Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 180, in

clause 94, page 72, line 14, at end insert—

'(1A) Where this paragraph applies, paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 shall apply to the relevant conservation body.'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 181, in

clause 94, page 72, line 22, leave out 'does not apply' and insert

'shall be amended to apply to the relevant conservation body'.

No. 182, in

clause 94, page 72, line 44, at end insert 'or conservation body'.

No. 183, in

clause 94, page 72, line 47, after 'authority', insert 'or conservation body'.

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

On a point of order, I seek your guidance, Mr. O'Brien. Will you be allowing a stand part debate on clause 94 after we have debated the amendments and stand part debates on clauses 100 and 101?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

We will follow the procedure. If someone wants to raise a question on clause 94 in a stand part debate, that will be permitted.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

This is a significant and serious amendment, to which I hope the Minister will respond accordingly. It would require the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry into proposed offshore renewable energy installation development, if the relevant statutory nature conservation organisation requested such an inquiry. The reason for tabling the amendment is that under the Bill as drafted, if the development of an offshore renewable energy installation is proposed outside an area in which a local authority has jurisdiction, the ability of a objecting body to request a public inquiry into that proposal is weakened or lost. Whether a public inquiry is held becomes a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Normally with planning matters, we assume that there is a role for local authorities, which are democratically elected and reflect their local area. In some respects that is a safeguard in planning towns. There is no such safeguard in the Bill because it gives the Secretary of State much more discretion to decide whether public inquiries into proposed developments are held than would be the case on land. Therefore, it seems sensible, right and wise to build in a counterbalancing mechanism.

The Secretary of State will, to some extent, be judge and jury in these matters. He will, rightly, be promoting offshore energy electricity generation and he or she may not wish to listen carefully to objections, no matter how well founded they are. A counterbalance between the powers of one part of the constitution and those that are exercised elsewhere is needed. That balance, by and large, exists at local level in respect of planning matters, but not in the Bill because local authorities are excluded, as matters are outside their jurisdiction.

The amendments would require a public inquiry or hearing to be held into any proposed offshore renewable energy installation if the statutory nature conservation agencies requested such an inquiry. As presently constructed, those agencies are English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Environment and Heritage

Service in Northern Ireland, if the proposed installation is within territorial waters, or the Joint Nature Conservation Committee if it is beyond those territorial waters. If that provision were included, it would encourage developers to think carefully about nature conservation interests when deciding where to establish installations. It would also encourage Ministers to scrutinise applications carefully and to ensure that the marine environment was properly considered, something to which all members of the Committee are sympathetic. The amendments go no further than similar amendments to the Harbours Bill.

The Minister may argue that the amendments are unnecessary because if the relevant statutory nature conservation agencies had serious objections to a proposed application, it is inconceivable that the application would not be subject to a public inquiry or a hearing. But that rather depends on the good will of the Secretary of State at the time. If he argues that it is inconceivable that such representations will be ignored, nothing will be lost by including the provision in the Bill. It will save the Secretary of State from having to take an embarrassing decision on whether to heed the objections.

Equally, I am sure that if a public inquiry or hearing were triggered by the objection of a statutory body, such bodies would be more careful about what they objected to. They will not use that power lightly. If, however, they cannot trigger a public inquiry or a hearing automatically, but simply use it as a pressure point on the Secretary of State of the day, they may be inclined to call for a public inquiry more often, knowing that they cannot require it. They will use it as a weapon with which to beat the Secretary of State over the head and to state that he has not listened to their views. It would make sense to include the amendment, or a similar provision, in the Bill.

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

I accept that the proposal would limit the ability to call for a public inquiry to certain bodies, but if such a public inquiry were held, would it then be open to all and sundry to present evidence? Would that not risk having public inquiries that went on and on, as has been the case with various energy developments in this country for many years?

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I would argue that the public inquiry system should be the same—as much as we can make it, given that local authorities are not involved—as for public inquiries triggered on land. There is a separate issue about how public inquiries are handled, and whether they go on too long; that is a matter for all public inquiries. Perhaps the Government think that the system should be streamlined as they are currently trying to do through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman may know that the Public Administration Committee is currently considering that matter. There are proposals about how planning inquiries are different from public inquiries, and how they are dealt with.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I am always grateful for an intervention from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, who is usually helpful to the points that I make, although not invariably so. This is a safeguard that is good for the environment and an important balance in the constitutional arrangements. I think that it is good for the Government and for the Minister, who I hope will look favourably on the idea.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I listened with some sympathy to the hon. Member for Lewes moving his amendments, and was mindful of the fact that probably the single most unpopular policy decision made by the present Government in the Vale of York was to give permission to construct a line of pylons from Stockton to the southern flanks of the vale, passing through some of the most hitherto unspoilt parts of the countryside. Are the Government minded to have a public inquiry about offshore installations, bearing in mind that their commitment to renewable energy is almost totally obsessive, with the concentration on wind farms? Most of those currently tend to be located in the south-east of England or parts of Scotland, but increasingly they are offshore.

If the Minister were to agree to such a round of public inquiries, the Government would overcome some of the difficulties that they have encountered with the shipping industry, such as the round 1 consultations. The Transport Committee heard that none of the expert witnesses from the shipping industry had been consulted at that stage. There was a singular lack of consultation, which is highly regrettable. If the Government consented to a public inquiry into offshore oil installations, that would help. It need not necessarily be long and protracted but there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire mentioned earlier, much greater technical problems. The elements are certainly a much bigger factor offshore in connection with installations in renewable energy zones than I would argue is the case onshore.

I am not sure that the hon. Member for Lewes referred to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, but I imagine that the Department would not necessarily think of consulting it on each application. I certainly hope that it will. There are avid twitchers among us, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who are members of the RSPB.

The Minister will be all too aware that offshore wind farms have as devastating consequences for the bird population as onshore wind farms. We have not seen that so much in this country at this stage, but the vulture population in Spain was decimated. Vultures are perhaps not the most popular birds and I agree with the Minister. I do not want to argue the case for vultures, least of all those in Spain, but there are elections on Thursday and we would like to persuade a number of people who live there to support our view. The vulture plays an important role in the food chain in Spain, maintaining the balance of wildlife, but the

population has been decimated as a result of putting a wind farm on a mountain, in a flight path. The consequences have been devastating.

If the Minister is not minded to support the amendment that the hon. Member for Lewes moved, I hope that he will put our minds at rest about the bird population. As the Minister will be aware, the RSPB has more than 1 million members. The four parties in the Committee would be hard pressed to claim that, between them, they represented as many members. I make that point humbly to the Minister. If he is not minded to have a public inquiry, how will such interests be represented when each applications is made? I repeat; offshore installations will cover much bigger areas than offshore oil rigs. The potential environmental consequences will be that much greater.

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

It was said this morning—by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, I think—that everyone on the Committee was committed to renewable energy. I hope that we are. The technology for wind energy is ready to run, which is why the Government are rightly putting so much emphasis on wind energy in delivering the renewable energy target. However, it has been difficult to make sufficient progress onshore because of the various objections of people who live quite close to the sites.

I thought that we were going to have a much clearer run in going offshore with wind energy. It is difficult to stand up in a democratic society and say that there should not be public inquiries, but we hold so many public inquiries that the country runs the risk of grinding to a halt under their weight. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Lewes, I am worried that provisions for public inquiries into offshore wind energy will cause us to get bogged down and prevent us from making progress. I should have thought that if the statutory conservation bodies had a valid point that they made openly and powerfully to the Government, the Government would find that evidence-based point difficult to ignore. I am worried that if we open up the possibility of such public inquiries, we will end up with Uncle Tom Cobley going along.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, so can he explain why his Government dropped the provisions from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that would have allowed what he wants?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. We should not be discussing what took place in consideration of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Can we please keep to the amendment?

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

I gratefully take your advice, Mr. O'Brien.

The Bill contains a lot of measures for protection—we have talked about marine protection, and environmental impact assessments are required. As the Minister said earlier, the people applying for such license have to gather all kinds of information. There are many opportunities in the process for the various

interests to make their points. Statutory conservation bodies are powerful and Governments cannot ignore them; if such a body has to call for public inquiry to make its point, it is probably not working very well.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

A consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 is needed from the Secretary of State for generating stations onshore of more than 50 MW capacity and generating stations offshore of more than 1 MW in capacity. Schedule 8 to the 1989 Act means that if a local planning authority with jurisdiction over a site objects to a generating station, the Secretary of State is required to hold a public inquiry, as the hon. Member for Lewes said.

The main purpose of clause 94(2) is to clarify the role of the local planning authority if the application for consent relates to a generating station offshore; in other words, not in the authority's jurisdiction. We propose that an authority should not have the right to force a public inquiry with regard to the parts of a generating station that are outside its jurisdiction. Therefore, it could not force an inquiry into a development that was wholly offshore.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes would give the relevant conservation body the same powers to force a public inquiry in respect of offshore generating stations as a local planning authority has onshore. That would not be right, because the powers given to an authority in respect of onshore stations recognise its unique position. They reflect the fact that a proposed station, if the Secretary of State consented to it, would be built within the authority's jurisdiction. There is not a good analogy between the role of a local planning authority in relation to its area and the role of a relevant conservation body in respect of offshore stations. The views and expertise of relevant conservation bodies are certainly important, but such bodies are not in a comparable situation to a local planning authority with regard to onshore stations.

Of course, many other organisations would have an interest in an offshore generating station. The hon. Member for Vale of York has repeatedly reminded us of the interests of the shipping and ports industries. It would not be right for conservation bodies to have a power to the exclusion of other bodies with a perfectly legitimate interest. What we should have, which the provisions secure, is the ability for any individual or organisation with a concern to object to the Secretary of State about any development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said. The Secretary of State then decides whether to hold a public inquiry. It would not be right to give a special power to any specific interest groups, given the broad range of issues that need to be considered in reaching a decision.

That said, the Government and developers will, from the earliest possible point in the development of proposals, work closely with the conservation bodies to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred. We

need their input to the environmental assessment work; that is essential. We will not be able to do that job properly without them.

The hon. Member for Vale of York rightly referred to the RSPB, which has taken a great deal of interest in this subject. A great deal has been made of what happened with the wind farm in Spain. Anyone who looked at it would say that it was badly sited. If we look at wind farms more generally, we see that the incidence of bird hits is very low. In that particular case, it was very high. It certainly highlights the need for us to consider carefully the siting of installations in relation to bird populations, including those offshore, and we will do so through the consents process. I would expect the RSPB to raise concerns with us, as it has done so far, if it felt that a bird population would be put at risk by a development.

It is important to underline the fact that significant numbers of bird species are at risk from the threat of climate change, so from the point of view of what the hon. Lady referred to as twitchers, there is every reason to want to see much more renewable energy in future, precisely because that will safeguard bird populations.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I consider myself a twitcher. In fact, this August I shall visit the sea bird centre that was established in North Berwick two or three years ago. I do not know if that was done by the RSPB. I thank the Minister for his comments. I am delighted that he has reflected that the RSPB and other interested parties will be consulted at the time of the consent application.

The hon. Member for Lewes has done the Committee a great service in tabling the amendments. He has identified a question; at what stage of the consent application will such consultations take place? Will the Minister confirm that bad siting—such as was evident at the wind farm in Valencia, I think—would not happen offshore or onshore in this country?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

That is the objective of the various assessments, described earlier, that will be undertaken. We will certainly want to engage interested parties at as early a stage as possible, as we have on a number of offshore projects already, to make sure that we do not get the decisions wrong. That is as much in the developers' interests as anybody else's.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. Member for Waveney and by the Minister. I intend no disrespect to the hon. Member for Vale of York; I agree with a lot of what she said, so I do not have to respond to it.

The hon. Member for Waveney said that there were too many public inquiries, that we were all in favour of renewable energy and wanted to see it developed. He said that public inquiries were an impediment that might get in the way of development, so we should not have them for offshore installations.

It is dangerous to espouse the view that democracy should be circumvented to achieve an end that we want. As it happens, I want the same end as he does; a massive expansion of renewable energy offshore and

onshore, whether that involves wind power or other sources such as photovoltaics or tidal power. There are a whole lot of potential sources.

However, the idea that, because there might be legitimate objections, we should not go through a public inquiry process seems dangerous. The rigour of the case for climate change—to which the Minister referred—and other arguments will, in most cases, more than outweigh objections at any public inquiry.

However, we have to be very careful before we sideline not only democracy but the Government's own statutory conservation bodies. The hon. Member for Waveney said that the Government could not ignore the statutory conservation bodies. My amendment would ensure that the Government could not ignore them, because such bodies could require a public inquiry. On the other hand, not having my amendment would mean that the Government could ignore them; that is what the Bill sets out at the moment.

The Minister rightly referred to the position on land—where local authorities have jurisdiction—and to the position offshore. He said that he did not like the comparison that I made between the power that a local authority ought to have onshore and the power that I would suggest a statutory conservation body ought to have offshore. He did not like that because—I do not think that he said this, but if he had I would have had some sympathy—a local authority is elected and therefore democratically accountable, whereas a statutory conservation body is not. He could have made that point and I would have gone along with it to some degree.

Equally, I hope that he would agree that there is validity in the argument that it is wrong to have a trigger for land-based installations through local authorities—that is a counterbalance to the Secretary of State of the day; we have checks and balances, as we must in a democracy—but to have no such counterbalance offshore.

The Minister did not like the idea that we should pick up what he called ''interest groups.'' That was the phrase; I wrote it down. I do not think it appropriate to call statutory conservation bodies interest groups. They are set up by Parliament through legislation to perform particular functions for the public; they are accountable to Ministers and to Parliament. They are rather different from, say, shipping companies, which certainly have an interest in what happens on the high seas, but which are not statutory bodies.

Although the Minister may not like the comparison between local authorities and statutory conservation bodies—one is elected and one is not—I do not like the unbalanced nature of the arrangement whereby a public inquiry can be triggered on land, but not offshore. Apart from the circumvention of democracy or accountability, my objection is that the Minister is keen to promote renewable energy. He and the Government recognise the need to get a big increase in renewable generation capacity over quite a short period. He is trying to find a way of doing that through the Bill and the energy White Paper.

The objectives that he has set out are shared by my party. Although we may disagree on occasion with the tactics adopted, we want to get to the same end point. If the concerns of the hon. Member for Waveney turn out to be justified and the public inquiries on land applications are snowed under with objections to wind farms or any other renewable energy proposals, the Government will be tempted to say that there is an easier option. They will go offshore where there is no public inquiry process, even though the effects on the environment may be significant or even worse than they might be onshore.

That is already happening. The Government are pushing offshore renewable energy. It runs through the Bill to the exclusion of many other renewable energy sources. They are doing so because there is some opposition on land to wind farms, for example, and there may be opposition to other renewable energy technologies. The Government see going offshore as an easy way of getting something started. I do not disagree with that in a sense. It is a sensible tactic to get wind farms up and running. It may well be that once they are up and running, some of the fears that are articulated will prove to be unfounded and some of the opposition will go away.

The Bill compounds the problem. Not only have we identified the offshore option as the easier option, but the Bill ensures that there is less opportunity to object to it. It is left to the Secretary of State. Yes, English Nature and the RSBP can object to the Secretary of State but at the end of the day it is down to him to decide. He cannot be forced to do anything that he does not want to do.

If the Government are not meeting their renewable targets, partly because they have been slow on the uptake and partly because opposition has slowed things down on land, they will go for a big explosion offshore. That may not be the right policy. It may not be the right policy environmentally and the Government may take a gamble with the environment offshore because it is the quickest way of getting the renewable capacity up. If they do so there should at least be a holding block, rather than a veto. Something is needed that requires a test to be applied, such as a public inquiry and that is best left with the statutory conservation bodies.

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman think that every application for an offshore oil and gas installation should have been subject to a public inquiry?

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The same planning procedures and safeguards should apply to offshore developments, whatever they are, as to onshore developments. If there is a requirement for a particular process to kick in for an installation onshore, that process should equally apply offshore. I have made my point. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. I hope that he does not mind me saying that. No disrespect is intended. I will seek to return to this, probably on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 170, in

clause 94, page 73, line 12, at end insert—

'(11) Consents shall not be granted until such time as the applicant can demonstrate that there will be no threat posed to the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters.

(12) Any proposal for an Offshore Wind Installation shall include details about the procedures to be followed in the event of a collision between a vessel and the wind farm.

(13) In the event of a change to an existing site being proposed, bodies representing the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters shall be consulted.'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss 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.'.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I pay tribute to my noble Friend, Baroness Miller of Hendon, who led the debate in the other place, particularly on clauses 100 and 101—

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. Earlier, you asked Back Benchers to speak up so that the Hansard reporter could hear them. Could I ask you to ask those on the Front Benches to speak up so that Back Benchers can hear them?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

I am sure that the hon. Lady heard that.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I am most grateful, Mr. O'Brien. I will slow down, as I do not want to rush when discussing what I consider to be the meat of this part of the Bill.

I pay tribute to my noble Friend, who successfully moved clauses 100 and 101. I understand that the Minister intends to delete those clauses. We heard that a representative of his Department said in evidence to the Transport Committee that the Government were minded to delete the clauses, and offered—as the Minister did earlier—to suggest a new form of words. It is unacceptable that we should have this debate before the Minister and his Department have produced that new form of words. I hope that the Committee will be convinced that clauses 100 and 101 are integral to the Bill and should be kept.

Let me draw the Committee's attention to today's Order Paper—perhaps when the Committee rises, we all can rush down to the Chamber and participate in the proceedings. Part of the evidence—both oral and written—that the Transport Committee took on this

part of the Bill concerned shipping, maritime and navigation industry interests. They were heavily represented. I shall in a moment discuss the fact that the new installations mentioned in this part of the Bill will interfere with the visibility of those navigating our waters, territorial and beyond.

It will not have escaped the Committee's attention that the second item of business in the House this afternoon concerns the global navigation satellite system. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is to present EU documents relating to the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radionavigation programme. The Minister might wish to refer to that. Although that is the proper concern of the Department for Transport, it is directly relevant to this part of the Bill, and refers specifically to progress on the Galileo research programme.

The Transport Committee heard evidence concerning the Government's commitment to undertake research. Will the Minister confirm that part of that research concerns global satellite navigation systems, represented by Galileo, and explain to the Committee what stage that programme has reached? That would be pertinent to the debate.

Clause 94 refers to consents for generating stations offshore. As we have heard, this is a new exercise; there is only one to date. We can learn from that experience and take stock of where we are. If any mistakes appear—mistakes by omission as well as commission—it will be very timely for a review to be made and for correctional action to be taken.

My hon. Friends and I believe that it is not appropriate for consents to be granted

''until such a time as an applicant can demonstrate that there will be no threat posed to the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters.''

The threat posed should be interpreted in the widest possible way.

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

Will the hon. Lady tell the Committee what she would envisage the wind or renewable energy developers would have to do to demonstrate that there will be no threat, as in the words of her amendment?

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I will come to that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention. Amendment No. 170 is meant to be constructive and a positive contribution to the debate. I would like to highlight some of the omissions that were identified and where we think that positive action can be taken.

According to the amendment:

''Any proposal for an Offshore Wind Installation shall include details of the procedure to be followed in the event of a collision between a vessel and the wind farm.''

The Transport Committee was given compelling evidence about a potential accident waiting to happen. When the Minister sums up the debate, can we hear how his Department imagines that pre-emptive action will be taken to avoid such a collision? We will also come on to consider new clause 17, which we submitted in a totally positive and constructive way. The amendment adds:

''In the event of a change to an existing site being proposed, bodies representing the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters''

should also be consulted. In clause 94 and in earlier clauses, reference is made to the ''relevant planning authority''. It is probably complete ignorance on my part, but can the Minister clarify what he understands the relevant planning authority to be? As the hon. Member for Lewes said, the Committee needs to be reassured that there will not just be a flood of applications for offshore installations because the process is perhaps deemed to be easier or more woolly, and because it is considered easier to obtain consent.

The regulatory impact assessment offers some assistance. Pages 35 and 36 refer to the main costs to the developers, which will be those incurred in putting together applications for consents for new developments under clause 94. There was no reference in the evidence given to the Transport Committee to the cost to shipping, maritime and other navigational interests of having to navigate around what will be potential hazards to traditional shipping routes. It is not the Minister's departmental responsibility, but I am sure that he is working closely with the relevant Ministers in the Department for Transport. There is a public right to navigation. The purpose of the amendments to this clause, starting with amendment No. 170, is to explore the parameters of where the public right to navigation can be compromised for renewable energy.

The hon. Member for Waveney said that we are all committed to renewable energy. I would like to think that we have a more joined-up policy. Not only are we committed to renewable energy but we do not share the compulsive obsession evidenced by his Government, who seem to be preoccupied not just by wind farms but, as the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned, offshore wind farms in particular.

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

Would the hon. Lady like to say what other source of renewable energy is available to the level of technological development needed for it to be rolled out in such a manner to stand any chance of meeting the Government's targets?

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I do not know whether I would be in order to itemise those sources, but they are already in the Bill. They are enumerated in an earlier clause, which we explored at some length. I would be happy to rise to the hon. Gentleman's challenge if time permits, but I would prefer to continue in my flow. I do not want to test the Committee's patience too much.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's argument on amendment No. 170 and new clause 17, and I am particularly interested in proposed new paragraph (11) in the amendment. Is it her contention that, if that paragraph were adhered to properly, it would be possible for any consent to be given for offshore installations? The requirement for no threat whatsoever to be posed would be impossible.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. The director general of the Chamber of Shipping stated positively to the Transport Committee

in his evidence on Wednesday 28 April that the shipping industry was supportive of the principle of offshore wind farms. It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that we are primarily a maritime nation, and about 90 per cent. of our trade is carried by sea. Most passes through the routes that we will consider later, so I will not pre-empt that part of the debate.

Page 35 of the regulatory impact assessment states:

''At the moment the fee for an application for a consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction, extension and operation of a generating station starts at £5,000 . . . The cost of an application for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 starts at £12,000 . . . For generating stations over 50 megawatts the fee is £20,000.''

Considerable sums of money are involved, and at the next paragraph, 4.31, larger sums are mentioned. They are well set out in the document, so I do not propose to rehearse them here.

What is disappointing in the Bill, the explanatory notes and the regulatory impact assessment is the lack of regard to other interests. The amendments would achieve a balance of interests in respect of the Government—this one, or a future Conservative Government—meeting their renewable energy targets. It would also mean that we were not turning our back on one of our traditional maritime activities.

A powerful strand in the evidence was the lack of consultation on round 1, and even more so on round 2 of the consents. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister confirmed that under round 2 the Government will honour their commitment to consult on the possibilities in respect of licences at the earliest possible stage. Mr. Hall, the senior manager of the Chamber of Shipping, said:

''With Round One, everyone was on the learning curve. We were consulted on the consent procedures and then, after the consent procedures, individual developers came forward to us with their individual proposals for scoping studies for comment and it was at that stage that we started to get involved officially.''

My point is that it would have been much better for everyone concerned if that consultation had been held earlier.

On the same day, Rear-Admiral Jeremy de Halpert, Deputy Master, Trinity House, spoke in evidence of the complete disregard for what is necessary to navigate or pilot an 8,000-container ship of very deep draught through the port of London. Visual markings and navigational aids are fundamental to guiding such a ship into harbour, but the Government are considering inviting an application for consents in respect of precisely that navigational lane.

There is a place for offshore and onshore wind farms, but it is important to strike a balance after the widest possible consultation. The Port of London Authority gave evidence to the Select Committee, and the chief executive wrote to members of the Committee about clauses 100 and 101, which the amendments are intended to strengthen:

''The legal position without the clauses is complex and not as DTI officials claim. There would be a danger that the public right to navigation could be extinguished by dictat of the Energy Minister without proper consultation with the marine industries. Clauses 100 and 101 prevent that.''

I referred earlier to the need for the Government to make a proper contribution to research. I ask the Minister under what budget the research has been funded. According to the Port of London Authority, the Government should carry through

''the recommended research programme on interference to shore-to-ship and ship-to-ship radars, radio communications, and other electronic navigation aids''

before the Bill takes effect. Its understanding is that

''£2.5 million has been set aside for this purpose by the Crown Estate, the DTI and DfT. The ports and shipping industries have been offered one place each on the steering group to oversee this research.''

What is the time scale for the research and what figure has the Minister's Department committed to it? It appears that the Department is rushing the Bill through. It is seeking to strike out clauses 100 and 101 without coming forward with the form of words that it has promised us.

The Port of London Authority argues that the ports and shipping industries should be

''properly consulted . . . at the initial strategic planning stage before any further areas are selected for provisional licensing.''

Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that such consultation will take place? Will he confirm that his Department has rejected the industry's suggestion for a memorandum of understanding between the marine industries and the Department of Trade and Industry, or does he accept that the memorandum may be a way forward?

I shall refer to one specific site, which the Minister may wish to comment on. Part of the site would block the Fisherman's Gat, which is one of the four main access channels to and from the port of London and is used by 2,568 commercial vessels a year. The northern boundary of the proposed site is the edge of the Black Deep channel, used by 4,114 commercial vessels a year. Of those vessels, 1,110 are deep-draughted ships, which can use only that channel and could not easily manoeuvre to avoid the size of installation referred to in clause 94 and amendment No. 170. Those ships account for approximately 10 million tonnes of cargo a year—20 per cent. of London's annual throughput—including crude oil supplies to a major oil refinery.

Does the Minister accept that agreeing such an exclusion zone around the London Array planned site would effectively close the Black Deep channel for navigation purposes, devastating the economy of London and the south-east? Is that his intention? Any exclusion zone must be inside the boundary of the wind farm zone as provisionally allocated.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Angus, we are also trying to balance the interests of recreational boat users. The British marine industry's views are mainly put forward by the Royal Yachting Association, which has raised two fundamental concerns about clause 170. One involves safety, to which we have referred. There is an obvious risk of collision with any large installation in the coastal zone or an estuary. The industry wants to know what the Government are doing about marking and lighting. Another concern relates to risk management and

emergency response in the event of an incident. It cannot be right that the Bill omits any reference to a possible collision.

The industry also seeks assurances that the operation of wind farms will not have an effect on small craft navigation and communications instrumentation, and it is concerned that the increase in coastal wind farms will lead to no-go areas in locations that have been traditionally significant to recreational boating. One of the locations in the south-west of England springs to mind. Indeed, we drew attention to it on the Floor of the House during Question Time.

There will also be another safety issue if recreational sailors are squeezed towards commercial shipping routes. The Royal Yachting Association has produced a series of maps that show strategically important cruising and racing areas and identify areas more suitable for wind farms that would be less exposed to this traditional type of use.

Later, we will consider the decommissioning of wind farms if the Government are minded to agree to that, but derelict wind farms would continue to be a hazard to navigation at the end of their useful cycle. I want to know the Government's plans for decommissioning and the management of desolate installations.

With regard to clauses 100 and 101, it is important to take account of the views of the shipping industry as expressed by the Chamber of Shipping, among others. Compelling credence is given to its concerns in the Select Committee's findings, which we will discuss in a moment. The Chamber of Shipping was led to believe, as we were, that the Government would propose amendments to these clauses. I thought that they might do so in Committee, but it now appears that they may do so on Report.

It would be very helpful if the Minister gave us some indication of the content of the Government's revised drafts. I urge the Committee to seek to retain the original clauses because the industry accepts them and we know that they are workable. Will he be good enough to share with us the time scale for introducing the revised drafts?

I want to place on record the strong views of the shipping industry, port groups and the lighthouse authorities, expressed in a letter from the Chamber of Shipping that I shall pass to Hansard after the sitting, in support of clauses 100 and 101. They repeat their support for wind farm development, but

''only where it doesn't put seafarers' lives at risk. These clauses should not limit the ability of developers to meet their proposed targets, but would ensure installations do not become a threat to safety.

Clauses 100 and 101 are necessary as they act as a safeguard to protect ships, their crews and the environment from threats to the safety of navigation. Placing wind farms in sea lanes (e.g. channels customarily used for navigation)'',

as I indicated earlier,

''creates a wide range of potentially serious risks. These include the increased possibility of ship collision,''

to which I have already referred,

''damage to the environment and interference with marine equipment including radar, VHF, ship to ship and ship to shore communications and digital navigation systems.''

The industry would welcome the Committee's support for these clauses as essential to protect the 125,000 or more ships a year and their crews that under current proposals will pass in close proximity to wind farms.

Perhaps the Minister is not remotely concerned about the future of British shipping, and the contribution that the industry makes through not only the British Chamber of Shipping but the Major Ports Group, the Port of London authority and many others who have given evidence on this matter. I should like to rehearse to the Committee the reasons why the Transport Committee concluded as strongly as it did—potentially destroying the Government's intention—that the wind farms proposed under clause 94 and the rest of the Bill could be a hazard to navigation and shipping. Its first conclusion was:

''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. 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.''

Clearly, that is a huge oversight, which I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to address. The Committee went to say:

''We do not understand why the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency did not insist on being represented on the steering group on the environmental assessment of the strategic areas. Still more seriously, we do not understand why the Department for Trade and Industry did not see that their inclusion was essential. It is clear from a glance at the map appended to this report''—

which will be very familiar to the Minister—

''that every one of the strategic areas is on the approach to a major port or orts. The DTI should have been immediately aware of the need to ensure that the Strategic Environmental Assessments adequately identified navigation and marine safety issues.''

The Committee concluded:

''It is obvious that just as the DfT and the MCA were not properly involved in the Strategic Environmental Assessments, their advice was not heeded at the tender stage. Many of the sites chosen for further evaluation may have serious impact on marine operations. It is imperative that the concerns of the ports, the shipping industry and all those who use the sea are properly addressed in their further evaluation.''

I draw attention again to the request for confirmation from the Minister on the question of research, which was another of the Transport Committee's conclusions.

Perhaps the most graphic and horrific conclusion reached by the Transport Committee was that it believes that

''some sort of collision, at some time, is inevitable, and that plans must be in place to deal with it.''

This is the Minister's opportunity to tell us now precisely what those plans are in place, and when he intends to announce them. The report goes on:

''Given the difficulties of manoeuvring large vessels subject to wind and tide, the possibility that vessels may lose steerage'',

when they are approaching land—and by definition, to reduce costs, the wind farms are as close to land as possible, and where the wind is greatest—means that these are very real issues indeed. As for consent procedures, the subject of amendment No. 170, they

''should require that the location of safety zones around installations is addressed.''

The Minister will know that oil rigs in the North sea and around our coasts have safety zones. We would like confirmation in response to the amendment that the Minister will put in place similar safety zones with regard to consent applications around wind farms in the renewable zones.

The hon. Member for Waveney challenged me to say under what circumstances consent would be given. I am confident that the Minister, who is very much in command of his brief, will be able to convince the shipping industry that a balance can be reached. However, he has perhaps not got off to the best start, by failing to sound out the industry's views at the earliest stage.

The views of the Trinity House Lighthouse Board and the other general lighthouse authorities were made clear to the Transport Committee. The Committee said:

''We welcome the Government's apparent willingness to consider new ways of identifying suitable sites for development, and managing the development process.''

However, it appears that a dialogue in connection with the consents applications under rounds one and two was not opened with either Trinity House or the other lighthouse authorities. Can the Minister confirm that regard will be paid to the interests of Trinity House and other general lighthouse authorities in round two and future stages?

I am sure that the Minister will be embarrassed that one of the Transport Committee's conclusions was:

''However the next round of development is carried out, it is imperative that it is better handled than the current one, and that the organisations responsible for marine safety, the ports, and representatives of the marine industries and those who work in them, are properly consulted at an early stage.''

To his credit, the Minister has not prayed in aid commercial confidentiality. The Transport Committee concluded:

''Commercial confidentiality should not compromise marine safety, or the country's economic interests.''

The Transport Committee's final conclusion said:

''The Government has woefully mishandled the development of offshore wind energy. Clauses 100 and 101 must remain in the Bill. This is necessary to restore the confidence of the marine industries which, like renewable energy, are vital for our country's future. We were told that any amendments the Government proposed to these clauses would be intended to make them 'practically workable'.''

I am sure that we would all be interested to know what form of words the Minister will bring forward to make the provisions practically effective.

In considering the terms of clauses 100 and 101, the Minister is keen on the phrase ''red line''—or, as I would say, ''red line in the sand''. Clauses 100 and 101 are our red lines in the sand and we will go to sea or to the wall to protect them. The wording of those clauses is so clear that there is no possibility of misinterpretation. Clause 100 says:

''Installations 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.''

That is as clear as it could possibly be. Clause 101 says:

''In assessing whether installations and the safety zones around them present a danger to navigation, the Secretary of State''—

of Trade and Industry, presumably—

''shall ensure that their cumulative effects on safety of navigation are taken fully into account.''

The Government have not come forward with an alternative wording, so perhaps the Minister has had a change of heart.

In speaking to amendment No. 164, I draw the Minister's attention to the shipping industry's criticisms, which I have rehearsed in this debate, and to the Transport Committee's damning criticism. I request that he accept amendment No. 164, which would add to clause 101 the words

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

or that he tell us how that will take place.

I move to new clause 17. We are mindful of the fact that collisions are accidents waiting to happen. Will the Minister tell us how the Secretary of State for Transport intends to proceed in the event of a collision taking place in a renewable energy installation, and about the procedures to be followed in such an event?

I want to remind the Minister of some of the correspondence that he and I have been enjoying, and some parliamentary questions and answers. I understand that the cost of connecting wind farms to the national grid is prohibitive. I received a letter of reply about onshore wind farms from the Minister on 29 April, which stated that the estimated cost of grid reinforcement for transmission and distribution for the major expansion of renewable energy envisaged in the years ahead is £2.1 billion.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. I am following the hon. Lady's contribution carefully, but I cannot see any reference in the amendment to the cost of connecting wind farms to the grid. If there is any such reference, perhaps the hon. Lady will point to it.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

Indeed. When I was speaking to amendment No. 170, I mentioned that there would be no threat to the other interests. However, it may be more appropriate to raise those points in the stand part debate on clause 94.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

We are currently discussing whether clauses 100 and 101 should stand part; we have not yet got to the stand part debate on clause 94.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

It might be more appropriate to save those remarks for that debate. I am happy to do so.

In speaking to the amendments and in seeking to retain clauses 100 and 101, the Minister has not covered himself and his Department in glory. They have an opportunity to save themselves and to help the shipping industry.

I pay tribute to the work of the shipping industry. The National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers gave compelling evidence to the Transport Committee. Its official who gave evidence was convinced that the alternative to clauses 100 and 101 would be practical if those clauses were overturned.

It is stretching the faith and good will of the Committee too far to ask us to reject perfectly acceptable measures that meet all the shipping, navigational and maritime criteria and interests without seeing any alternatives. The Minister said that the Government will respond to the Transport Committee's conclusions in due course, but I put it to the Committee that, as we are living in the present, it is not appropriate for the Minister to ask us to wait for the Government to produce a formal response when we are discussing clauses 100 and 101 this afternoon.

Debate adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock till Tuesday 15 June at five minutes to Nine o'clock.