Clause 102 - Extinguishment etc. of public rights of navigation
Energy Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm
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.