| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Since that time, various things have taken place. In particular, Section 32 of the Electricity Act was devolved to Scotland, giving it power over renewable energies and the connection of electricity from renewable resources. Various other parts of Section 32 were devolved, but something that still puzzles me is that I have seen no sign of the devolution of Section 36, which concerns consent for the construction of electricity generating stations. That would be useful to know, as up to now people have considered only renewable energy generating stations in the renewable energy area adjacent to Scotland. However, it is quite conceivable that someone with a gas platform might decide to generate electricity that would not be renewable. Would that, then, come under a devolved power or under the Marine Management Organisation?
Lord Davies of Coity: I shall speak to Amendment 63, which stands in my name, and not Amendment 62. This amendment follows on from the concerns I expressed at Second Reading. I am grateful to the clerks of the Public Bill Office for their assistance in formulating this new clause.
My concerns are primarily about the conflicts that could arise between the need for conservation and protection of the natural marine environment and the Government’s policy on renewable energy sources. At Second Reading, I cited the Severn barrage, which has already been mentioned. That is a real example of where such conflict will undoubtedly arise should the project be on the Government’s shortlist for renewable energy projects, which I understand will be announced in a few weeks.
There is a wealth of evidence from expert national and international environmental organisations, such as the RSPB and the WWF, clearly indicating that a barrage across the Severn estuary would result in damage to the marine environment that would be nothing short of catastrophic. Such damage would be permanent, as the marine environment would never, ever recover.
21 Jan 2009 : Column 1714
If the Government proceed with a Severn barrage, the measures that are in place to mitigate the environmental impact cannot possibly be honoured. For example, more than 2,000 square hectares of alternative wetlands would have to be found to compensate for the area lost to the project. Where do the Government think they are going to find that extent of wetland? Surely, if the provisions of the Bill are to be meaningful and deliverable, there must be a mechanism for the Marine Management Organisation to prevent such a project going ahead.
That brings me to the purpose of my proposed new clause, which would give the Marine Management Organisation the power to veto any decisions made by virtue of Parts 6 and 7 of the Planning Act 2008, or orders made under Section 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, if it regards such a development as likely in any circumstances irrevocably to damage the environment, potentially damage human health, and/or interfere with the legitimate rights of users of the sea.
We must be forensic in examining the conflicts surrounding the Severn barrage. I recognise that the Government, with the support of the environmental movement, have committed themselves to take action on the threats posed by global warming. I recognise that the Government have to find renewable energy sources, while at the same time recognising the need to conserve our environment and heritage—a difficult balancing act, anyone would agree. Yet this Bill, which is widely welcomed, must send a message that conservation must remain a fundamental pillar of our environmental policy. There can be no getting away from that basic principle.
As conscientious parliamentarians, then, we cannot allow a situation to develop where one government department promotes legislation seeking to protect the environment while another actively considers a project that would destroy an entire ecosystem. I hope the Government are able to take my points on board, and even if they feel unable to accept the new clause, I would look for some clear assurance that the inevitable conflicts between conservation and the energy needs of the nation can be rectified without the environment being sacrificed.
In conclusion, I was heartened by the numerous views expressed from all parts of the Committee on its first day regarding the importance of the powers of the Marine Management Organisation. Those views have also been expressed today. My amendment therefore seeks to give the MMO the teeth required to fulfil its environmental responsibilities. It is not my intention to divide the Committee on this amendment, but I hope that the Government will seriously consider it.
Lord Crickhowell: I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, down the route of debating the Severn barrage. He knows that my views on the subject are very much his, and I am certain that there will be a moment when I shall want to return to the subject. I will be one of those who will fight as hard as it is possible to fight in this House against a project that I believe will have catastrophic environmental
21 Jan 2009 : Column 1715
I want to move on to a different issue, which was raised at the end of her speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I always find her title extremely complicated to remember, and I apologise. We heard from my noble friend Lord Cathcart of a number of complicated relationships, particularly those involving the IPC and the MMO. I want to refer to another relationship, which has not yet been referred to specifically, arising from the Electricity Act 1989. The clause with which we are dealing takes us to Section 36 of that Act and transfers responsibility from the Secretary of State to the MMO, but Section 37 deals with transmission lines, for which responsibility remains with the Secretary of State. Indeed, Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act, which imposes on both sections, and therefore on both the MMO and the Secretary of State, the duty to take account of the natural countryside and the environment, is applicable in both cases.
I shall take an example other than that of the Severn barrage to illustrate why we need clarification. A project has been proposed—which, unlike the Severn barrage, I favour—to place generating apparatus in the fast currents between St David’s Head and Ramsey Island. It is the kind of scheme that has a lot to be said for it. The generators will be essentially underwater and invisible, and will not do significant damage to the marine environment—although it is clear that that has to be looked at by the MMO with the greatest possible care. If one is going to have such a generating station approved or disapproved of by the MMO, the power cables that will feed the electricity will have to cross the whole of Pembrokeshire and the Pembrokeshire national park.
I am familiar with the countryside involved—I was the Member of Parliament there for many years and lived at St David’s for a time. It is clearly an area of extreme sensitivity. It may be possible to place the generating cables, or perhaps a section of them, underground to avoid severe damage to one of the most beautiful parts of the national park and what will be a key part of the coastal footpath which goes around the whole of the Pembrokeshire coast. However, the relationship between the decisions of the MMO and the Secretary of State are worth considering, because the MMO could decide that the scheme in the water is thoroughly to be approved of and the Secretary of State could come to a different conclusion about the effect on the natural environment and the beautiful countryside and so on under the duties imposed on him by the Electricity Act.
I am sure that these matters can be resolved, but it is worth drawing attention to another complication on which we need clarification. The Government need to explain how the relationship is to be managed and what consultation they envisage between the Secretary of State, taking his decision about the transmission lines and the other onshore facilities that may be required—indeed, the major construction works that may be involved in the heart of a sensitive national park—and the MMO, taking its decisions on the sea. The two cannot be separated; they are inevitably
21 Jan 2009 : Column 1716
6.45 pm
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I was about to talk about Amendment 71, which I might add, since we are talking about flabby definitions, would crispen up the relationship between the roles of the Marine Management Organisation and the Infrastructure Planning Commission, and make the general powers and duties of the MMO more specific in respect of that relationship. However, I am a little ashamed of the amendment now that I have heard the debate so far. Having been at the rabid end of the debate on Clause 2, I appear to be at the reasonable end of the debate on this issue, which feels deeply uncomfortable. I commend the position of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on this issue. Ideally, the MMO will be the centre for marine expertise; it will be an independent body; it will have huge experience across a range of activities in the marine environment; but, strangely enough, it will not be the licensing body for all marine activities, because some of them will fall under the purview of the Infrastructure Planning Commission. On mature reflection as a result of this debate, which I presume is the purpose of debates in your Lordships' House, I have been persuaded that the MMO, as the planning and licensing body with that huge marine experience, ought logically to license all marine projects. I had lost hope that we could ever persuade the Government that that could ever be the case, because the Planning Act has only recently become law and it seemed strange to be going back and writing out the script so soon after its ink was dry. However, I have been persuaded that perhaps we should.
My amendment was indeed flabby, because it said, “If we can’t persuade the Government to do that, there need to be two safeguards in the circumstances where the Infrastructure Planning Commission is the licensing or decision-making body”. The two safeguards were, first, that the MMO must be a statutory adviser to the Infrastructure Planning Commission in these circumstances, but, secondly, in reverse, that the IPC should seek and take account of advice from the MMO.
The Government’s response to a similar recommendation by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill indicated that they expected the MMO to be a statutory consultee for offshore, nationally significant infrastructure projects, and that the Department for Communities and Local Government would consult on that as part of the secondary legislation package following the Planning Act.
However, I am not a bundle reassured by that, because what the Department for Communities and Local Government can give, it can also take away. If we cannot win either a veto position or a removal of the powers of the Infrastructure Planning Commission in the marine environment, I would prefer a clear statutory consultee role for the Marine Management Organisation to be in the Bill and, most importantly, a
21 Jan 2009 : Column 1717
Lord Tyler: I deliberately waited before I spoke to Amendments 60, 62 and 71, which are in my name and that of other colleagues—indeed, Amendment 71 is in the name also of the noble Baroness, Lady Young—because I wanted to listen to the debate. I am glad that I have done so, because a number of issues have come up in the last few minutes to which I would like very much to respond.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I know Pembrokeshire Coast National Park very well from being involved in national parks over many years. However, precisely the same situation could arise with Exmoor National Park, which I know even better. I would venture to say that there are some great coastlines outwith the national park designation, such as the coastline of Cornwall, which deserve all the protection that the designation gives. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was absolutely right that, for all those sensitive coastlines, what happens offshore can have a major impact onshore. That strengthens the argument that this should not be left to the overall strategic views, which may be unsympathetic to precise, local environmental issues, that will necessarily be the role of the IPC. In those circumstances, having decided that we are going to set up a new organisation with very specific requirements regarding the marine and coastal environment, surely the MMO must take precedence.
Why and how we can give effect to that in the Bill is perhaps a secondary issue. There are a number of options in this group of amendments. I do not entirely follow the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, about the Severn estuary because there may be options for renewable energy generation that are nothing like as damaging as the barrage. The barrage seems the least attractive proposition for the Government. Nevertheless his point is well made. If the decision is going to be, in the end, a matter of some national strategic significance in planning terms under the Planning Act, then I fear that the environmental issues will be secondary and not taken sufficiently well into account. That may mean that the wrong option is adopted. In contrast to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I do not think that we should be mealy-mouthed about the necessity to look again at the Planning Act. It is very recent, but we were not debating the marine environment at that time because we knew we were going to be getting legislation of this sort. So I thought her initial instinct was right.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: With the greatest respect, since I had the pleasure of dealing with that legislation, I should point out that we did debate the marine environment at considerable length in anticipation of this Bill and the House reached a settled view on this point.
Lord Tyler: I do not think that is fair, with due respect to the Minister. Every Bill that comes before your Lordships’ House and the other place has to be taken on its merits. The fact that we have previously
21 Jan 2009 : Column 1718
There is a strong case for taking out the section in this Bill which leaves to the IPC the rather artificial designation of “generating stations”. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer indicated that the definition is at least questionable, if not even weaker than that. I hope the Minister will not be so apparently reluctant to look at this issue. It seems to me and to many other Members of your Lordships’ House that the way in which the MMO and the IPC interrelate, where there is a sensitive area and where a major development proposition is on the table, is going to be crucial to success. All those who have campaigned for this legislation for many years will take this as the litmus test. If the IPC looks as if it can push hard for a proposition that does major damage to the marine environment, there will be many disappointed people who have high expectations of this Bill.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I draw the Committee’s attention to my debate of 13 December 2007 on the Severn barrage. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said. In that debate the IPC was not even on the horizon. I am not going to refer to the detail of the debate—it is on the record and can be read—but there was a great deal of support for conserving the situation in the Severn estuary.
My noble friend Lord Tyler has begged the question what would have happened if we had had the Marine Bill before we had the Planning Bill. I guess that we would be having a totally different debate because we would have given the MMO primary planning powers. But that is not the situation. In this debate we are trying to redress the powers given to the IPC, which appear to be going to subsume any meaningful influence the MMO might have.
I agree, too, with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about alternative production of electricity, particularly in sensitive areas around the
21 Jan 2009 : Column 1719
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I hope noble Lords will forgive me for moving positions. The Committee has already heard from two of us on the Front Bench and I feel it would be straining our indulgence for me to speak from that position. I want to follow up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—sorry, Lord Tyler; I get confused myself—and the Minister’s response to that. We did indeed have a number of debates on the relationship between the IPC and the MMO during the Planning Bill. I led on those matters in those debates. We were in a difficult position because the MMO did not exist; indeed the legislation to create it had not been laid before the House. So I appreciated the Minister’s position, but in order to get me to withdraw an amendment about the veto of the MMO, he said the following:
“The MMO can add additional conditions to an order granting development consent if new information comes to light and can even revoke consents if necessary”.—[Official Report, 14/10/08; col. 694.]
I hope the Minister is not going to resile from that position because it appears to give the MMO the power to veto an order if it feels that the information which it possesses makes it unsatisfactory.
7 pm
Baroness Wilcox: I support Amendment 59, moved by my noble friend Lord Cathcart some 45 minutes ago. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of my position on the Infrastructure Planning Commission—I would like to see it abolished. My view is that without the Infrastructure Planning Commission, matters would be simpler. We could streamline the approval process, making it clearer and more efficient.
One of my great concerns with this Bill has been over the role of the Marine Management Organisation and its interaction with the Infrastructure Planning Commission. As it stands, the Marine Management Organisation will be responsible for renewable energy installations of up to 100 megawatts, and the Infrastructure Planning Commission will be responsible for nationally significant infrastructure projects, defined in the Planning Act 2008 as installations of greater than 100 megawatts. It is unclear to me which of these bodies will have the overriding power to approve projects. I fear that they are destined to clash over the provision of planning consent, as we have already heard this evening. For example, which document will take precedence in the final decision process, the Infrastructure Planning Commission’s national policy statement or the Marine Management Organisation’s marine policy statement?
21 Jan 2009 : Column 1720
As many noble Lords have said, we have waited a considerable time for this Bill to be brought forward by the Government. It is a pity that it has taken so long, but, that said, it is imperative that we now all work together on the Bill before us to produce robust, practical and effective legislation that includes all the measures necessary to protect the marine environment and benefit all marine users. I believe this amendment enables that to happen and I give it my full support.
Lord Greenway: I should like to reply to the question posed just now by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, regarding the MMO having a veto. I would have thought that the MMO, as a delivery body, would have to look to the Secretary of State to veto something rather than doing so itself. Again, the Minister might comment on that.
I shall turn briefly to the Severn barrage, which has cropped up. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was absolutely right. We must not necessarily think of a fixed barrage. There are all sorts of different ways we can cover this. I think we all agree that there is a huge amount of potential energy in the massive tides that flow in and out of the Bristol Channel every day. For instance, in the shallower parts we could have normal wind farms and in some of the deeper parts, excluding the shipping channels, inverted windmills that operate under water. There are many different ways to look at this.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an extremely interesting debate that takes us back a little bit to the debate that some of us had on the Planning Bill. Perhaps I should start with a response on why the Planning Act is as it is and why we think that the role of the IPC is important. I shall then come on to say how I believe that the work of the IPC and the MMO can be complementary.
Clearly, the Planning Act 2008 responded to the need for an improved system for delivering nationally significant infrastructure. We think it will help us to respond to some of the really pressing needs, including the long-term challenge of climate change for one and security of energy and water supplies for another. The aim of the Planning Act was to introduce a new single consent regime for nationally significant infrastructure, under which there will be improved accountability, with a clear distinction between policy setting and decision taking, with decisions on nationally significant infrastructure proposals made by an independent Infrastructure Planning Commission within the policy framework set by Ministers, with the IPC having to give detailed reasons for its decisions, with improved public consultation on the draft national policy statements at the pre-application stage, and with the examinations stage being easier for the public to engage with.
21 Jan 2009 : Column 1721
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |