Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Before I call the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), I point out that the usual rules apply: all mobile phones in the Room must be switched off.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 163, in

clause 96, page 75, line 17, at end add—

'(11) Before issuing a notice, the Secretary of State must consult with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 165, in

clause 102, page 78, line 15, at end insert

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

No. 166, in

clause 103, page 80, line 20, at end insert—

'(f) consult with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.

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

I am delighted to be here this afternoon to see you in your place, Mr. O'Brien. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but I was requested to show an interest in a debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. More voice, please.

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

I am getting there. Would the Minister make a little less noise in pouring the water? I am getting more used to the Government's tactics during proceedings.

The Minister has made way for his colleague, the Under-Secretary, and it is nice to see him in his place. The Minister said that he believes it sufficient to make a commitment in the Committee, as I am sure his hon. Friend will echo this afternoon, to assure us that the Government are at one and that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will meet and consult the Secretary of State for Transport and the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister's response, but we believe it prudent to specify in the Bill that consultations should take place in relation to the safety zones around renewable energy installations. Although you are no longer a member of the Transport Committee, Mr. O'Brien, I know that you

continue to take an interest in the work of that august body. You will have been impressed by the conclusions reached from the evidence, given that, regrettably, those consultations did not take place. Why did they not happen before round 1 and 2 sites were considered? What steps have the Government taken to ensure that consultations will take place in future?

Amendment No. 165 would insert a similar requirement for consultation in clause 102. It is regrettable that there was a failure to consult with the official Government agency—the MCA—which is responsible for the markings, the buoys and ensuring that public rights of navigation are insisted on. It is important that a balance is struck among the traditional public rights of navigation enjoyed by a wide variety of interests—particularly commercial shipping, but to a lesser extent recreational shipping, fishing and other maritime activities—and that marine life should not be endangered.

I am sure the Minister will tell the Committee why—during the initial stages of consultation on part 3, chapter 1—his Department was persuaded that there was no need to consult the relevant Department, or, through that Department, the relevant maritime, navigation and shipping interests and the relevant agency, the MCA. Amendment No. 166 relates to clause 103, which covers further provision relating to the public right of navigation. The same arguments persist there.

If the Government are serious about making a success of their renewable energy commitments, the Committee and the interest groups to which I referred must be satisfied that the Bill will strike a balance in exercising the various interests. The Department clearly got off to a regrettably poor start by failing to consult the interest groups concerned. I would not want to conclude from that that the Government are seeking to extinguish public rights of navigation in every way, but that was certainly the impression left in certain quarters of the shipping industry. That leads me neatly to the conclusion that this is an opportunity for the Government to eat a bit of humble pie. That is a highly recommended diet: it is fairly light in calories, has a low cholesterol and fat content, and does not lead to any excess of weight that might cause distress.

I invite the Committee to support our humble amendments, and the Minister to explain why the Committee should be persuaded that, in view of the failure to take any account of, or to consult, the relevant Department, agency and interests, this will not happen again.

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

I could say that it is a great pleasure to be here again this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien, but I might be fibbing. However, it is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your wise chairmanship.

I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York that consultation between the Secretary of State for Transport and the MCA is essential before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry considers whether to issue a notice declaring a safety zone around a renewable energy installation, or, as the hon.

Lady put it, to extinguish the public right of navigation. I am informed, however, that she has been misinformed about the degree of consultation and co-operation that there has been so far.

I am content that our civil servants at the DTI have worked very closely with the MCA to draft the Bill. That co-operation will continue as we implement and operate the Bill's provisions. It is not, however, appropriate to write into the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry formally to consult the Secretary of State for Transport in view of the fact that, as the Bill is phrased, both Secretaries of State are legally indivisible and act together.

I am advised that the reference to the Secretary of State includes all Secretaries of State. The Secretary of State for Transport is therefore covered where the matter falls within his or her functions, which, of course, include the protection of navigation. I understand that the hon. Lady has been e-mailing the MCA, so she will know that it is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. It exercises the functions of the Secretary of State for Transport, so again no separate reference to it is necessary or appropriate.

I would hope that a party that is trying to show a public face that is against more regulation and bureaucracy will not press to a vote an amendment that, if accepted, would write in a requirement to hold further formal consultation and that might create more paperwork, particularly when we are ensuring that the appropriate Secretaries of State are consulted and are continuing the dialogue and close work that I am advised is already taking place between them and the MCA in framing the Bill.

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

I am most grateful to the Minister for his remarks, but the evidence that we on the Transport Committee took is quite powerful. I remind him and members of the Committee of the Transport Committee's conclusion No 7:

''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.''

Throughout all the conclusions—I will not rehearse them again—the Government's knuckles are firmly rapped. Conclusion No. 2 states:

''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.''

However, I accept the Minister's assurance that the Government have, in all probability, learned the error of their ways, and one would hope that they do not revert to such poor consultations. Based on that assurance and what the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said this morning, 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. 185, in

clause 96, page 75, line 17, at end add—

'(11) The Secretary of State must ensure that all efforts are made also to make use of such areas for marine conservation purposes by designating, where practically possible, said areas as protected marine reserves.'.

It is a pleasure to serve with you again this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. The amendment was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and it takes us in a different direction from that of our earlier discussions. Until now, the emphasis has been on the damage, difficulty and anxieties caused if safety zones are set up and renewable energy sources developed offshore. We seek a more positive approach to the opportunities that will be available if or when such zones are set up. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that, where practical, areas set aside for renewable energy generation should also serve the purposes of marine conservation.

The reality is that an area of the sea floor and of the sea in which fishing, transient shipping and human intervention are reduced provides real opportunities for marine conservation. In fact, having additional structures on the sea floor can be positive rather than negative. I was struck by a small article I saw about the D-day landings, which stated that the remnants of the Mulberry harbours are still visible above water, but that below water they have become a small zoo of marine wildlife. Even in a circumstance such as that, the imposition of man-made apparatus on the beach and in the sea can be positive. We have all seen the underwater photographs, films and videos of the Titanic, which make that same point.

We say that there is an opportunity rather than just a problem, and that by using that opportunity and including a duty on the Secretary of State to take advantage of it, we could achieve some positive environmental advantages that go beyond the simple generation of renewable carbon-free electricity.

I should say that English Nature supports the amendment. It has written to say:

''We urge that serious consideration is given to including provisions to allow the expansion of such zones''—

renewable energy zones—

''to create conservation zones around installations.''

We are moving the amendment with a view to that taking its first step forward.

Some 80 per cent. of life on earth is under the ocean surface, and a huge amount of the living space that can viably be occupied by organisms is in the ocean. We have an opportunity, which I hope the Government want to seize, to develop that aspect by agreeing to our amendment.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

What a pleasure it is to serve under you this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. I have a suspicion that your calming influence will reduce the temperature in the Room, which would otherwise be unbearable on such a hot day.

There is another reason why the amendment of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has some merit. If a reserve were declared around an appropriate area, it could act for not only for the safety

of objects on the sea floor, but the whole question of marine safety. I am referring in particular to the issue of legacy wrecks around the world. About 60,000 records of wrecks are kept by the UK Hydrographic Office, and 20,000 of those are named vessels. If those vessels are below 200 m and therefore not likely to be a danger to shipping, they are recorded but not charted. In the western hemisphere, there are 422 records of UK military legacy wrecks alone.

The point is that no assessment has yet been made of the damage that could be done through pollution if those wrecks are disturbed. They could be disturbed by the foundations of a turbine or, if we develop tidal stream technology, the action of tidal interference. A system for recording those locations would have merit, and I shall be interested in the Minister's response if he refers specifically to legacy wrecks.

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

The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) makes an interesting point. Its validity as to this debate slightly escapes me, although there are merits in his argument.

Let me address the amendment and the issues that it raises. I am advised that the idea of a marine protected reserve implies the total exclusion of all vessels. That would not be practical in terms of access by the operator of a wind farm to the installations for periodic maintenance. There is also the wider issue of recreational activities such as sailing or fishing. When those activities can safely take place in an offshore wind farm, we would not want to prevent them from happening, and I am advised that the amendment would threaten them.

The renewable energy industry and fishing industry liaison group, which was established by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, is looking at whether some fishing activities could continue in a safety zone. We want to ensure that the maximum possible use that is acceptable to the local community is made, and the amendment would block off such uses.

There are several types of designated marine nature conservation area. It is important not to confuse the ability to establish a wind farm with the laudable aim of creating protected marine reserves. Any resolution of the confusion that has inadvertently been introduced by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove should be left to another Bill.

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

I hope that the Minister will not think me unkind, but he is struggling. I live 2 or 3 miles from the boundary of the Peak District national park, which is reserved in a similar way to that outlined in my proposal. Trains and roads run through the national park, and people live and work there, but it is a major reserve for nature and recreation.

Although the Minister was reading accurately from his brief, perhaps his heart is not in this and he recognises that there is scope to take a small but significant step forward.

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

I also lived in the Peak District, as I mentioned to the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services earlier, and there are no pylons in the national park.

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

The hon. Gentleman must have a different view of the park from mine, but let us skip over that for the moment.

I urge the Minister to consider carefully whether he has the opportunity to add value to the Bill through the amendment; he can achieve two goods. If he says to the Committee that the area would have to be treated like the Amazonian jungle with all human activities excluded, he will be saying that there will never be a marine conservation area near to the United Kingdom coast, because no such area could be created.

By putting forward a vision of total perfection and a total return to nature, the Minister is seeking to shoot down a moderate and sensible step forward. However, it is clear that, having read his brief and stuck to his guns, he has little intention of giving in. We will return to the issue because an opportunity is being wasted, but 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)

I am grateful for the opportunity to probe the Minister further and to allow him to familiarise himself in more depth with his brief on clause 96. I referred earlier to the Government's need to perform a strategic environmental assessment before a safety zone is created. I listened carefully to what the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said this morning, but I am not convinced as to why the Minister is not persuaded by our amendments. Luck would perhaps have been more on my side had you been here, Mr. O'Brien, but the Minister was not persuaded by our arguments for safety zones being the norm. My hon. Friends and I would be grateful to discover in which circumstances the Government would be minded to set up a safety zone.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred to the excellent briefing that Committee members received from English Nature. I am simply presenting the argument on that organisation's behalf to elicit the Minister's comments. It would argue that clause 96 could go further, and that there could be wider benefits for safety and for marine life were the exclusion zones in the form of safety zones extended.

The Minister will have missed my reference this morning to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has produced a Bill on marine conservation, which I think will be discussed tomorrow afternoon. I do not know whether the Department will form a view on that in connection with clause 96. In the terms of English Nature, it certainly appears that the Department, working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, could do more—particularly in the context of

a strategic environmental assessment—to secure the stewardship of marine life in connection with setting up offshore wind farms.

The English Nature brief makes the compelling point that the speed with which offshore wind developments are being sought, and the scale of the developments, are unprecedented and out of step with the strategic environmental assessment work, and that there has been little opportunity as yet to learn the lessons from the first round and apply them to round 2 developments. If the Department of Trade and Industry is not in favour of safety zones for every installation, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister set out what the criteria will be for persuading the Department to create a safety zone around a particular installation.

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

I hope that I can be helpful to the hon. Lady in saying that there are a number of precedents for establishing safety zones. To see that, one has only to consider North sea and other oil installations around our coast for which the criteria have been set out. It is also important to realise that safety zones are created at different times in the construction and development of offshore sites. A safety zone may be required during a critical construction phase, but not later.

I can assure the hon. Lady that there were sufficient precedents in that respect to allow us to frame clause 96. The legislative underpinning is the Coast Protection Act 1949. That is what established practice all these years later is based on.

We must ensure that the safety zone regime is adequate—we believe it will be—to safeguard the area of water around or adjacent to a renewable energy installation, and that it is assessed at the various stages of its development and management. Any decommissioning may involve a safety zone, as is the case for other offshore installations.

I am informed that an applicant for a safety zone will have to make a case based on safety grounds to the Secretary of State. That case will be assessed by the DTI in conjunction with the MCA. If the installation is to be located where there is minimal traffic and the waters are judged to be safe, the case for a safety zone may not be made. If the case is not made, a safety zone will not be considered appropriate.

Where a safety zone is considered necessary, it can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the installation and of the waters where it will be located. I am advised that the fullest consultation will take place with interested parties before the Secretary of State takes a decision on the application—a process that is set out in schedule 16—including provision for a public inquiry to be held where the issues raised are deemed to be of particular importance. It is vital that the clause is in the Bill because it allows the

Government to provide a safety zone, which is designed to minimise the risk to life and property. I hope that the Committee will accept the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.