Clause 96 - Safety zones around renewable energy installations
Energy Bill [Lords]
10:45 am
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.