 41, at end insert—

'(e) may not disrupt any other area of significant economic activity.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 33, in

clause 103, page 80, line 20, at end insert—

'(f) consult representatives of other industries with significant economic activity in the area affected.'.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To some extent, these amendments cover ground that we debated this morning. They are aimed at clarifying the position of those who are already engaged in economic activities in areas that will be defined as renewable energy zones. I am particularly concerned that that will not refer exclusively to fishermen. Committee members will be aware, because we discussed it this morning, that onshore wind developments are running into increasing opposition. We cannot allow that to happen to offshore wind developments, otherwise the whole renewable energy project is likely to come seriously unstuck. In England, we have already seen some fishermen protesting against the building of offshore wind farms along the east coast. In addition to fishermen, there is the question of pleasure craft owners—and other economic activities, some of which may be significant while others may not. They cannot be swept aside.

When the North sea oil and gas industry was first developing, there were serious concerns among fishermen about the impact on their industry. As it happens, after the initial suspicions, the two more or less got along. I am sure that the same thing can happen with offshore wind energy, but to enable that to happen there must be co-operation from the outset.

If we are to achieve the same sort of co-operation, or at least acceptance, regarding fishermen and offshore wind and wave energy, we must take them on board at an early stage and ensure that there is dialogue and discussion early on. I am concerned that clauses 102 and 103 will not achieve that. This was raised in another place, where it was explained that an applicant for a renewable energy zone must make a case for a zone based on safety grounds, which will be assessed by the DTI with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Where a zone is considered to be necessary, it may be tailored to particular circumstances and there may be consultation with interested parties, including fishermen. There may also be a public inquiry.

The problem with the clauses is that there is no obligation under clause 102, in particular, for the DTI to take account of existing economic activity in the designated area. It could conceivably ignore the views of fishermen, or anyone else. The provisions in the clauses are not enough. We should ensure that the interests of existing businesses are taken into account in deciding where a zone is situated. I am not trying to

achieve a veto on such a zone. Such a measure may go a long way to ensuring that agreement is reached, or there is, at least, meaningful dialogue.

I am sure that the Minister will refer me to clause 103(6)(e), which states that opportunities should be given for

''such persons as that authority considers appropriate''

but we need to go further than that and ensure that the fishermen, and other significant economic activity, are specifically addressed at this point.

When I asked about compensation to fishermen, Lord Whitty said that it would be a matter for the developer and that the Government saw their role as facilitating discussion between industries and developers. That is not good enough.

The Bill gives a power to extinguish rights of navigation through significant parts of our seaways, which could have a dramatic effect on other businesses. Surely it is up to the Government not to impose that unless there is clear authority for dealing with the interests of existing businesses. Fishermen must not simply be ignored, otherwise we will have a situation every bit as bad, if not worse, than the one engulfing the onshore wind industry. I ask the Minister to consider those points.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I will deal with the amendments separately, as one has slightly more merit than the other, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so.

A provision such as amendment No. 32, which would insert

''may not disrupt any other area of significant economic activity'',

would probably have halted the North sea oil and gas industry in its tracks in its infancy. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman hinted at that. That does not negate the need for consultation, however, and I will come to that in discussing amendment No. 33.

If we accepted amendment No. 32, anyone who incurred a loss because of a structure being located in a certain place—by having to go round it or having their access blocked—could sue the developer for causing a nuisance. The addition of the term ''significant economic activity'' could also cause confusion, because as far as I am aware, it is not a recognised economic term. It would be hard to define.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will be reassured if I tell him that amendment No. 33 would largely duplicate provisions elsewhere in clause 103 that require the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to consult appropriate bodies before deciding how to tackle the right of navigation within a wind farm. Again, use of the term ''significant economic activity'' would cause confusion because of the difficulty in defining it.

I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman on the fears of giving any party an apparent economic veto and reassured him that the need for consultation is already covered, so it is not necessary to duplicate it with amendment No. 33.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. The phrase ''significant economic activity'' was used in an attempt to ensure that we talk about something significant rather than just one pleasure craft that is significant only to one person but is not an economic concern. I accept his comments on amendment No. 32 and will not press it any further.

I am not convinced on amendment No. 33. Although I accept that there is consultation, it is only of those the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and I am not sure that that provision is strong enough. However, I have heard the Minister's response and I will give amendment No. 33 some further thought. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 187, in

clause 102, page 78, line 41, at end insert—

'(5A) A declaration under this section must be published and a right of appeal given within 28 days, to which the Secretary of State must consider any representations before confirming terms of notice.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 188, in

clause 103, page 79, line 34, at end insert—

'(2A) A declaration under this section must be published and a right of appeal given within 28 days, to which the Secretary of State must consider any representations before confirming terms of notice.'.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

These amendments are similar to amendment No. 184 to clause 96, which we discussed earlier. They are a signal of our concern that the Secretary of State is judge and jury in the process. I am sure that the Minister will repeat the words of his colleague this morning—there will be consultation and discussion—but the reality is that it is sudden death for those who receive such a declaration. We are trying to ensure that the Bill reflects the necessity in natural justice for there to be a right of appeal and for the Secretary of State to be prepared to take a second look at representations before a notice is declared. In view of our earlier discussion, I will leave it at that.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am a strong supporter of the rights of consultation, but I also believe that decisions must be taken—that does not face the Liberal Democrats in government. This decision promotes the development of renewable energy and wind production, and I resist the amendment, which would delay that desirable outcome.

After a due process of consultation, if anybody felt that a future Secretary of State was not applying a fair process, was acting too hastily and not listening to the consultation, I understand that such a decision would be open to judicial review. However, the hon. Gentleman's term ''sudden death'' is regrettable. I fear that the amendment would mean sudden death for the development of any wind farm technologies.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

That reply is hardly unexpected in view of our debate this morning. I take note of the Minister's words and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

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

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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.

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

an installation be subjected to an attack from the air? Will the Minister explain the background to the drafting of clause 104?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

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

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

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 (Labour, Edinburgh South)

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.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

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

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

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

are taking place within Departments about that and I would be grateful if the Minister would bring us up to speed on them.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great authority on those issues. He is right to point out that the proposal attempts to ensure that some longstanding legislation—going back 119 years in the case of the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885—which does not appear to encompass modern day offshore electricity production is included. That Act, as amended by subsequent legislation, makes it a criminal offence to damage a submarine cable and it extends only to high voltage cables and not to the high seas. Therefore, the clause is an attempt to extend that Act to cover all cables, whether they are high voltage or not, and also to cover the territorial sea. The clause also addresses the potential overlap between oil and gas activities on the one hand and renewable energy development on the other. Where there is a possibility that a site will be suitable for both activities, and that developers from both the renewables and the oil and gas industries will seek the Secretary of State's consent to carry out their respective duties, that will be facilitated.

Thirdly, the clause covers the need to make consequential amendments to PACE to take account of the fact that we are extending criminal law to include renewable energy installations. My hon. Friend suggests that the Secretary of State should be required to have regard to other marine activities in relevant waters, or to the conservation of the marine environment, but I understand that there is already in place an effective process to ensure that such potential conflicts are considered and addressed adequately. That process includes environmental impact assessments for individual projects and strategic environmental assessments, which my hon. Friend champions, for strategic decisions on offshore licence rounds. SEAs are integral to the Government's decision-making process for oil and gas exploration. Areas that are identified as being particularly sensitive to development may be excluded from the competition or constraints may be imposed on developments within them.

As my hon. Friend highlighted, there have been suggestions from various bodies that we should consider adopting a more comprehensive range of new legislation, but there is some debate as to what form that might best take. If the reviews conclude that new legislation is required, the Government will consider a comprehensive marine Bill. Of course, we would want to consult on any proposed changes before introducing any legislation.

I am also aware of the helpful suggestions from a range of organisations that the Government should explore a more strategic approach to the spatial planning of potentially conflicting marine activities and interests.

The Government consultation paper to help to deliver our vision for the marine environment, ''Seas of Change'', recommended marine spatial planning as a means of managing conflicting uses of the sea, as well as for environmental protection. The Government

have made a commitment to examine the role of spatial planning for the marine environment with—I am happy to tell my hon. Friend—a presumption in favour of developing a marine spatial plan if that is practical. We are also committed to undertaking a pilot to explore those issues on a non-statutory basis. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are taking the lead in drafting its scope. They will be interested to hear from my hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for his helpful and constructive comments.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I am grateful to the Minister for making those points. I hope that we have the opportunity to discuss a marine Bill in Committee in the not-too-distant future.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

With that, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 108 - Requirement to prepare decommissioning programmes

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I say how much I enjoyed the debate on clause 106? I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) for getting the name of the Bill right; I could not remember it this morning or this afternoon.

Clause 108 proposes a requirement to prepare decommissioning programmes, and the Library notes helpfully inform us that greater clarity on security, which was needed before planning permission could be granted, was set out in two letters to my noble Friend Baroness Byford. This is an opportunity for the Minister to set out the content of the exchange of correspondence between his noble Friend and my noble Friend. At the very least, the Minister might explain that content to us. If that is not possible, perhaps he could undertake to write to Committee members with copies of the correspondence.

Clearly, it would be helpful to know how extensive the obligation to decommission is and what the state of offshore installations would be following decommissioning. Is that the responsibility of those seeking consent; that is, the developers?

The Secretary of State has a discretionary power to impose an obligation on a person to submit a costed decommissioning programme. Under UNCLOS—the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—

there is an obligation on contracting parties to ensure that renewable energy installations are decommissioned. It would be helpful to know whether the decommissioning programme must be prepared at the time of consent, or whether it can happen at another time. Clearly, the Minister's noble Friend is alert to the fact that there are several requirements under the UN convention, and it would be helpful to know what they are and at what stage the decommissioning programme will be submitted.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I understand that the UN convention applies only to installations in the renewable energy zone. Of course, we want to ensure that the same decommissioning requirements and standards apply to all marine renewable energy installations, no matter where they are located.

The UN convention is not prescriptive about how a contracting state must fulfil its obligations. The Bill gives us a scheme that provides the controls necessary to ensure that installations are decommissioned and sets appropriate standards, including environmental standards. The Bill also provides an appropriate level of consultation. The clause gives discretionary power to the Secretary of State to issue a notice that requires a person to submit a costed decommissioning programme.

I was speaking to Digby Jones of the CBI at an important conference this morning, and we compared notes on regulations. If this is another power that the Opposition would like to convert from a discretionary to a mandatory power—making another regulation, which would take them to a total of 3,091—the hon. Lady should say so. I fear that that would be the impact of their proposal.

Clause 108 gives that discretionary power to impose a requirement on a person to submit a decommissioning programme. It provides for sending a notice requiring the submission of such a programme. There would be no point in requiring the submission of a decommissioning programme before a consent had been granted, as it would not be clear that the project was going to proceed. It would divert resources that a company might wish to put into another project, were the company not to succeed in obtaining a consent. Indeed, nothing would prevent it from adding some comments on decommissioning as part of the consent.

As soon as a project becomes a definite reality, the Secretary of State will wish to put in place at an early stage the mechanisms to ensure that it is decommissioned. Equally, the Secretary of State can issue a notice requiring a decommissioning plan to be put in place at subsequent stages in the life cycle of the assets. Clause 108(8) gives details about what the decommissioning programme must contain.

Clause 108(9) gives the Secretary of State powers to require the person to provide details of the security that is proposed to ensure that the costs of carrying out the programme will be available at the appropriate time. A legitimate concern for everyone involved in

conservation and decommissioning is to ensure that the person contracting the installation does not walk away in any sort of irresponsible manner.

A non-exhaustive list of the things that will constitute security for such a purpose is given in clause 117(2). It encompasses letters of comfort and parent company undertakings as well as arrangements more normally thought of as security, such as a letter of credit or security over a deposit.

Clause 108(7) gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to require the recipient of a notice to consult persons or organisations specified in the notice. I hope that I have satisfied the Committee that clause 108 is vital to the decommissioning scheme proposed in this chapter of the Bill and I move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109 - Approval of decommissioning programmes

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I want to give the Minister the opportunity to satisfy the Opposition. In his summing-up remarks on clause 108, he omitted to answer a simple question from me, which I will repeat. In approving decommissioning programmes under clause 109, does the Minister intend that the offshore installation in the renewable zone will return to its completely natural state, as it was before the installation was created? Comparisons with a nuclear plant, for example, are not the most helpful, but it might help the Committee to know that there is a planning application to take gravel and other building materials from a site that borders a Neolithic henge at Thornborough henges in the vale of York. That will not be restored to a similar state, but will be made into a water feature. Will the Minister clarify whether approval under clause 109 will involve returning the installation to its natural state?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The intention is that any return after an installation is decommissioned is to an appropriate, acceptable usage. That means that, as far as possible—I choose my words carefully, because we are all realistic about the matter—that may range from as complete a restoration as possible to some alternative use. It very much depends on the circumstances of the time. However, I assure the Committee that the Government are determined, in this and related clauses, to ensure that exhausted schemes cannot be abandoned, nor can installations be left to rot in the sea to the potential detriment of shipping and of the marine environment.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I appreciate the Minister saying that he does not want things to lie there and rot, but is he not aware of a comprehensive programme of man-made reefs in the bays of the Caribbean where rigs have been deliberately toppled into the water to become fish

sanctuaries and wildlife havens? The sport of fishing off those toppled oil rigs is now lucrative and major. I appreciate that windmills, in themselves, may not offer the protection necessary for fish to live and breed, but I hope that the Minister does not intend eliminating such a possibility, if it is appropriate.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

As a scuba diver, I have dived in the Caribbean, and I am aware of the value of artificial reefs and of deliberately sunk wrecks. They create a wonderful marine environment.

Clause 109 will allow us to require decommissioning in accordance with the international standards of the time. The hon. Gentleman posed a question. It may not be appropriate to remove everything; the marine environment may benefit from part of a structure being left, but that does not include some rotting hulk on the sea bed that may be polluting or environmentally damaging, or even dangerous. I think that I have reflected the available balance and I hope that the Committee will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111 - Reviews and revisions of decommissioning programmes

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I beg to move amendment No. 140, in

clause 111, page 90, line 7, at end add—

'(11) Nothing in this section shall empower the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of a decommissioning programme in connection with the provision of security by any person approved under section 109(4) without the consent of the person affected.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 141, in

clause 111, page 90, line 7, at end add—

'(11) This section applies, in respect of a renewable energy installation, until the decommissioning of the renewable energy installation has been completed in accordance with section 112.'.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

These amendments are part of a theme—it is about certainty—and the circumstances in which a commitment to develop is made and carried out. This follows on from our earlier discussion on amendments Nos. 144 and 145. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the amendments relate to the fact that clauses 108 to 112 are effectively linked and cumulative. Clause 112 requires the person to carry out the process of decommissioning, but the previous clauses set out the circumstances under which that person finally gets to the point of carrying out the decommissioning.

Clause 108, which we agreed to, presents the possibility of the Minister requiring a person who is installing an offshore wind farm to submit a decommissioning programme for the end of the life of the project. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out,

although that onus is not on the person submitting the proposal at the time when the proposal is submitted—that is, it is not part of the planning process, but takes place after the application's success—the question of submitting a decommissioning programme would nevertheless normally take place at the outset of the project and would have to be taken into account by the person submitting the proposal. They would have to take into account the life of the project, its cost, the cost of decommissioning and the likely process of decommissioning in deciding whether to submit that programme for investment purposes.

Furthermore, under clause 109 the Secretary of State can require that person, at the beginning of the project's life, not just to submit a decommissioning programme, but to submit security to guarantee it, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out.

Under clause 110, the Secretary of State can reject a proposal put forward by someone seeking to install an offshore wind farm and impose his own decommissioning programme. If he does that, the clause gives him the power to require the installer to provide security on a programme to which the installer has not agreed. Those are onerous requirements, but they are reasonable in light of the idea that an installation should have the means of its own decommissioning available and obvious when it goes into the sea.

However, clause 111 would enable the Secretary of State subsequently to change or modify that programme. That is a reasonable provision, inasmuch as circumstances may change, and reconsideration may be needed as a result. However, significantly, if the Secretary of State changes or modifies the programme, he can also change or modify the circumstances under which security is provided, and can do that well into the life of the project.

The amendments would address the circumstances under which such modification of security could be effected. My concern in tabling the amendments related to the question of certainty. If I were a potential investor in such an installation, my financial adviser might say, ''We think that this is a proposition worth investing in; it would make x amount of money over a certain number of years. As we have discussed, it would require a certain amount of planning, and it might require a safety zone. All such issues can be accommodated in putting forward a proper plan for the development.''

He would then say to me, ''By the way, at the outset of the project, you are required to provide security for its decommissioning.'' I think, although I may be corrected, that such security would relate uniquely to offshore wind installations and does not at present relate to oil and gas installations for security purposes. If my financial adviser then said, ''By the way, once you have got over all those hurdles, the Secretary of State may vary the security that you must provide without discussion with you,'' I might well think that that was potentially a very high-risk investment that could go seriously wrong, one that I might well not make.

In their operation collectively, the clauses seek to do something that we all think ought to be done; to submit a proper decommissioning programme. They also allow the Secretary of State to modify that, but in so doing create a potential long-term problem of uncertainty that needs to be addressed at the outset of a project, and not as a project proceeds.

Amendment No. 140 would add to clause 11 the idea that security is a matter for discussion and negotiation, rather than force majeure. The Secretary of State may alter the terms of the security and decommissioning programme, but it would require the consent of the person affected. Secondly, to nail that process to clause 112, which requires the person to carry out the process of decommissioning, the additional words at the end of line 7 also apply during the period of decommissioning; that is that the process of discussion is relevant until the decommissioning is completely finished and the installation is a haven for fish and scuba divers.

Without altering the power of the decommissioning programme and the proper resource that is required to go along with it, the proposal restores to the decisions taken at the beginning of the programme the certainty that allows investment in the programme, and a success to be made of that investment during its life.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The amendments, especially amendment No. 140, are extremely useful in allowing us to raise with the Minister the scenario to which the hon. Gentleman alluded; what will happen if a company that has successfully applied for consent and built an installation goes bankrupt? The RSPB also asked what would happen in such a case. I understand that the Government's response is that there is already a decommissioning programme for such installations that works well, but it is not in statute. However, there would be considerable uncertainty if a developer went bankrupt between successfully applying for consent and the installation being built.

What implications would there be for that installation in those circumstances? Who would be responsible for it? There is a duty under article 60 of the UN convention on the law on the sea, which states:

''Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation . . . Such removal shall also have due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment and the rights and duties of other States.''

The hon. Gentleman has done the Committee a great service in tabling the amendment and we await the Minister's response with interest.A contracting company going bankrupt would be deeply worrying and the Government must have considered such a situation.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I welcome the amendments because they draw attention to a difficulty that the Minister should address. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test drew to our attention the application of the law of unintended consequences. It is highly desirable that those who invest and develop offshore energy projects should also take on the liability for clearing up after them. That must be built in to the initial planning; we

must not repeat the mistakes made at the initial stages of offshore oil development, in which the life cycle of the plant and the industry were not taken fully into account.

It is fair enough to build that requirement into the initial planning and the Bill seeks to address that. If we take a superficial look, it appears to do so very thoroughly. The problem is that it leaves a high level of uncertainty about the liability of those who invest. Uncertainty is the worst possible ingredient for investors considering how to proceed. A completely open-ended—or, on this occasion, bottomless—demand on finances in order to clean and tidy up afterwards will certainly lead to an investment famine.

The problem arises because, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there is the possibility—even after the decommissioning work has been completely finished—of the Secretary of State deciding that after all there is some other feature that must be taken into account and that therefore he must carry out some more work, when he thought that the job was done. Any potential investor faced with that circumstance would start writing very large numbers on the liabilities side of the investment and business plan, and virtually rule out investment. Surely it is necessary to have a clear timeline for the acquisition of new liabilities. After all, it is understood that the development of awareness of difficulties may well mean that during the lifetime of the project it is accepted that more ambitious and thorough decommissioning is needed.

I am directing my remarks to amendment No. 141 in particular. Surely including a provision in the Bill that means that once decommissioning is finished there can be no question of going back is something that the Secretary of State and the Ministers here today should be prepared to buy into. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and I are happy to support amendment No. 141 on that basis.

We would have liked to support amendment No. 140 without reservation, but the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, having discovered the law of unintended consequences, has tabled an amendment that is victim to it. The amendment states that nothing can be done

''without the consent of the person affected.''

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not suspect that that puts a veto in the hands of the person who has to do the decommissioning. Although we would like to support amendment No. 140, it does not quite fit the bill.

However, the Minister should recognise that there is a genuine problem. There is a need to balance the legitimate requirement for environmental sustainability, and a complete and effective decommissioning process, with the counterbalancing necessity for certainty when it comes to drawing up investment plans. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 141, but if he cannot accept one or other of the amendments, I hope that he will at least give the Committee some assurances that he will return and solve this conundrum. In having the best and most

sustainable imaginable decommissioning process he may have inadvertently prevented any investment from being made in the first place.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

I want to say a word or two in support of the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is making in his amendments. Of course, offshore renewable energy developers must meet their proper decommissioning commitments, but the clause seems to impose on them a rather large open-ended liability. What sort of assessment has the Minister's Department made of the increased risk and the effect that that might have on attracting the kind of investment that we all want to see in the offshore renewable energy business?

I wonder whether the Minister could explain, for the benefit of the Committee, how the arrangements differ from the decommissioning regime in place for oil and gas platforms, and why it is necessary to have a different regime for the renewable energy installations.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

May I take the amendments in sequence?

I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test on amendment No. 140, no matter how well intentioned his attempt to give some certainty to, or to remove uncertainty from, potential investors in these desirable schemes.

The issue is straightforward. What if, while building and operating such a scheme, the board team or company were to change, as well as the financial situation of the owner? None of us can predict with certainty whether financial mechanisms put in place in good faith will be subject to problems in the market. If that were to happen, and the new board and owner did not, for some reason, co-operate with the Secretary of State in restoring the security that we all seek, we would want the Secretary of State to have the powers to put in place that security as best as he or she could without the consent of the person affected. That is sad but perhaps necessary, although we hope that the power will not be needed. The Secretary of State may have to use it to protect in the long run the taxpayer who, ultimately, may have to bear the cost of any failure of security or of financial collapse.

It is only right that the power is firmly in the Bill. For that reason, I unfortunately cannot accept amendment No. 140; it would remove the powers of the Secretary of State. We are talking about a case in which people, for one reason or another—perhaps through desperation or from unreasonableness—will not reach agreement. I hope that I have given the British Wind Energy Association some comfort that the power is targeted at extreme examples, and I hope that the power does not have to be used.

On amendment No. 141, I want to reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State's interest really should come to an end once the renewable energy installation has been decommissioned in accordance with the agreed programme. If the concern relates to ongoing responsibilities—such as the monitoring and the maintenance of parts of the installation that

remain in situ and that might be required as part of a decommissioning programme—clause 111 continues to apply. Of course, the Secretary of State would have to act reasonably in seeking modifications to the programme at that stage. Once the terms of the programme have been complied with, I am advised that clause 111 will fall away.

In summary, I reject amendment No. 140 on the grounds that we need the power to cover a certain eventuality. That was hinted at by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove when he referred to the North sea and the perhaps rather belated attempts to ensure that decommissioning played a prominent part. The power is needed to avoid that and other scenarios that we all hope—none more so than the British Wind Energy Association and the Secretary of State—will not come about.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the regime and compared it to the oil and gas decommissioning scheme. The Petroleum Act casts a wide net over persons liable for decommissioning, and it seeks security only when a significant party leaves a consortium. Our approach there is much more targeted to a more mature, larger and more prosperous sector, so although this regime is based on the oil and gas decommissioning scheme it has different aspects.

I hope that I have persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw amendment No. 140. The problems that it would cause have been highlighted by other Committee members. I also hope that I have persuaded him not to press amendment No. 141 because of my assurances about the Secretary of State's interest before and after decommissioning has been completed in accordance with the programme.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I accept that amendment No. 140 is a potential victim of its unintended consequences. One would probably have to write about 10 more clauses to rectify those consequences, and in those further 10 clauses there might be more unintended consequences, which would detain us for a long time.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for clarifying the Government's intent with regard to what is their interest at the end of a period of decommissioning and the circumstances under which their interest might be reawakened. Those words will be very welcome.

Nevertheless, I believe that there remain potential and possibly fatal concerns that those financing such installations might raise at the point of commissioning. I hope that these clauses become part of the regulation process of a very successful industry, and if they do I hope that those concerns will be kept under review to ensure that they do not inhibit investment in the way that I fear they might if people do not heed the Minister's words. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 112 to 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115 - Duty to inform Secretary of State

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in

clause 115, page 92, line 40, leave out 'or'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 143, in

clause 115, page 92, line 42, at end insert ', or—

(c) to participation where the person does not have a serious executive role in those activities.'.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I will not detain the Committee for long on these amendments. They are the final part of what I have to say. Rather like in the ''Three Colours'' trilogy of films, this is an attempt to colour in, in different ways, the question of certainty in the commissioning of projects. With these amendments, I seek to clarify who is included in the requirements of the various clauses that we have just agreed to.

Amendment No. 142 would delete the word ''or''. Although that appears to be a small change, it would clarify the circumstances in which someone may be caught by the provisions. Amendment No. 143 would distance from being liable someone who was only very peripherally involved in the process. The clauses rightly seek to spell out distinctions; for example, between principals and agents. However, the Bill appears to draw the net rather widely in terms of who might be involved. That may create a climate of uncertainty in the process about who may be liable in cases of decommissioning. My amendments seek to clarify that by putting a boundary around the question, while accepting the principle that, as Stanley Holloway said, ''someone's got to be summonsed.'' Who that person is must be closely and carefully defined to provide certainty in the commissioning process.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The purpose of the duty to inform the Secretary of State when a person becomes responsible for a renewable energy installation or a related cable is so that the Secretary of State knows who owns or has a material interest in the installations or the line. Offshore wind farm projects can change hands rapidly. There is nothing wrong with that; it is to be expected in an emerging industry. The Secretary of State must be able to keep track of those changes so that she can make the decommissioning scheme work effectively.

The categories of legal persons classed as becoming responsible for an installation or related line, and who therefore have a duty to inform the Secretary of State, are listed in subsection (2). We must place a duty not only on those who initially begin to construct, extend, operate, use or decommission the installation or the

line, but on those who subsequently join a project and begin to participate in such activities. In other words, we need to catch the other people who have a material interest in the project.

Subsection (8) makes it clear that any person participating on behalf of another person or providing services is excluded. That will exclude subcontractors, staff employed by developers, and staff employed by those providing services such as banking. The clause is not aimed at such people. It is not necessary to accept my hon. Friend's amendment, which covers employers of persons participating in the transaction.

The next question is whether the amendment intends to exclude anyone else from the duty in subsection (1). I am advised that the terms are difficult to construe legally and might, for example, exempt a person providing a large share of the finance for a project who does not hold an executive role. The Secretary of State would want to know who that person was, and the amendments would—deliberately or inadvertently—deprive the Secretary of State of the potential to acquire that knowledge.

I hope that I have sufficiently explained that serious point and that my hon. Friend understands the thinking of the Secretary of State when drafting the Bill. She has taken on board the key fears and concerns, but she is also determined to have proper safeguards for an area of development in which ownership can rapidly change. I hope that that explanation satisfies my hon. Friend.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Once again, I would be grateful to the Minister if he ensured that, as the investment programme gets under way, the law of unintended consequences does not appear to apply. He made good points about the powers that should be available to the Secretary of State for ensuring that responsible people are properly responsible, but those who are not seriously responsible should not be caught up. I take his point that it is difficult to define in law, for example, the role of a sleeping partner, who perhaps has a substantial interest that is not clear on the surface. Nevertheless, if, as a result of attempting to define that in the law, someone without a serious interest is caught, greater uncertainty could be introduced. I hope that, as the Minister said, it is not the Government's intention to catch those people in the net, and that that will become the reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 116 and 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock till Thursday 17 June at five minutes to Nine o'clock.

O'Brien, Mr. Bill (

Chairman

Atkins, Charlotte

Blizzard, Mr.

Challen, Mr.

Griffiths, Nigel

Key, Mr.

McDonald, Mr.

McIntosh, Miss

Murphy, Mr. Denis

Page, Mr.

Picking, Anne

Robertson, Mr. Laurence

Ruffley, Mr.

Stewart, Ian

Stunell, Mr.

Timms, Mr.

Tipping, Paddy

Turner, Dr. Desmond

Walley, Joan

Weir, Mr.

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr.