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

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'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

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.'.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Mr Andrew Stunell (Chief Whip; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

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.

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

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.

Mr Andrew Stunell (Chief Whip; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

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.