2 Transparency and public consultation
9. A project on the scale of Hafren Power's proposed
barrage will need public support in order to succeed. The Consortium's
proposals have generated a great deal of controversy and public
interest, but a lack of information and a perceived lack of transparency
have marred stakeholder relations and led to public opposition.
This section explores Hafren Power's approach to public engagement
and considers what constitutes due process for large-scale infrastructure
projects in the pre-consent and planning phases.
A lack of publicly-available information
10. Following our call for evidence, many respondents
criticised the lack of detailed, publicly-available information
on the project upon which to comment. We received correspondence
from a number of groups expressing concern in this regard, including
letters from The Bristol Port Company and Associated British Ports
objecting to the call for comment on proposals which they said
Hafren Power had itself has described as "inchoate".[16]
This concern was reflected almost unanimously in the written evidence
we received, in which respondents pointed out that it was difficult
to draw firm conclusions regarding potential impacts without in-depth
knowledge of the project.[17]
The lack of detailed information has provoked public hostility
toward the scheme. Hafren should have adopted a more open approach
from the start. The Angling Trust summarised its position as follows:
Our principal message to the Committee is that
the proposals must be worked up into much more detail before any
firm view can even begin to be formed about the costs and benefits
of this scheme. In addition, rigorous, independent, peer-reviewed
assessments must be carried out to calculate the impacts of the
proposals.[18]
11. During oral evidence, Kate Jennings (Head of
Site Conservation Policy, RSPB) stated that there was "no
detailed information on the Hafren Power proposals from which
to dispute their assessment".[19]
Simon Bird (Chief Executive, The Bristol Port Company) reported
first hearing of the project in summer 2012, and expressed concern
that "there is no detail there on some of the assertions
that have been made."[20]
In response to such criticisms, Anthony Pryor (Chief Executive,
Hafren Power Ltd) has since suggested that our inquiry has exposed
the project prematurely to detailed external criticism, prompting
questions that the company is not able to answer at this stage
of the project's development. However, we note that Hafren Power
only questioned the inquiry when it became exposed to public criticism.
12. DECC agreed that there was a need for further
information. Minister of State at the Department of Energy and
Climate Change, Rt Hon Gregory Barker MP stated in oral evidence
that Government is unable to make a decision on the project without
"much greater detail", and "most importantly, evidence
that the project is affordable and represents good value to electricity
consumers"[21].
Recently, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,
Rt Hon Ed Davey MP reiterated this message at the Liberal Democrat
Conference in Cardiff.[22]
Hafren Power, in addition to its original evidence submission,
has now provided the Committee with supplementary evidence as
well as a copy of its confidential business case. We have published
all material where possible and encouraged the Consortium to publish
its business case. The Consortium has indicated however that further
data will not become available until the Government has shown
in-principle support for the project. Thus, a 'Catch-22' situation
has arisen whereby Hafren Power's delivery partners and investors
require evidence of Government support before developing proposals
further, which Government will not provide until more details
are known.
13. The Corlan Hafren/Hafren Power Consortium proposal
received attention from Downing Street and was drawn to the attention
of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, prompting our
scrutiny of the matter. In fact, our inquiry has stimulated open
public debate and input from a wide range of stakeholders (something
which the Liaison Committee has concluded is an important function
of scrutiny committees).[23]
We have gathered and published a wide range of evidence on the
topic and this will in itself promote better informed consideration
of the issues. Hafren Power may believe that our inquiry has subjected
its proposal to premature scrutiny, but if it hopes that Government
will make an in-principle policy decision on the proposal, it
must recognise that detailed scrutiny is not just entirely appropriate
but also essential.
Need for robust and credible evidence
14. The Committee's evidence sessions demonstrated
the strength of feeling generated by Hafren Power's proposals.
Industry and environmental stakeholders expressed almost unanimous
opposition to the project. Representatives of the National Trust,
the Angling Trust, the RSPB and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust
articulated serious concerns regarding environmental impacts,
while the ports industry, represented by The Bristol Port Company
and Associated British Ports, were opposed on commercial grounds.[24]
In particular, concerns have centred around certain claims made
by Hafren Power which have not been independently verified. Martin
Salter (National Campaigns Coordinator, the Angling Trust) described
claims about the "fish-friendly" characteristics of
Hafren's turbines as "guff" and "spin", reflecting
a sense of distrust toward the Consortium on the part of some
environmental groups.[25]
The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust identified several terms used
in the marketing of the proposed Hafren barrage scheme which it
described as "confusing and misleading", such as the
implication that the barrage could be considered a "saviour
for wildlife" in protecting against sea level rises.[26]
15. We note that the following claims made by Hafren
require further substantiating evidence or independent review
(these points are explored in more depth in subsequent chapters):
- evidence of the "fish-friendliness"
of the proposed turbines for a range of fish species and sizes,
and how "the objective of 100% survival of all species of
fish transiting the barrage"[27]
might be achieved;
- the notion that the barrage will result in "improved
habitats" and "increased biological productivity"[28]
- the claim that the barrage will cause only "minimal
delays to shipping" and "minimum inconvenience;"[29]
- the suggestion that pumping[30]
or topographic raising could be an effective way to mitigate wildlife
impacts;[31]
- claims that the barrage will be able to operate
with a strike price under Contracts for Difference "below
offshore wind",[32]
and
- the reported employment benefit of the barrage,
said to provide in excess of 50,000 direct and indirect jobs.[33]
16. Robust and credible evidence is fundamental
to building trust and reassuring key stakeholders, particularly
for an unprecedented and huge project such as the proposed Hafren
Power barrage. We support the calls for further evidence
and technical detail of the proposal in order to arrive at an
informed decision. We recommend that such evidence is
placed in the public domain as soon as possible if stakeholder
confidence is to be established and in order to promote maximum
transparency.
17. We further recommend that Government makes
clear to Hafren Power that no further consideration will be given
to their proposal until and unless the additional information
requested has been provided.
Engagement with stakeholders
18. We received written evidence from six local councils,
four of whom emphasised the need for consultation and engagement
with local communities.[34]
Sedgemoor District Council suggested that the "lack of any
timetable or formal process" for the Hafren scheme had caused
"misgivings" amongst local communities.[35]
Written evidence from Cardiff Council recommended that "all
affected communities of the barrage are consulted widely"
and emphasised the need for "strong and cooperative communications
from the outset."[36]
In oral evidence Andrew Shirley (Chief Surveyor, the Country Land
and Business Association) underlined the pitfalls for landowners
who may face compulsory purchase orders:
The landowner will not be able to choose when
he has his land acquired, or what land he has acquired. What is
for certain under the present system and even the systems proposed
under HS2 [High Speed Two rail network], is that the landowner
will get the minimum amount that can possibly be given to him
as a result of the scheme. The uplift is minimal and, no, I have
not met one person over my [...]25 years of professional experience,
who feels that he has been anywhere near compensated for any compulsory
purchase across his land. That is where we stand.[37]
19. It is therefore clear that any barrage developer
needs to engage closely with stakeholders from the outset, in
order to ensure public acceptability and support. It will also
be important to ensure that the interests of both Welsh and English
stakeholders are fairly represented, recognising the key role
of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government
in discussions relating to the Severn resource. Local councils,
residents and landowners should form a priority for public consultation
due to the significant land-change and impacts on local businesses
which any barrage scheme would entail.
Legislative routes
20. The Minister told us in oral evidence that Hafren
Power's barrage project could potentially proceed either as a
Hybrid Bill[38] or through
an application for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project
(NSIP) under the 2008 Planning Act.[39]
This latter route ensures public consultation through a clearly
mapped formal process, which the Minister set out in a letter
to the Committee.[40]
This letter also identifies that the consultation approach under
a Hybrid Bill is less clear, since "the consultation processes
that might lead to a Hybrid Bill are not prescribed in detail
by legislation to the same degree." As a result, DECC "cannot,
therefore, be specific on consultation", although the Minister
assured us that consultation would occur in line with the same
underlying principles of the Planning Act.[41]
21. Hafren Power stated that it expects the barrage
to be fully operational within eleven years, and partially operational
in nine years.[42] When
questioned as to whether this timescale factored in legislative
or planning consent processes, Gregory Shenkman (Chairman, Hafren
Power Ltd) responded in the affirmative.[43]
Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, who sits on Hafren Power's Expert Panel,
has suggested that time could be made for a Hybrid Bill in the
current Parliament, potentially as early as 2013.[44]
However, the Minister stated that this was "not at all"
realistic:
We don't even have the beginnings of the information
to take a decision as to whether or not that would be necessary.
To talk of there being a Bill before 2015 would require some transformational
level of information, in order for us to give up Government legislative
time, which would be very squeezed, as well as all the political
time and effort that would need to go into pursuing what is a
very substantial project alongside [...] an extremely packed DECC
agenda.[45]
A Hybrid Bill process is likely to be lengthy: the
last Hybrid Bill, relating to the Crossrail railway system, took
four years to receive Royal Assent.[46]
This leads us to question Hafren Power's suggestion that "the
next period of about two and a half years" will be sufficient
to secure a Hybrid Bill.[47]
22. We consider Hafren Power's expected timetable
for the passage of a Hybrid Bill completely unrealistic. We note
that the Hybrid Bill route does not offer an open and fully accountable
process for stakeholders and affected parties. An application
via the Planning Act 2008 may provide a more suitable legislative
vehicle for a barrage project. Clearer guidelines on due
process, expected timescale and the information required by Government
under different legislative routes, and particularly under a Hybrid
Bill, would be helpful for both stakeholders and developers.
16 Letter to Chair Tim Yeo from Simon Bird (Bristol
Port Company) and Matthew Kennerley (Associated British Ports),
7 November 2012 Back
17
Ev 69, Ev w5, Ev w37, Ev w48, Ev w66, Ev 83, Ev 84, Ev 91, Ev
w78, Ev w87, Ev w89, Ev w100, Ev 119, Ev 143, Ev 183, Ev w134,
Ev w151, Ev w153, Ev w156 Back
18
Ev 183 Back
19
Q 55 Back
20
Q 87 Back
21
Q 341 Back
22
Wales Online, Energy Secretary questions Severn Barrage scheme
at Welsh Lib Dem conference in Cardiff, April 2013, www.walesonline.co.uk/news Back
23
Liaison Committee, Second Report, 2012-13, Select committee
effectiveness, resources and powers, HC 697, paragraph 9. Back
24
Qq 87-107 Back
25
Q 58 Back
26
Ev 119 Back
27
Ev 153 Back
28
As above Back
29
As above Back
30
"Pumping" refers use of mechanical pumps to artificially
water levels. Back
31
Q 220; SEV70 Back
32
Q 133 Back
33
Ev 153 Back
34
Vale of Glamorgan Council (Ev w27), Gloucestershire County Council
(Ev w22), Kingston Seymour Parish Council (Ev w25), North Somerset
Council (Ev w131), Sedgemoor District Council (Ev w132), Cardiff
Council (Ev w156) Back
35
Ev w132 Back
36
Ev w156 Back
37
Q 248 Back
38
A hybrid bill has characteristics of both a public bill and a
private bill. Although of general interest, the content of the
bill would significantly affect the interests of certain individuals
or organisations. Bills brought in by the Government (or a backbencher)
which propose to undertake works of national importance, but in
a local area, have usually been hybrid. Such bills are introduced
only rarely, the last occasion being the Crossrail Bill introduced
in 2004. A hybrid bill relating to the High Speed 2 rail network
system is expected to be introduced in this parliamentary session. Back
39
Q 348 Back
40
Ev 73 Back
41
Ev 73 Back
42
Ev 153 Back
43
Q 200 Back
44
Wales online, "Severn Barrage plans 'could be put through
Parliament next year'", 26 October 2012, www.walesonline.co.uk/news Back
45
Q 347 Back
46
Crossrail Act 2008 Back
47
Q 197 Back
|
