Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

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.'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

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.'.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

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.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

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.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

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.

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

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.'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

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.'.

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

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.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

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.