Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill: Preliminary Stage
The next item of business is the debate on motion S1M-3728, in the name of Tom McCabe, on the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill.
As members know, this is the first private bill to be considered by the Scottish Parliament. The bill was introduced on 27 June 2002 by the promoters, Offshore Energy Resource Ltd and Solway Offshore Ltd. The promoters are, in this instance, commercial organisations, but private bills can be introduced by an individual, a company or a group of people who seek powers or benefits that either add to or conflict with the general law.
The Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee was established in October 2002 and consists of five members, none of whom lives in the area that is directly affected by the bill and none of whom has any connection with the promoters of the bill. I present the report to Parliament today as convener of the committee, on behalf of the members, and not as the member in charge of the bill. As previously explained, private bills are introduced by a promoter and not by a member of Parliament. As such, the bill cannot have a member in charge.
It may be helpful to members if I take a few moments to outline the procedure that our standing orders dictate should be used to consider private bills.
After a bill has been lodged, any person who believes their interests to be affected by the bill has 60 days in which to make their objections known to the Parliament. Preliminary stage consideration consists of hearing evidence from relevant objectors and considering the general principles of the bill. The consideration stage is similar to stage 2 of a public bill, but it takes place in two parts. First, further evidence can be heard from objectors and the promoters and thereafter the committee can question both the promoter and the objectors. The promoters and the objectors can, uniquely, cross-examine one another. Secondly, the committee considers any amendments to the bill. Possibly the most fundamental difference in all this is that the proceedings for a private bill are quasi-judicial. Each person who gives evidence does so under oath or affirmation and the proceedings could be the subject of judicial review if any person is aggrieved over their outcome or conduct. The third stage is broadly similar to that for a public bill.
The committee took evidence during November 2002—the main evidence session was held in Dumfries—and we published our preliminary report on 19 December 2002. Today's debate provides the Parliament with a welcome opportunity to consider the first preliminary report on a private bill.
The procedures were new to all members of the committee and I record my thanks to them for their work and their assistance. The same is true for our support team in the non-Executive bills unit. On behalf of the committee, I record our thanks and appreciation for the work that was done on our behalf.
We considered a large amount of detailed written material and we heard oral evidence from the promoters, from expert witnesses and from objectors during the preliminary stage. Once again, I offer our thanks for the manner in which all those people offered their thoughts and views.
If, after today's debate, the Parliament is minded to agree to the general principles, we intend to hold a further meeting in the area that is affected by the bill, with Kirkcudbright being the most likely venue.
I will now deal with the detail of our report. It is important to emphasise that the bill does not confer any authority to construct a wind farm or to generate electricity. A series of permissions are required from various authorities before that can happen.
The bill seeks to create the authority to interfere with public rights of navigation and fishing during the construction and operation of a wind farm. Without the bill, irrespective of any other permissions that are granted, there would still be a common-law right to navigate and fish in the area of the wind farm.
The bill ensures that the promoters would be required to comply with directions from the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses with regard to safety markings, lights and buoys around the wind farm. The promoters would commit a criminal offence if they failed at any time to comply with directions from the commissioners.
A major part of the bill concerns the creation of three exclusion zones: first, exclusion during construction; secondly, exclusion from trawling and anchoring around the wind farm; and thirdly, a 50m exclusion around each individual turbine. The promoters believe there to be a danger from nets, lines and anchors and a danger of collision between vessels and individual turbines.
The memorandum that accompanies the bill explains the background to the application and the actions that were taken by the promoters to consult interested parties.
In 1996, the Department of Trade and Industry embarked on a competitive tendering process for the establishment of a number of wind energy projects. In 1998, the Crown Estates issued licences to potential developers and in 2001 the successful bidders were announced.
Two of the successful sites were adjacent to each other on the Robin rigg sandbank; each site is limited to 30 turbines. The sites have been promoted jointly and therefore offer the possibility of 60 turbines in total. The number of households that could be served with electricity by those sites is dependent on the type of turbine that is eventually selected, but the range is between 100,000 and 178,000 average households.
The promoters provided information on the local and national consultations that took place in both Scotland and England. A series of expert groups were established and stakeholders were invited to comment on the community and environmental impacts of the proposal. A series of public meetings took place, as did two public exhibitions. One of those exhibitions attracted more than 500 people, 240 of whom completed a questionnaire; 67 per cent of the responses expressed favourable comment on the proposal. The promoters indicated that those initiatives led them to expand the scope and methodology of the research that supported the environmental statement and led to substantial modification of the proposal.
Finally, the promoters said that the advice that was available to them was that there was no other way to obtain the necessary statutory permissions other than by means of a private bill in the Scottish Parliament.
As I said, if the Parliament is minded to agree to the general principles of the bill, we will move to the consideration stage. At that point, the committee will take further evidence from both the promoters and the objectors, to build on the evidence that has already been given and to give further consideration to objections. We will inquire further into several specific matters: the minimum clearance between the lowest point of any rotor blade and the level of high water; the navigational risk assessment, with particular regard to the risk of collision with leisure craft; the potential impact, if any, on the operation of global positioning systems and radar; the need for exclusion zones and any possible alternatives; the practicalities of enforcing any exclusion zones; and the significance of fishing in the affected area. We will also seek views on how to ensure proper decommissioning of the site at the end of its useful life.
The committee will consider the objections from the Royal Yachting Association and the Solway Yacht Club, as their interests are clearly affected by the proposal. Having exercised the discretion that is open to us, we also intend to hear a late objection from the Solway Shell-Fishermen's Association.
I ask, on behalf of the committee, that the Parliament agree to approve the general principles of the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.
I thank Tom McCabe for lodging the motion and for the scrupulous work that the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee has undertaken to bring us to this point, which concludes the preliminary stage. The bill is the first private bill to come before the Parliament and I am sure that the historic nature of the debate is not lost on you, Presiding Officer, or on the other members who are present. The situation reminds me of what Otto von Bismarck said about his experience of forming legislation. To paraphrase his words, he said that private bills are like sausages—it is better not to see them being made. I suspect that those were wise words, but at this stage of considering the private bill we are beyond that advice.
At this juncture, I want members to be clear that the bill is principally a matter for the Parliament and not for the Executive. It is for members to consider the committee's report and to decide whether to accept the recommendation that the bill should proceed to the next stage. The Executive takes a neutral position on the bill, although it might lodge amendments, should that prove necessary. My role is to provide members with the policy and procedural background to the bill so that they can arrive at an informed decision.
I will touch on the policy background that led to the proposal for the Robin rigg wind farm. We believe that Scotland has a key role in tackling the effects of climate change. To that end, the Executive is committed to the promotion of all renewables technologies. Last year, we introduced the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/163)—or ROS—which compels all electricity suppliers to account for an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable sources and will stimulate growth in clean forms of electricity generation. ROS has provided a tremendous incentive for development. As members are aware, applications to build new renewable electricity generating stations have flooded in to our consents team as a result of the opportunities that the policy has created.
I think that there are about 50 such applications at different stages of consideration, but of them, the Robin rigg wind farm is the first offshore wind farm to be proposed for Scottish waters. It comprises two adjacent developments, each of which comprises 30 wind turbines, and the proposed combined output will amount to around 200MW, which will make the wind farm Scotland's largest renewable development to date. The promoters will require consents under the Electricity Act 1989 and the Coast Protection Act 1949, and a licence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Those consents will permit the developer to construct and operate a power station; to undertake works that lie below the high water that might endanger or obstruct navigation; and to undertake civil engineering works that involve deposits in the sea or under the sea bed. The developers have applied for those consents, all of which will be determined by the Executive and, in the case of the Electricity Act 1989 consent, by ministers.
I stress that the proposal is subject to those consents, which are still to be determined by the Scottish ministers, and that the merits or otherwise of the wind farm are not a matter for the debate. Time scales for offshore development are largely driven by leasing arrangements that the Crown Estate puts in place. The Crown Estate has entered into leasing arrangements for a period of 22 years for the first round of wind farms. The arrangements cover everything from rent to maintenance requirements and the lease will be signed only when the statutory consents to which I referred are in place. While that process is under way, the Crown Estate has entered into an agreement for lease with the developers.
In assessing the developers' suitability for lease, the Crown Estate considered their financial standing and expertise in both offshore and wind technologies. In promoting the private bill, the developers aim to put measures in place which, as Tom McCabe said, will ensure as far as possible that the wind farm operates without interference and that it generates—if members will excuse the pun—sufficient revenue to make the project commercially viable from the developers' perspective. Our next policy step is to streamline the processes.
I will not burden members with the intricacies of the bill, but it might be useful if I outline what the bill seeks to achieve. The debate concludes the preliminary stage of the bill's parliamentary passage. Prior to the introduction of the bill in June 2002, the promoters had to comply with a rigorous set of demands. In focusing on the parliamentary procedures, I am mindful of the promoters' commitment in bringing us to this stage.
Following the introduction of the bill, a committee was established and charged with producing a report on three issues: whether the Parliament should agree to the bill's general principles, whether it should agree that the bill is appropriate to proceed as a private bill and whether objections should be heard at the consideration stage. In considering the bill's general principles, the committee had to consider the bill in the round without focusing unduly on points of detail, which, as Tom McCabe pointed out, are properly a matter for the consideration stage. The committee is content that the Parliament should agree to the general principles of the bill.
In deciding whether it is appropriate that the bill proceeds as a private bill, the committee had to satisfy itself on two points. First, that the bill conforms to the definition of a private bill and secondly that the bill's accompanying documents are adequate to allow proper scrutiny. The committee is of the view that the bill meets the definition and that the documentation will allow the said scrutiny.
The third and final role of the committee at the preliminary stage was to consider any objections lodged and to decide on the objectors' right to be heard at the subsequent consideration stage. The committee's role at that stage was not to decide on the admissibility of objections—that is settled when objections are lodged—to consider the substance of the objections or to hear the objectors' arguments against the bill. That is for the consideration stage. During the preliminary stage, the committee was limited to satisfying itself that each objection is based on a reasonable claim that the bill would adversely affect the objector's interests. The committee has carried out the preliminary consideration of objections and has rejected one objection, allowed one objection and allowed one late objection, but limited its scope.
As Tom McCabe pointed out, the bill does not confer powers to build the wind farm, nor does it allow the developer to generate electricity. Those powers will be conferred only if the Scottish ministers decide that the requirements for the consents to which I referred have been met. The question whether the bill should receive the Parliament's support is solely for the Parliament to decide.
The committee's report concludes that a statutory remedy is necessary to achieve the promoters' aims and recommends to the Parliament that the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill should proceed as a private bill. If the Parliament agrees to the motion, the bill will proceed to the consideration stage. If the motion is not agreed to, the bill will fall.
I suspect that we will have enough time for the debate, although I was a bit surprised that the previous debate ran on for so long. Never was it more obvious that lawyers are paid by the minute.
I welcome the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee's report, which, as the minister said, is the first private bill committee report. I congratulate the committee on its work. I particularly welcome the report because it relates to an area of my constituency, albeit rather a wet area and one that I do not normally visit in the course of canvassing or my normal activities. I also welcome the convener's intention to hold a further evidence session, probably in Kirkcudbright.
Between the wars, Galloway hosted an early example of the development of renewables in the Galloway hydro project, which still generates electricity today and will continue to do so for many years to come. That is in contrast to many of the other ways of generating electricity that we hear about. It is particularly appropriate that Galloway is the potential location for Scotland's first offshore wind farm.
A question was raised about the Scottish Parliament's competency to deal with the proposal. I am glad that the committee did not agree to that objection and I am sure that that decision was correct. Anyone who reads the appropriate paragraphs of the committee's report—paragraphs 9 to 12—will agree with the committee's logic. Although I disagree with the existence of reserved powers in the Scotland Act 1998, it is clear that a certain logic applies to the distinctions that were drawn between reserved and devolved powers. It was never intended that the detail of proposals such as that for the Robin rigg project should be reserved to the Westminster Parliament.
Although the bill is fairly narrow, as has been explained, it is important that we get it correct. The promoters said in evidence that one of their reasons for adopting what they called a precautionary approach was because it was the first such development. I am sure that their anxiety to reassure the public on every aspect on which they require reassurance is correct.
The objections that have been accepted for hearing at the consideration stage are genuine objections in the sense that certain people would have their rights removed at common law. The committee will have to investigate whether such loss of rights, or impediments to the exercise of rights, would be significant. I am glad that the Solway Yacht Club and the Royal Yachting Association said that they did not object in principle to the bill.
My reading is that the bulk of the substance of the objections could probably be removed by further negotiations between the promoters and the objectors. Ultimately, the objections might well be withdrawn. I hope that that will be the case, because it is clear that it would be better for such a proposal to proceed by consent, as that would avoid the need for the committee to make the final judgment.
Leisure sailing in the Solway is an important aspect of the economy and is a growing area. Given that tourism is the first or second biggest business in Dumfries and Galloway, the proposed wind farm development is an important issue.
On fishing, I am slightly surprised that the Solway Shell-Fishermen's Association put in a late objection. Anyone who reads the newspapers on the northern side of the Solway would have been in no doubt about the fact that the proposal was going ahead. Perhaps the local papers around Silloth are not clued in to what is happening.
I understand that a large part of the objectors' fishing is done elsewhere and that it is only at certain times of the year that a significant amount of fishing is done in the general area of the proposed wind farm. It is clear that there remains some dispute about the extent of the fishing that is done within what will become the exclusion zone around the completed platform. I hope that that objection can be resolved.
The objection about the possibility of stirring up radioactive silt in the Solway was not taken forward. Although it is correct that that was not a proper objection in the narrow context of the bill, I am glad that the bill's promoters are re-examining the methodology that they employ to assess how much radioactivity exists in the Solway. It would be a bitter irony if the legacy of non-clean and non-green energy were that it stopped the development of clean and green energy. I object to the amount of radioactivity that has been put into the Solway from Windscale, but I do not believe that that will prove to be an insuperable problem.
A successful Robin rigg project will have substantial benefits and will serve as the starting point for significantly greater development of all types of renewable energy, not just renewable energy that comes from wind farms. Potential for significant job benefits exists. Such benefits will arise not just from one project, but from Galloway and Scotland becoming a centre for clean and green energy.
There is a downside. If we do not grasp the nettle of renewable development in a serious way, the increase in electricity generated from carbon fuel will continue to pose grave risks.
It is clear that local benefits are necessary, because we cannot expect local people to sign up to a national benefit if they believe that there will be a detrimental effect locally. If the project receives approval, I hope that the developers will consider what they can contribute to the local community. Developers elsewhere have followed that line, for example, by contributing to the local community a certain amount per megawatt generated.
Going ahead with the Robin rigg project will not mean covering every hill in Scotland and every inch of coastal water with turbines. National grid constraints and natural constraints mean that few good sites are available. However, not going ahead with the project will mean missing the bus on renewable energy. That bus will leave, one way or another. The question is whether we will be on it.
As the committee and the minister have indicated, the bill is only a small part of the process, as several other permissions must be obtained. We should examine whether, as with many other planning matters, the process of going ahead with a wind farm requires developers to jump through too many hoops. I am not saying that the Robin rigg project should go ahead automatically and I realise that, because of its location on the border, it is even more complex than other projects. Even if the project were entirely in Scotland, one private bill and three separate permissions from the Scottish ministers would be necessary. As things stand, I think that at least another two permissions from UK ministers are necessary. If I were to refer to those ministers as English ministers, I would be making the same mistake as the man from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, who referred to the English Parliament. That is for a future occasion.
In conclusion, I will deal briefly with the decisions for which the Scottish ministers are responsible. They are wrestling with a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry, which I think relates to section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, although I am open to correction. The bulk of the objections to the bill, which are genuinely held, are on the grounds of damage to a scenic area and the visual impact. I do not see how any public inquiry, even if it were conducted by Solomon, would be able to resolve that matter by changing individuals' perceptions. Although wind farms are usually loved or loathed, they often come to be loved after being loathed initially.
The Scottish ministers should make up their minds on the issue soon. We do not want to reach a situation in which a public inquiry is used to slide off a difficult situation, which happened with the quarry in Harris, the decisions on which were postponed year after year for almost 10 years. If the Robin rigg wind farm were to be rejected on the ground of damage to Scotland's beautiful coastline, I suspect that it would not be possible to erect a wind farm anywhere around Scotland's coastline, on the ground that all of it is beautiful. That said, I wish the bill and the project well.
As a member of the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee, I will speak only about the business with which our committee is concerned—navigation and fishery matters. I must stress that the bill will not confer authority for the building of the wind farm or for the generation of electricity. I will leave comments on those issues and on the merits or disadvantages of wind farms to my colleagues. The bill is only one of a number of applications relating to the proposed wind farm that await approval.
The committee that is dealing with the bill differs from a normal parliamentary committee in that it has a quasi-judicial status. Any witness who gives evidence has to take an oath, as proceedings could be subject to legal challenge.
Through the bill, its promoters seek to interfere with navigation and fishing in the Solway firth and to create exclusion zones around the proposed wind farm during its construction and operation. They also seek to make provision for the safety of the wind farm and of vessels in the area around it.
It has been asked why section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 would not offer sufficient protection. The promoters' answer is that section 34 would not give them a legal defence against any claims that they were causing a nuisance to fishermen and mariners.
The promoters feel that exclusion zones would minimise the likelihood of accidents to sailors and fishermen and to construction workers on the site, which is clearly a major consideration. However, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is concerned that exclusion zones would cause complex enforcement problems. Although that may be an issue, I would suggest that the protection of human life and the prevention of accidents must take precedence, especially as offshore wind farm construction in the United Kingdom is in its infancy, and as there is little experience here of the dangers and problems that may exist.
Exclusion zones in the offshore oil and gas industry provide a precedent. The promoters put the case that an exclusion zone puts mariners on notice and creates a boundary around a hazardous or dangerous area. It will be important that measures are taken to advertise the whereabouts of any exclusion zone. The second purpose of the exclusion zone would be to give the promoters the right to seek police action in the event of deliberate interference by individuals or groups of people with the construction or operation of the wind farm.
Mr Cubbin of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency said that nobody would be able to police the exclusion zone, and that the agency would not be responsible for that. He said that those who have exclusion zones should police them themselves. The agency argues that the alternative to exclusion zones is for the area to be designated as one to be avoided. The promoters feel that, although that would meet their first wish, which is to put mariners on notice of the site, it would not deal with the other matter of preventing deliberate interference. I feel that the promoters are right about that. In layman's terms, exclusion zones would give the law some teeth.
Whether or not there is an exclusion zone, it is likely that vessels will, from time to time, be it through bad visibility, bad weather, navigation error or engine failure, find themselves in proximity to the wind turbines. It is therefore essential that there be plenty of clearance between the tips of the rotor blades and the vessels' masts. Sometimes, masts can be very high. It is unlikely that a rotor could catch the rigging of a yacht, but it would be catastrophic if that were to happen.
I was concerned by the promoter's wish to amend the bill to increase the length of the rotor blades from 100m to 104m without raising the rotors further above the water. That is being proposed because such an increase in rotor length will give the turbine a significantly higher energy yield, which is obviously what the promoters would like, but it is important that safety is not compromised as a result of that. The promoters claim that the blades could be stopped within 30 seconds, but a great deal of damage could be done in that time.
The Royal Yachting Association does not object to the bill in principle, but points out that it provides the first opportunity for a full public examination of the effects of such a development on navigation and fishing rights. Aside from the issue of danger, which I have already raised, the association had concerns over the removal of derelict machinery at the end of the wind farm's life.
The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses are satisfied with the terms of the bill as it applies to them, provided that the establishment of the site is considered under the Coast Protection Act 1949, which will ensure a proper degree of marking buoys and lights.
There is fishing for high-quality white fish, brill, flatfish and hake in the area, and a small number of vessels fish for brown shrimp, mainly between November and April. There is concern on the part of fishermen, in particular on the part of the Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee, that their activities might be compromised by the wind farm. We noted the concerns of local fishermen and felt that there must be further consultation between promoters and fishermen with regard to their activities. Indeed, there has been a late objection from the Solway fishermen.
Bearing all that in mind, the committee was happy with the general principles of the bill.
I thought that I had experienced most aspects of the legislative process in my 23 years at Westminster, but I somehow managed to avoid the mysteries of private legislation. Private legislation procedures at Westminster are an absolute mystery, and private bills are referred to uniquely obscure committees, which are manned by commissioners acting under the authority of the Parliament. We should take some credit for the fact that the Scottish Parliament approaches private bills in a much more open and accountable way. In particular, we are giving people in Dumfries and Galloway, and indeed in Cumbria, the opportunity to make representations on the issues that the bill raises.
It has been an entirely new experience to serve on the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee and to deal with the impact of the proposed offshore wind farm on navigation and fisheries in the Solway firth. We have not yet had an opportunity to visit the shifting sandbanks of the Robin rigg. I am not sure that it would be a good place to be on a January morning, although we have thought of delegating Jamie McGrigor to go there and do some reconnaissance—he is obviously enthusiastic about the subject—and report back in due course.
The debate presents committee members with some difficulties. The criteria according to which we have been selected to serve on the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee require us to have no possible interest or opinion on the subject of the bill. That is unusual for parliamentarians. As has already been mentioned, we are working under quasi-judicial procedures, so even if I had an opinion on the merits of the bill, I would not be allowed to say so during the course of the debate.
I will comment on the procedures that we have been following. The committee's job is to ask questions, to take evidence and, particularly important, to give members of the public the opportunity to make representations. That is what we have been doing until now. When we have gathered all the evidence, we will be able to reach conclusions based on that evidence if the bill proceeds following this debate.
We have held one interesting evidence session down in Dumfries, and I will refer to the three points that, following that meeting, strike me as important. The first point is that we thought that we might be in for an interesting constitutional row with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The agency stated in its written evidence that it would not enforce a marine exclusion zone established on the authority of the Scottish Parliament. Various people jumped to the conclusion that the agency was denying our authority to establish such an exclusion zone, but it emerged that it was not challenging our authority; it was pointing out that it does not enforce marine exclusion zones around offshore installations anywhere. That point has been clarified, and it is now up to the promoters to find other ways to enforce exclusion zones if that proves necessary.
The second point relates to the significant concerns expressed by the Solway Yacht Club. Most significantly, we discovered that important fishing interests on the south side of the Solway might not have received sufficient notice of the proposals for the wind farm. We will be able to take further evidence from Cumbrian fishermen, and I have taken the opportunity to have a word with my former Westminster colleague, Jack Cunningham MP, on the subject. The constituency that he represents includes the Whitehaven area, and I have no doubt that his constituents might be worried about possible denial of access to the area around the wind farm. That is an important matter, which ought to be explored.
The third, and detailed, point concerns the case for what has been referred to as a sunset clause. I am assured that the sun does occasionally rise and set over the Solway—although I am not sure whether it does in mid-winter. It is important that there be proper provision for the removal not only of the turbines, but of their foundations, whenever the wind farm stops operation—if indeed it is established.
There are genuine concerns over the obstruction of navigation and fishing and over final clearance for the site. On the other hand, there may be major advantages to the generation of electricity from the forces of nature in the Solway firth and elsewhere in Scotland. I have no strong feelings about whether or not wind power is a good thing. I do not believe that it could offer a solution for all our energy needs, but it has considerable potential as a useful part of our wider energy strategy. It is right that the Scottish Executive and the Parliament are giving positive consideration to that option.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Parliament will agree to proceed with the bill and move it on to the next stage. If it does proceed, I look forward to hearing more evidence and to reaching conclusions in due course.
I draw members' attention to my very recently acquired interest—which is in the process of being registered—as the beneficiary of an option agreement with a wind farm developer in South Ayrshire.
Ah!
It was very recently acquired, and I should add that the true beneficiary was the solicitor who drew up the agreement, and who has nobbled 50 per cent of the sum that I received.
I commend the committee for the way in which it approached what is a new procedure. It certainly came as a great surprise to me to see witnesses having to take an oath. Judging by the whispered comments of a potential witness who was sitting just behind me, it obviously came as quite a surprise to him as well. Perhaps it is just as well that his comments were not picked up by the staff of the official report.
Although it may be true that the bill does not confer authority for the actual building of a wind farm or for the generation of electricity, and that the bill's purpose is simply to allow the developers to interfere with the public rights of navigation and fishing for the purposes of building and maintaining a wind farm, simply to rubber-stamp the bill's passage through the Parliament would be to mask the impact and the highly controversial nature of the project. Let me take a couple of minutes to highlight some of the issues.
As Tom McCabe rightly explained, the proposal is to develop two wind farms of 30 turbines each, which would result, obviously, in 60 turbines—each potentially the height of Blackpool tower—being erected slap-bang in the middle of the Solway firth. The development would be the biggest of its type in Europe.
Arguably, the nature of the location of the development is more inshore than offshore, despite what the bill's title suggests. Robin rigg is a large sandbank in the centre of the estuary. From a developer's point of view, the location is obviously highly economically attractive, because of the comparative ease of creating the wind farm's foundations on what is essentially a submerged island. The site is also highly attractive in other ways. Viewed from the northern, or Scottish, side, the backdrop is the Lake district national park in Cumbria. Viewed from the southern shores, the backdrop is an area of the Dumfries and Galloway coastline that has been designated as a national scenic area.
I have many arguments against the ever-increasing amount of land that is being designated for one reason or another, but surely those designations must mean something if they are to have a genuine impact. One farmer to whom I spoke, who farms on the coastline nearest to Robin rigg, was informed by the planners that he need not even think of applying for permission to develop a wind farm. He was told that, as his land was in the national scenic area, such a project would not even be considered. Therefore, it seems somewhat perverse to site 60 Blackpool towers exactly halfway between the national park and the national scenic area without the closest and most open of scrutiny.
There is also a deal of misinformation regarding the economic benefit that would accrue to the Dumfries and Galloway region. Various financial carrots are being dangled by the promoter, by way of a so-called community fund, but it is quite clear that the impact of the Robin rigg proposal on jobs and on-going economic regeneration will be minimal at best and almost certainly nil. All the work, as well as the electricity itself, will be dealt with from the southern shore at Maryport. The recipient of the substantial benefit of the proposal will be Cumbria, not Dumfries and Galloway.
Alasdair Morgan rightly drew attention to the jobs potential of renewable energy in Scotland, but that potential is not dependent on the approval of a specific proposal, as discussions with Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology Ltd and other companies have shown.
Is not the danger that, if the project were not approved, that would be seen as evidence of what would happen to future applications elsewhere? Developers would simply write off substantial parts, if not all, of Scotland as wind-farm unfriendly. The developers would simply take their projects elsewhere, with the result that other places would get the jobs and the manufacturing capability.
I do not believe so. The discussions that Peter Duncan—who is the MP for Alasdair Morgan's constituency—has held with Vestas and other companies tend to suggest that that is not the case. That is why I am keen to point out that the undoubted jobs potential of renewable energy does not depend on the Robin rigg proposal.
I have perhaps left my intervention a bit late, but I want to pick up the point that Alex Fergusson made about the scenic impact. I presume that many members present will have seen the photographs that the promoters have produced to show the extent to which the turbines would interfere with the sightlines from one side of the firth to the other. The interference is almost minimal. The turbines will look tiny on the horizon. That is shown in the photographs, which have been lodged with the Scottish Parliament information centre.
I would be happy to forward to Robin Harper further evidence that suggests that those images have been taken from some of the most advantageous points for showing the scenic impact of the turbines. All that I will say is that there is contention on that issue at present.
In conclusion, beyond the bill, there are quite serious economic and environmental issues to be discussed if the project is to proceed. Given the fact that the local authorities on both sides of the Solway have rejected the application, I must use this opportunity to urge the Executive to call in the proposal and to subject it to the full scrutiny of a public inquiry, which Alasdair Morgan would reject but which any project of this scale and nature surely merits. Nothing less than that will satisfy the reservations that many people in Dumfries and Galloway hold about the proposal.
My declared interest and my enthusiasm for another wind farm in Galloway, at Windy Standard, which is about to double in size, shows that I am not anti-wind farm per se. However, I share the reservations of many people in Galloway. Accordingly, I will vote against the bill today, as that is one of the few methods that is available to me to display my dissatisfaction with the proposal.
I apologise for missing the opening speech, but I had not calculated that the debate would start so early. I had a previous engagement to meet the school pupils who are in the public gallery at the moment.
Having studied the proposal in reasonable detail, I want to expand on the question that I asked Alex Fergusson about the sightlines across the firth. Mock-ups have been produced using good panoramic photographs on which the windmills have been superimposed according to scale, so that people can see where the turbines would be and how they would interfere with the sightlines. The point that Alex Fergusson made is not a strong argument at all.
Although I am keen to see the proposal go ahead, I want to lay down a marker for the future, by reminding the Executive that the Robin rigg proposal is so large that it will use up all the available room on the grid for transporting electricity from the Solway firth to the grid in England and Scotland. In other words—this may be some consolation to Alex Fergusson—there is no room on the grid for any further exploitation of offshore wind in the Solway firth area, unless the Government makes a substantial investment in improving the grid in the area. Those are the two main points that I wanted to make.
I should also mention that I wanted to be on the committee and to be much more closely involved in the proposal than has been possible. Obviously, because of the rules governing private bills, I was totally excluded from the possibility of taking part at an early stage. I will vote for the bill at decision time and give it as much assistance as I can in the future.
We move to closing speeches. As we are a bit ahead of time, I anticipate that we will suspend this meeting of Parliament at about 12.15 or 12.20.
I should make it clear that I speak in my capacity as a South of Scotland MSP, not as a Conservative party spokesman.
I commend Mr McCabe and his committee for their professionalism and for the way in which they conducted their inquiry in Dumfries. Anyone who did not know the surrounding circumstances would not have known that the meeting was the first time that the Parliament had dealt with a private bill. The way in which the meeting was handled was a great credit to the Parliament. It was positive that the committee went to Dumfries and it will be even more positive when it goes to Kirkcudbright, where it may see slightly more people who are of the same view as Mr Fergusson.
I want to compare the impact on Dumfries and Galloway of this major and controversial project with that of another energy project. Such a comparison provides a telling insight into the discussions about the impact of the creation of energy on the local economy. The Chapelcross nuclear power station at Annan employs some 500 people and puts some £18 million into the local economy. Since the station opened in 1959, it has contributed enormously to the economy of Dumfries and Galloway and has employed many people. Chapelcross has been a positive asset for Dumfries and Galloway.
The Robin rigg developers are asking Dumfries and Galloway to take all the pain of the intrusion and the environmental and other issues that have not been resolved, yet no gain to Dumfries and Galloway has been demonstrated if it takes the project on.
I ask the member to raise his horizons a little and consider the potential jobs impact on all Scotland if we were to release the potential 25,000MW that could be generated by offshore wind. We have to get away from the parochial views that are taken in Scotland. I recognise that there are real considerations in Dumfries and Galloway and that some of the issues are difficult, but somewhere along the line Scotland will have to take a lead if it is going to get that jobs bonanza. Does Mr Mundell not want us to share in that jobs bonanza?
Of course I want us to share in the jobs bonanza. I also want us to share in the jobs bonanza that further nuclear development can bring to Scotland—development that Mr Crawford regularly speaks out against. He does not have an interest in people in that industry. I will not take any lectures from Mr Crawford on commitment to jobs.
As Mr Fergusson made clear, and as Peter Duncan MP has found in his research, the future of wind farm and offshore development in Scotland is not dependent on the Robin rigg project going ahead. The project must be assessed on its merits; we will not just accept it and allow it to go ahead under any circumstances. That is a ludicrous suggestion.
Wind is an important element of energy generation, but there should be a balanced portfolio of energy generation in which nuclear power can play a part. I am quite clear that Dumfries and Galloway would benefit more from the development of a new nuclear site at Chapelcross following the closure of the existing nuclear power station than from the Robin rigg development, from which, as I have outlined, the area would receive virtually no benefit.
I hope that the UK Government will finally come off the fence in its energy review and say that it is committed to further nuclear development. Those of us who support such development will then be able to rally round those who are making proposals for new developments such as a second reactor at Chapelcross nuclear power station. We know that we will be opposed by the SNP, because its anti-nuclear stance is quite clear. That is fine and people know and understand where the SNP stands on the issue. However, we need the UK Government and the Scottish Executive to be a bit more clear about their support for nuclear energy.
Will the member clarify for members the Conservative party in Scotland's policy on a nuclear waste repository and its current plans to deal with the nuclear waste that we already have in Scotland?
The member was once the minister responsible for the environment, so she well knows that the nuclear waste issue is important and requires to be resolved. I face up to that. However, the issue must still be considered in the context of nuclear generation of energy. Nuclear power contributes and will continue to contribute largely to Scotland's energy needs.
That is my position on the development.
What position? I did not hear the member mention a position.
I am totally opposed to the Robin rigg development and I will vote against it to register my view. I hope that the Scottish Executive will be in favour of holding a public inquiry and hearing people's legitimate concerns.
I congratulate the promoters. They have prepared and demonstrated their material positively. However, despite taking pictures from the most advantageous spots and giving tea and coffee at the meetings in Kirkcudbright, it is a hard sell. The promoters have a great deal to do to persuade the public in Dumfries and Galloway that the measure is positive. I hope that it will be rejected.
I will pick up on some of the things that David Mundell said.
We have to face reality as far as Chapelcross is concerned. Chapelcross produces 190MW of electricity for the national grid. The proposed wind farm would produce 200MW. Chapelcross was built to produce tritium for nuclear weapons—that is its origins. I have no doubt that it has provided employment in the past—no one can deny that—but the reality is that British Energy is getting a £650 million Government handout to enable the nuclear industry to continue. Anyone who cannot see the future of nuclear energy is living in a past that should have been buried a long time ago, along with the waste.
Scotland has the potential to become Europe's green energy powerhouse. Although I am beginning to doubt the commitment of the Conservative party, members from all parties seem to accept that much of our future electricity needs will be met by using the massive potential of renewable energy. We have 25 per cent of Europe's potential for renewable energy.
I referred earlier to a report produced for the Scottish Executive by Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd a couple of years ago. It indicated that a potential 59,000MW could be produced from renewable energy sources. Of that, 11,500MW would come from onshore wind; the capacity of offshore wind is 25,000MW. The potential is massive.
If Scotland is to meet the Executive target of approximately 40 per cent of production coming from renewable resources by 2020, or the SNP's target of 50 per cent, large advances will be required in producing energy from offshore wind. That does not mean that this particular application should get the green light; it must be scrutinised properly, and that is why we will have a real debate later, once Tom McCabe and his committee have considered the proposal further. They have done a great job with the detailed information that has been presented and in explaining the complexity of the issue.
The legislation is very technical. I pick up on something that Alasdair Morgan said. I am concerned about the incredible complexity and many layers of legislative procedure that proposed developers are required to navigate. As I have said, I am grateful to the committee for producing such a lot of detail and for the comprehensive report that it has produced. However, as the report describes, not only are the promoters required to introduce private legislation to seek authority to interfere with the public rights of navigation and fishing, they are also required to seek consents from the Scottish ministers under a number of legal provisions. Those are section 39 of the Electricity Act 1989, section 5 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. Also, because aspects of the development would cut across the border, there are requirements under legislation for England and Wales.
If we are serious about releasing Scotland's renewable energy potential, it cannot be right that a promoter is required to introduce private legislation at the same time as having to apply for consents under three other pieces of legislation. Although I understand that there are sound reasons for such consents, and the details must be examined, there must be a way to sweep away some of the unnecessary bureaucracy and rationalise what appears to be a burdensome process for the promoter.
Yes, the promoters have to jump through hoops, but can we not bring the hoops together to make one basket and take a more single-door approach, rather than having such a spread of legislative requirements? I do not know whether it is in the minister's competence to address that through existing Scottish Parliament legislation, or whether something would require to be done at Westminster, but a more focused approach is certainly needed.
We have heard about the number of jobs that are supported by nuclear power. In Scotland, 1,500 jobs are supported by nuclear power, but Denmark got at least 14,000 jobs out of its wind energy potential. Another thing that we need to look forward to is the Executive introducing a green job strategy that will enable the industry, developers, local authorities, central Government and various quangos to come together in a focused and cohesive way to map out a strategy for Scotland for wind farm development. It is essential that we have a review of both offshore and onshore planning, so that development can be more proactive, rather than led by developers, and so that issues that cause conflict in communities can be resolved a lot earlier.
Local authorities should be asked to draw up advisory plans for their areas and they should be able to say clearly, after consultation with their communities, where they will allow wind farms and where they will not allow them. That would give us a process to speed up the number of applications that will come through. We should also have a process that speeds up what appears to me to be the burdensome and cumbersome process when a developer seeks consent. I hope that when the Executive sums up, as well as reflect on what has been said about the technical nature of the bill, it will consider the wider aspects. I am glad to be involved in the debate.
Colin Campbell will wind up the debate on behalf of the committee.
I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate and who made positive contributions, albeit that members did not always agree with one another. As has been said, the debate is historic, being the first of its kind in the Scottish Parliament. As a former history teacher, I find it interesting to be a small footnote in history. Unlike Robin Harper, who volunteered to be a member of the committee, I arrived on it by courtesy of d'Hondt, which got me the position of deputy convener.
Many positive comments have been made. I was fascinated by the minister's explanation of Bismarck's view on sausages. I much prefer Bismarck's view that any good man should have 12 cigars a day and a bottle of champagne. That seems to put a more positive gloss on food than the one that the minister articulated.
Alasdair Morgan talked about the bill's competency, with which he was happy. He recognised that the precautionary principle was an important part of the bill and saw the way ahead through further negotiation. Already our experience is that those involved are interested in negotiating rather than just sitting entrenched in difficult and impossible positions. Jamie McGrigor touched on the exclusion zones. Discovering that the artillery range at Dundrennan is not an exclusion zone but is designated only as an area to be avoided was a fascinating learning experience. I presume that, technically, if someone had a screw loose, they could sail into that area and risk being hit by depleted uranium shells, which would go right through fragile craft.
John Home Robertson referred to the legitimate concerns about fishing, navigation and clearance of the site. It is fair to say that Alex Fergusson, Robin Harper, David Mundell and Bruce Crawford got fairly political and went off the main point of the bill, which is restricted to navigation and fishing rights, but their contributions were good fun and, after all, an election is coming along shortly. Members might not have noticed that, but I had.
It is right that the issue of competency was raised, because the Maritime and Coastguard Agency also raised it. The Presiding Officer decreed that the bill was competent. Without that, we could not have gone ahead. How could we have defied him? The Maritime and Coastguard Agency also raised the issue of the bill's legislative competence, on the ground that navigation rights are reserved in head E3 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, entitled "Marine transport". However, one of the exceptions is:
"Regulation of works which may obstruct or endanger navigation."
Conveniently, navigation is undefined in the 1998 act and the effect of the reservation is open to interpretation. The reservation is about navigation rights and freedom and how they are exercised generally, while the bill is about a local construction site and a wind farm.
At the consideration stage, we will discuss a number of points, which Tom McCabe outlined. The clearance between the lowest point of a rotating blade and the top of a boat's mast is important. A sailor lost in fog or a high wind would be genuinely concerned about that and the issue must be addressed. Navigational risk to merchant and fishing vessels was dealt with in a risk assessment exercise, but the risk to leisure craft does not appear to have been considered.
The impact of the wind farm on global positioning satellites and radar was mentioned because there is a possibility that there might be areas of shadow in which it is impossible to pick up radar information or in which GPS systems will be interfered with. During the consideration stage, we hope to go through those points and a number of others, as well as the various objections and reservations that were raised by the Royal Yachting Association, the Solway Yacht Club and the Solway Shell-Fishermen's Association.
There was a late objection from south of the Border, which we accepted on the basis that, however much the issue might have featured in newspapers at large, the requirement to submit objections by a certain date did not appear to have been advertised south of the border and also because we are of generous nature and willing to take on board anyone's objections, however late they may be—although we would probably not accept them if they were made later than today.
I thank the promoters for the high quality of the documents that they provided. Robin Harper assures us that the towers look very small from a distance on the panoramic pictures and a video has also been produced to enable us to see the blades revolving from various angles. Good material is available to anyone who wants to lay their hands on it.
I thank the witnesses who came to Dumfries to talk to the committee. The meeting was valuable. Because we were all chosen for our relative or total ignorance about matters relating to fishing and navigation, and because we are all capable of being objective and neutral on the other issues that are involved, it was useful to have the difficulties explained to us in detail by people who have an intimate knowledge of the area. I think that the exercise was one of mutual education.
I thank all the members who have taken part in today's debate and welcome the additional points that have been raised. I reiterate Tom McCabe's thanks to the committee members and to the staff who support the committee, particularly the security staff who looked after us in Dumfries—I did not think for a minute that we were in any real danger, but it was nice to have them there.
I commend the motion to the Parliament and hope that all members support it.