Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman talks about a lot of problems that we might face, but does he agree that many of them are a result of the way in which the industry was privatised by the Conservative Government?
Mr. Yeo: No, I do not accept that.
The truth is that Ministers are playing fast and loose with our future energy supply needs. They are banking on the chance that the damage that their reckless approach will cause will not occur until they have moved on to new pastures. Amazingly, their approach to renewables does nothing to deal with the problems of security that I have described.
The White Paper set extremely challenging targets for the proportion of Britain's energy that was to be derived from renewable sources, even though in their first three years in office the Labour Government failed to meet the renewable energy target for 2000 that was set by the previous Government. The Conservatives believe that it is crucial that Britain produce more energy from renewable sources. We believe that for environmental reasons, as well as for the reasons relating to security of supply that I have just outlined. Precisely because we believe that so strongly, we are horrified by Labour's approach to renewables, which can be summed up as onshore wind, and nothing else, and which involves forcing local communities throughout Britain to accept onshore wind farms, regardless of how damaging their environmental impact may be on the neighbourhood.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con):
My concern is the fly-by-night, paper nature of many of the companies, which simply spatter applications all over the countryside and sell on planning permissions, churning up a great deal of angst in local communities. Should we not take a more co-ordinated approach, perhaps via public inquiries? We have to accept that an
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1214
honest debate is needed and that we can never meet all our needs from wind farms without ruining the environment. We have to accept the nuclear option.
Mr. Yeo: I am certainly in favour of an honest debate. I know that my hon. Friend will make a wise and positive contribution to such a debate, if we are allowed to have it.
Of all the available renewable energy technologies, onshore wind is the least reliable and therefore the least suitable for a country where security of supply is an urgent issue. The problem of intermittency is real: consumers who use electricity generated by onshore wind need an alternative and reliable source of power for those days when the wind does not blowand, indeed, for those days when it blows too hard. Our second objection to the technology is that the siting of an onshore wind farm has a major, often negative, environmental impact on the areavisually and in terms of noise, and sometimes in terms of the consequences for wildlife. It is almost beyond belief that on an island, with all the potential that that offers for offshore wind, tidal and wave power, and in a country where, partly through the Government's own blunders, agriculture is struggling and farmers would benefit from new crops, almost all the Government's support for renewable energy is targeted at onshore wind. Sadly, however, that is the effect of the present operation of the renewables obligation.
If Britain exploited its natural advantages in offshore technologies, we might become a world leader, with all the commercial benefits that that could bring. If we offered users of biodiesel and bioethanol more favourable rates of duty, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), demand would grow. As the market would be a new one, it is doubtful that even the Treasury would lose, because a cut in the rate of duty really could lead to an increase in the yield, so that revenue would grow, not fall. Microgeneration is another way in which we can increase the use of renewables, but if the potential contribution from that source is to be fully realised, changes are needed to the way in which the transmission and distribution networks are funded.
Another of our concerns centres on the way in which onshore wind farms are being imposed on local communities and in unsuitable places, despite strong local opposition, which is often based on sound environmental grounds. This might be the right moment to make it crystal clear that the Conservative party is neither opposed in principle to onshore wind farms, nor opposed in practice to every proposal for an onshore wind farm. We believe that onshore wind will have a role to playbut as part of a mix of renewable energy sources. Individually, wind farms must be situated in places where there is a reasonable degree of acceptance by the local community. At present, a worryingly large number of proposals fail that test. The result is that the case for renewable energy itself is starting to get a bad name in some places.
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo:
No. I am sorry.
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1215
Take the case of the Vale of White Horse in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). There is a proposal near Watchfield, where local people are opposed to the erection of five turbines almost 100 m high. They are lucky to have Ed Veizey to champion their cause locally. Planning policy statement 22 requests local authorities to set their own criteria for the minimum separation distances between different types of renewable energy projects and existing developments.
When the Minister responds, will he say in general terms what he believes is acceptable in terms of minimum distances? In the Vale of White Horse, there is a facility nearby for autistic children, who might be disturbed by the noise, the strobing and the low frequency sound produced by the turbines.
Moving further west, I am advised by Ashley Gray, an effective campaigner who is working to protect the landscape, and by Mrs. Caroline Jackson MEP, that planning applications threaten a number of landscapes in the west country. Going north, in Rossendale and Darwen, on Scout moor, an area of outstanding national beauty, there is another application for 26 turbines, 100 m high, with a footprint of more than 130,000 sq m. Eight miles of road will have to be built on the moor for this project, which will create a total of just four jobs. I am glad that Nigel Adams is fighting the cause.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con): If I may say so, my hon. Friend is making a compelling speech. I hesitate to draw him back to the choppy waters of nuclear energy. As he has not altogether ruled out nuclear energy as a possibility and he is talking about a mix, what sort of local resistance does he anticipate facing in the event of wanting to build new nuclear power stations all over the countryside? Is he concerned not only about costs and waste but with the issue of safety?
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend, who performs a distinguished role as Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee and who has contributed to these debates on a number of occasions, raises an important point. As it happens, I think that the most recent nuclear power station to be built in this country was at Sizewell, in the constituency next door to mine. I am quite familiar with the current debate. I represented south Thurrock when that debate was taking place. I am aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend suggests may be raised. Indeed, they will be. I have no doubt that if a proposal for a new nuclear power station was to come forward in any constituency, there would be a considerable local debate and a lot of controversy.
In the case of Sizewell, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I and others were able, I think, to allay the concerns that were expressed. The power station has operated perfectly satisfactorily with benefit to the local economy, and so on. It would take some time to meet concerns. Issues about the environment and the cost would have to be addressed, and I would need to be convinced. Rightly, my hon. Friend also raises the issue of safety. I recognise
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1216
that that would be a bigger and perhaps more controversial issue than even a wind farm. Nevertheless, I hope that in the end local people would see the issue on its merits and that the outcome would be a rational one, but it is not for me to prejudge what may or may not happen.
Mr. Yeo: No, I will not give way. I have already been speaking for nearly half an hour. I wish to mention some other urgent local issues.
In north Devon, Orlando Fraser has told me about the concerns of local people over the planning application for Fullebrook Down for 22 turbines each more than 360 ft tall. Later this week I shall be visiting Herefordshire, where my good friend Virginia Taylor will explain to me the work of the friends of the Golden Valley group, who are fightingI am glad to say that they are doing so successfully, so faragainst a huge and wholly inappropriate wind farm. There are many other applications that I could mention. For example, there are the proposals for Romney Marsh, which are being opposed by no less a person than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition. There is a proposal for a wind farm near the A14 at Boxworth in South Cambridgeshire. It is opposed by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).
In each of these cases local opinion faces the prospect of being ignored by Ministers. The residents in each of the places that I have mentioned, and in other places similarly threatened, will be looking carefully at what the Minister says this evening. If, as I suspect, they will find little to comfort them, I am happy to take this chance to make it clear that the next Conservative Government will withdraw PPS 22 and will replace it with planning guidance that strengthens rather than weakens the role of local authorities in determining the siting of renewable energy projects.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |