| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have had a substantial debate on safety issues. During the course of that debate, I indicated that the Government recognise the importance of the issue and the salience of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised. We regard it as essential that when the Government are considering the impact of wind farms on the safety of navigation, installations are considered separately and the cumulative effect is taken into account. We accept that point entirely.
On round two wind farms, I give the noble Lord the firm assurance that the cumulative impact of wind farm sites in neighbouring locations will be a very important factor in deciding whether development consent can be given for such projects. This will apply whether the developer seeks consent under the Coast Protection Act, to which the noble Lord referred, or the Transport and Works Act 1992. Developers will need to work closely with each other and with shipping interests to understand these cumulative impacts. We shall ensure that that is done. The regulatory framework in the Bill is already flexible enough to take account of cumulative impact so, although I hear what the noble Lord has said, the position of the Government is that we do not think that this amendment is necessary. We regard the noble Lord's point as very important and I reassure the House that we have it covered in the way in which the legislation is framed.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I note what the Minister says but he has not replied to my point about the danger of developers being able to bypass the normal procedures under other legislation, to which he referred. We believe that this is a danger and that this amendment would reinforce the need for the cumulative effect to be taken into account and for these procedures to be dealt with adequately. In the light of the Minister's reply, and the point made by my noble friend Lord Greenway, I feel we should seek the opinion of the House on this issue.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 184B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 108.
Addington, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Biffen, L.
Blaker, L.
Bowness, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnham, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chorley, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Cox, B.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crathorne, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Dahrendorf, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Donaldson of Lymington, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dundee, E.
Eames, L.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elles, B.
Erroll, E.
Ezra, L.
Falkland, V.
Feldman, L.
Ferrers, E.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Freeman, L.
Geddes, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodhart, L.
Gray of Contin, L.
Greaves, L.
Greenway, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Higgins, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hurd of Westwell, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jopling, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kingsland, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Liverpool, E.
Luke, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mancroft, L.
Mar, C.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monro of Langholm, L.
Monson, L.
Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Naseby, L.
Newby, L.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Norton of Louth, L.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Palmer, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Parkinson, L.
Patten, L.
Peel, E.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Plumb, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees, L.
Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Rennard, L.
Renton, L.
Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogan, L.
Roper, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Russell, E.
St. John of Bletso, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Sandwich, E.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selsdon, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strange, B.
Swinfen, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tope, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Trumpington, B.
Ullswater, V.
Vinson, L.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walton of Detchant, L.
Weatherill, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)
Andrews, B.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Christopher, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Dixon, L.
Eatwell, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mitchell, L.
Nicol, B.
Orme, L.
Parekh, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Robertson of Port Ellen, L.
Rooker, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sawyer, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Sutherland of Houndwood, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Triesman, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.16 p.m.
Clause 91 [Extinguishment etc. of public rights of navigation]:
Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 185:
- Leave out Clause 91.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move into somewhat calmer waters. The clause with which this amendment is concerned deals with the rights of navigation. Some of the points which are affected by that have been touched upon by the Minister. I have one or two questions and seek to clarify his remarks.
This clause is concerned with declarations extinguishing public rights of navigation. In his earlier remarks, the Minister pointed out that we were concerned with energy zones, within which apparently there were to be specific projects for approval. But there also seems to be an intermediate stage which the Crown Estate has gone ahead and published for stage two sites. To put it another way, there is the overall zone, which the Minister referred to, which on the map provided by the Crown Estate is a dotted line covering a very large area. Within that there are a number of specific sites, and then finally one comes to an actual approval of the construction of the wind farm by a particular developer.
At what stage are the public rights of navigation extinguished and over what area? That is clearly not over the entire renewable energy resources area and must be for the particular development. But is it proposed that public rights of navigation will be
extinguished within what the Crown Estate calls a "site"? What puzzled me about the map which it provided, was that alongside the particular sites there were the names of particular developers. Those sites cover a larger area than I imagine the actual farm itself would cover. To what extent have decisions already been reached by the Crown Estate or by the Minister as to which of those sites should be allocated to particular developers? If decisions have been made, is it proposed to extinguish the public rights of navigation in the intermediate stage?The other problem which has arisen is in relation to the United Nations treaty and the Article 60 obligation. As for extinguishing public rights of navigation, presumably that will affect the shipping routes which normally would be protected under the UN treaty.
We seem to be concerned with territorial waters in their widest extent, the 200-mile limit, which I understand the Government do not propose to declare. Within that there is, apparently, an intermediate renewable energy zone. If the Government are to extinguish public rights of navigation of international ships, we are not clear why they consider that they do not need to put on the face of the Bill a common regime regarding the renewable energy zone. I am not sure that I have explained that clearly; it is extremely complicated.
What I seek to establish is to what extent—we can return to the matter at a later stage in the Bill—an intermediate stage exists where renewable energy zones are likely to affect or extinguish public rights of navigation. The Government still take the view that the relevant matter does not need to be put on the face of the Bill as it is covered by the treaty. However, the intermediate stage does not seem to be covered by the treaty. I hope that the Minister can clarify the position or perhaps we can have a further discussion on it. Serious points relating to the treaty and the extinguishing of international rights are not entirely clear at this stage. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page