| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I am grateful for the welcome of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble. I am unaware of a plan of work set up by the Secretary of State. To be honest, given how we have gone with the order over the summer, the reasonable assumption of the Secretary of State’s office is that he would not be doing this after 24 November anyway. In that sense, there is no plan. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, that our intention is—as I have said, and will say in relation to other orders—to progress what it is in the pot at the moment.
We sincerely hope, however, with advertisements and public consultations through the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, that by the time a victims commissioner is appointed in 2007, the work would be done by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, actually there and responsible in Northern Ireland. It would not be done by the Secretary of State, subject to the vagaries of fate—it takes quite a while to advertise. I am not saying that this would happen, but it is our sincere hope that it does—people in Northern Ireland should be making these decisions, not direct rule Ministers.
In the absence of that, however, we are making progress. We now have an interim commissioner, and we want to put the commissioner on a statutory footing. That requires going through due process, which is what we intend to do.
Lord Trimble: Perhaps the Minister would clarify that further. The officials who are notionally working for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are working to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. My question was whether there are in official circles proposals developing, or some sort of idea, about the work plan. I am sure that that work is going on and is available to the Northern Ireland Office.
Lord Rooker: Of course those officials are working to the Ministers. I suspect that we are trying not to second-guess the appointment of a commissioner. The work plan would have to be discussed. If the Assembly and Executive are not back, a work plan will have to be drawn up by the Secretary of State and the Ministers who are responsible for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—those are currently my right honourable friend Peter Hain and my honourable friend David Hanson. I am not saying that no thought has been given to the issue. Our expectation would have been that Northern Ireland politicians would be running the show from 25 November. Clearly, that will not happen, but we certainly hope that it will be the case from next March. It would probably be quite counterproductive to act too soon. At present, the process is to get a commissioner in post in early 2007. We have to liaise with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments so that the process is open, transparent and not subject to any complaints. That is the way to do it. The public process will apply.
The commissioner certainly will be able to revisit issues from the past, particularly those covered by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, so there is no problem with that. We want the commissioner to look at services and provision for victims and survivors. There will be some areas where we do not know what the work programme will cover, but the work done by Sir Kenneth certainly can be looked at and taken into account by the commissioner. We want the commissioner to be appointed before we start deploying the work programme. As I say, our sincere hope is that the work programme is drawn up by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, efforts have been made regarding the provision of counselling, but much more effort is required. In a way, an assessment of need is necessary, which we hope the interim commissioner will draw attention to in her report. The role of the victims and survivors forum will depend on the outcome of work taking place by the interim commissioner. It is likely that the forum will have an influential voice for victims and survivors, but its form is yet to be decided. There is nothing hard and fast about it. It is important that we get the statutory footing right.
I am well aware that there are gaps in funding. I came across this in the peace programme. Certain sections of society have not been too good at knowing what is available, filling in the forms and all that rigmarole. I regret the amount of form filling that people have to do in order to obtain services and sometimes funding. Nevertheless, special efforts have been made with regard to the Europe-funded peace programme to make sure that we can reach those areas from where we did not get enough applications. There are certainly gaps in the process and it is important that more work is done to provide information.
As I say, Mrs McDougall is carrying out a review of how well current funding arrangements are addressing need. It is not our plan that the commissioner should give grants. Knowing what I know—and I would listen to others’ voices as well—I do not think that it would be a good idea. I will say no more than that. There is no question but that it certainly would interfere with the main job.
Lord Glentoran: I certainly agree with that.
Lord Rooker: It would be nice if I could report back that this was the unanimous feeling of the Committee. But I do not want to put words into colleagues’ mouths.
The commissioner must look into areas of funding, including funding from the Government and the voluntary sector, as well as, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, dodgy funding. As part of the work programme, if there is any dodgy funding that results in unfairness, the commissioner should be able to comment on it—so he or she will have to find out about it. The commissioner is funded by the public but not funding the public, if I may put it that way. There are other means of funding the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about forms of arbitration. We expect that to be a matter for the commissioner, but we wish the provisions of the order to work in an inclusive manner for all affected by the Troubles. That is a sensitive and global way of putting it—to work in an inclusive manner. I realise that that means working with groups that people might want to work together with but not physically work together with. It is not for me to say, but I understand that it is quite the norm in Northern Ireland to have discussions in different rooms. People still come to a conclusion that they can agree to. That is fine, but it is best that we do not second-guess what the commissioner appointed under this order would do.
I do not want to open up a debate. I think that I have answered most of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, made. I can assure him that the United Kingdom Government—the direct rule Ministers—have no political or ulterior motives at all. I repeat “no”. We want to get out of there. We enjoy serving our fellow citizens, as I did, but the fact is that we want out. We want Northern Ireland politicians to do it. So we have no ulterior motive as the UK Government. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned narrow political ends. We have no political agenda, in that sense.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, this is not the first time that someone has had responsibility for looking at what happens to victims and survivors, how they are treated and how the public services treat them. It is not only a question of the voluntary sector. The Government have no narrow political ends in introducing this order today.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The point that I want to make concerns the fact that here we have an Order in Council, coming forward at this stage. That is fine; I recognise that there is some urgency. But when the question is asked about a work plan, it appears that no serious thought has been given to why we are bringing forward this legislation in this form—an Order in Council—at this time, without having anything substantive that the Government, if things do not happen and we do not get an Assembly, or a new Assembly can build on.
Lord Rooker: In other words, we are damned if we do and damned if we do not.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: To some extent.
Lord Rooker: I got that in a nutshell. We bring this forward but we do not bring it all forward because we want to have a commissioner appointed in a public and transparent way, with the help of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The agreement of the commissioner on a work plan is not something that can be imposed. If I came forward with a work plan, first I would be accused by people saying, “Well, you don’t expect the Northern Ireland Executive to be back, for a start”. We do—it is their duty to be back. Secondly, we would have pre-empted the appointment of the commissioner.
I am not saying that no thought has been given to those issues. We have got to the stage in the process of bringing the order forward to put the victims commissioner on a statutory basis. The order is a case of what you see is what you get. We would prefer it to be operated and implemented by the Northern Ireland Assembly—that is our choice. But the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly is not an excuse for not introducing the legislation. That mantra will be repeated later this afternoon, because that is the way of the world. The reform process carries on. We want the Assembly to take it over but, if it does not, we will still carry on.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Electricity Consents (Planning) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
5.15 pm
Lord Rooker rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Electricity Consents (Planning) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.
The noble Lord said: This order would introduce provisions amending the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 to bring consents for electricity projects in Northern Ireland broadly into line with those in Great Britain. The Great Britain arrangements with which those in Northern Ireland are being brought into line have existed since 1990, so it is not something that has just happened. It broadly reflects what has happened since 1990.
I shall comment briefly on what we are seeking to achieve with this order and then comment on the two detailed provisions. In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the world, demand for energy continues to grow. With that increased demand comes the danger of global warming and climate change. I know that noble Lords recognise that climate change is with us and that there is a necessity to take up the challenges associated with it. Renewable energy is something that Northern Ireland is uniquely placed to develop, as it has an abundance of wind, tidal and marine current potential and the opportunity to expand the contribution of renewables in a growing all-island energy market. It is with this in mind that the Secretary of State has made a commitment to establish Northern Ireland as a world leader in the development of renewable energy.
The order will streamline the electricity consent procedures for developers by, for the first time, charging one department with the responsibility of managing a combined consent process for electricity generating projects. The order will enable the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to grant deemed planning permission and deemed hazardous substance consent on applications for consent to construct, extend or operate an electricity generating station under Article 39, or consent to install overhead electric lines under Article 40 of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. Rather than the current dual process whereby a developer must apply to the Department of the Environment for planning permission or hazardous substance consent and to DETI for electricity generating consent, there will instead be one point of entry and one contact point for the developer. DETI will have the lead role in managing applications.
I want to make this absolutely clear, so that there is no misunderstanding: there is one entry for one consent to effectively two departments. All planning and environmental safeguards currently in place will remain and be operated. Doing it concurrently through one department rather than two will save time and money, which is in everybody’s interests. The order will ensure that electricity consent applications, the vast majority of which we anticipate will be from renewable energy sources such as wind farms, are dealt with as a high priority and as efficiently and effectively as possible. I repeat that there is no attempt in the order to circumvent or cut the normal planning and environment safeguards. All applications will go through that process, but there will be one entry into government instead of entry through two departments.
There are two provisions in the order. Article 2 sets out the power of the department to grant deemed planning consent and deemed hazardous substance consent. Article 2 also inserts new provisions into the 1992 order to enable the department to prescribe procedures for notification of and objections to the application for electricity consent, to set out requirements for notification of a public inquiry and to appoint additional inspectors to assist in conducting an inquiry.
Article 3 amends the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order prohibiting planning and electricity consent procedures being carried out concurrently. That is a very important process of trying to speed the process up and cut out red tape.
The measures in this draft order lay the necessary foundations for ensuring that consent for important electricity generating projects is prioritised and dealt with efficiently. There is a responsibility for managing combined consents for electricity generating projects where they belong, with the DETI, which has responsibility for the strategic development of an efficient, economic and environmentally sustainable electricity industry in Northern Ireland.
It is as simple as that—and it makes you wonder why on earth this was not done years ago. The fact of the matter is that the push that the Secretary of State wants to give in Northern Ireland to environmentally friendly renewables leads us to the view that we should remove the hurdles and barriers, some of which are plain red tape. In a way this is red tape, because there is no change to the process or the way in which consent will be looked at by planning and environment or the DETI. It is just that consent will be applied for via one department instead of two and given by one department instead of two. So it helps everybody all around. There is no attempt to circumvent the planning and environmental regulations in this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Electricity Consents (Planning) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Glentoran: I declare an interest, as I have three turbines on my land at the moment and the developing energy company is waiting for planning permission for a further number of turbines, some of which may well go on my land. But, speaking for the Conservative Party, I can say that we support this order.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: We, too, welcome the order, as it seems a sensible way in which to speed up the process on electricity consents. Could the Minister reassure us that safety will always be the priority when such consents are granted?
Lord Trimble: I do not want to spoil the happy atmosphere that has surrounded the order up to this point, but I have a couple of queries, or two queries and one observation. The first query is hugely important.
The Minister assured us that all the normal environmental safeguards will remain intact. That is a hugely important matter, because the forms of energy that he is talking about, such as wind farms, are highly controversial in Northern Ireland. In some of the other proposals, I think that I caught a reference to tidal matters. If, as a result, a barrage is to be built across Strangford Lough to generate electricity, that will be probably the most controversial planning application in the last generation or two. These are potentially matters of great controversy.
The Minister says that the order will streamline the procedures and that, instead of applications to two departments, there will be an application to one department and the consent would be given by one department. That gives me great concern, and it is likely to give great concern generally. Is the consent now to be given by DETI, rather than by the Department of the Environment? The Government are bound to say that the normal environmental safeguards will be followed, in that the normal consideration will be undertaken within the Department of the Environment, but who takes the decision at the end of the day? Will people in the Department of the Environment take decisions on environmental matters or will those decisions now be in the hands of DETI.
The question of which department makes the decision potentially opens up a tremendous problem. If the final say goes to DETI on matters that are highly controversial in environmental terms, even when the procedures for the environment are followed through, there could be a significant lowering of environmental protection and of the extent to which the public can have their voice heard. That is the huge question.
I have a minor question, as well. In paragraph 1B under Article 2 of the order, a quite normal reference is made to notice to be given and,
That requirement of publication is quite normal and is there in a host of legislation. But I understand that the practice is creeping in of putting those notices in what are called community papers, rather than in formal newspapers that circulate in a normal way and which you can buy in a newsagent’s. That gives rise to concern, because in Northern Ireland the term “community” covers a multitude of sins, and to develop the practice of putting advertisements into those so-called community newspapers may defeat the object of the legislation, which is to let the whole public know—and some of those newspapers are not available to the whole public.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that the new procedures have been introduced to streamline inquiries and to enable a multiplicity of inspectors to consider different lines or aspects of the inquiries simultaneously. The relevant paragraph ends by saying that the streamlining provision cannot be used if the Planning Appeals Commission carries out the inquiry on DETI’s behalf. That underlines the problem that the commission creates in planning matters through excessive delay and the slowness of its procedures.
If, however, as a result of the legislation, the commission does not feature in inquiries, we need to know an awful lot more about who will be appointed as inspectors. It is all very well for the Minister to say that this brings us into line with the position in England. In England there is the Planning Inspectorate, which is formally established. The people who man it are known and their quality is known, but we do not have an equivalent in Northern Ireland. We have a Planning Appeals Commission, but if it is not to be used, who will the inspectors be? We do not have an existing inspectorate to draw on. We need to know answers to this before we can assess whether the legislation will respect the existing environmental safeguards and safeguards for public consultation in these procedures.
I understand the desire to enhance electricity supply and explore other forms of generation. That is perfectly understandable and, in general terms, I would welcome such proposals, but I am concerned about the points that I have raised. I hope that the Minister can allay my concerns.
Lord Rooker: I absolutely can allay the concerns because there is no substantial change in procedure here. First, there is no plan for a barrage in Strangford Lough. There is an experimental turbine in Strangford Lough for generating electricity; it is sunk into the water. That was done after proper consideration of all the environmental issues. But there is no plan for a barrage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, says, these things are controversial. Wind farms are controversial—energy generation is controversial—but everybody wants the lights to go on when they flick the switch. If we do not go down this route, there will be other forms of power generation that people will find even more objectionable. There are no plans for nuclear stations in Northern Ireland—and I raise the issue only as a way in which to knock it on the head. The fact is that energy use is growing in Northern Ireland, just as it is anywhere else in the UK, and we have to do better in using renewable energy. People put up these Aunt Sallies and say, “We don’t want coal stations that damage the atmosphere, we don’t want to use fossil fuels and we don’t want nuclear or wind farms or tidal barrages”. But we cannot all live off the sun, because sometimes it gets dark and cloudy. We have to be responsible and say to people, “We’ve got to get energy in a safe way for the sake of the planet”. We do not have a good record in that, so we have to move things around. Making greater use of renewable resources is one way.
5.30 pm
Lord Trimble: The points that the Minister is making are not controversial. The question is whether, in doing this, there will be adequate safeguards for the environment.
Lord Rooker: I was just about to say that all the methods have the potential to do damage to the environment. The general consent among scientists is that burning fossil fuels has a highly damaging effect on the environment and the planet. Wind farms damage the visual amenity, depending on where they are located. In parts of Britain, I have seen wind farms that look really ugly. Environmental issues will arise and must be taken into account. However, if we want renewable, safe and clean energy, these decisions must be taken. You cannot say that you do not want them. All the factors—location, size, visual impact, whether a wind farm should be sited on land or offshore—must be looked at. There may be barrages, but there are no plans for any at the moment. There are no plans for a barrage in Strangford Lough.
Following the review that was instituted late last year, changes have been made in the way advertising is placed by the Government of Northern Ireland to achieve better value for money. Planning applications undoubtedly have a strong local focus. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, that we are talking about big energy operations—they may be individual operations, but they would be large. I assure him that there will be proper and adequate advertising for these projects. Nobody will be able to say that they did not know about them. That is one of the issues with which we have to deal. However, we do not use advertising to fund papers or organisations; we use it to advertise jobs or to provide public information. We have been looking at this matter during the past year. The change followed a review of advertising policy and was aimed at getting value for money.
I was asked who takes the decisions. We are talking about two government departments and one Secretary of State. There has to be collective responsibility. We want a lead department to deem the planning consent, but it would not be possible for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to take the planning decision alone, ignorant of all the factors raised by the Department of the Environment and by the Environment and Heritage Service. Those bodies would be deeply involved as statutory consultees. If planning officials or the Environment and Heritage Service—or indeed the Health and Safety Executive—took a contrary view, it would be hard for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to take a decision that went against that view, because all the factors would have been disclosed and would be known. Ultimately, the Secretary of State would be responsible.
Expert consultees must be involved. The assessment of the environmental aspects of the legislation will be carried out in the Department of the Environment because it is the planning authority. Some projects, subject to changes that occur in the reform of public administration, will be assessed by local authorities when they become the planning authority. Those projects will probably be the smaller ones. However, I suspect that some energy projects, because they are infrastructure projects, will be assessed at the centre.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |