---

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Does the Minister agree that if those polls are correct, and local people in areas where wind farms are proposed are as much in favour as he suggests, there will be no problem whatsoever in allowing them the final say on whether they have them?

Mr. O'Brien: The short-term political advantage that the hon. Gentleman is hoping to garner may turn out not to be as great as he thinks. As I said—obviously he was not listening—where applications are being made people may have concerns, which are sometimes no doubt stirred up by Conservative MPs for short-term political advantage. It is worth noting, however, that where wind farms are already in place, the figures that we have seen suggest that most people like them—80 per cent. do, and 20 per cent. do not.

We need to ensure that we develop other technologies. The Government are not only supporting onshore wind energy—we have also made funding available to bring forward emerging technologies with the potential to
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1223
 
make a contribution in the longer term. We have announced more than £0.5 billion pounds of support for emerging technologies since 2002. That includes £117 million for offshore wind energy. The potential exists for the UK to be a world leader in the field of offshore wind energy. Last year was a record year for onshore wind energy, with eight offshore consents being approved. We expect all the currently consented sites to be built by 2010. Proposals have been accepted for 15 sites, which, taken together, could supply up to 7 per cent. of our electricity. The second round of onshore programmes paves the way for the biggest expansion of renewable energy yet seen. Perhaps 3.5 per cent. of that will come on stream by 2010.

Richard Ottaway: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I have been generous. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I have a bit more to say and do not want to take as long as his Front-Bench spokesman.

The Government are also providing support of the order of £100 million for bioenergy. That support benefits facilities ranging from 40 MW power stations to household micro-generation schemes. Earlier this month, the Government announced a new biomass taskforce to stimulate biomass supply and demand. It is to be led by Sir Ben Gill, the former president of the National Farmers Union.

Wave energy and tidal stream technology have the potential to supply a significant proportion of our energy needs. Those technologies are still at the pre-commercial prototype phase, but the UK is currently a world leader in their development. In August, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the £50 million marine renewables deployment fund to help speed the commercialisation of wave and tidal power.

Last month, I announced that schools, houses and commercial buildings will benefit from £8.5 million of extra new funding to encourage more energy production from solar panels and small-scale renewables. That brings the Government's commitment to solar photovoltaic—PV—to £31 million since 2002. It also increases support for the use of small-scale renewables in households and communities through the £12.5 million clear skies programme and its Scottish equivalent.

We are also developing a broad-based strategy on micro-generation that goes out to consultation next year. There are many potential jobs here, with 8,000 jobs in renewables so far and 35,000 likely in future. For example, Romag, a company from Leadgate, provides the public screens here in the Chamber and PV solar tiles for people's homes.

I have gone through a list of the funding that we are providing, yet the last Conservative Government cut support to the renewables industry to the bone in order to fund their tax cuts. The Conservatives have made it clear that they want more tax cuts. Will they commit themselves to matching Labour's funding of renewables budgets? Will they forgo tax cuts to keep up the programme of investment if they ever come into office? I very much doubt it.
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1224
 

The Government have taken positive steps to expand renewables, but the Conservatives cut funding. The Government have provided national leadership on renewables, but the Conservatives have played nimby politics. The Government have put in place action to meet the Kyoto targets—and we will meet them—but although the Conservatives claim to support renewables in principle, they oppose key elements of the way in which we will meet the targets in practice. The climate change levy funds renewables research, but the Conservatives would take away such funding by removing the levy. The Government have put £117 million into offshore wind energy, but the Conservatives have given no commitment to new funding. The Government have put in place a planning process that gives local people the right to have their say and also allows the national interest on renewables to be heard, but the Conservatives ignore the national interest on energy. The Government have committed funding to renewables—£60 million for biomass, £31 million for photovoltaic and £50 million for wave and tidal power—but the Conservatives cut research funding in the past and would do so in the future to pay for tax cuts.

Onshore wind farms are an essential part of renewables and any party that fails to appreciate that cannot claim to be taken seriously as a party of national government. I say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk, in the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious".

8.11 pm

Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): I was looking forward to participating in a debate on climate change during the Conservatives' Opposition day last Monday. Unfortunately, the debate was pulled, but I expected it to be reinstated this week. Instead of a debate about the serious issue of climate change, however, we are having a debate that represents an attack on wind farms, although they are one of the ways in which climate change may be tackled. In the period of eight days, the Conservatives have displayed inconsistency and opportunism.

Richard Ottaway: When last week's debate was announced, the hon. Gentleman issued a press release that accused the Conservatives of tarmacking over Britain. May I remind him that the Liberal Democrats supported the dualling of the A11 and the A120 and the widening of the A27? They also championed the construction of the Newbury and Batheaston bypasses. Does that not—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I fail to see the relevance of that point to the present debate.

Norman Baker: Your view on that point is echoed throughout the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To be fair, we are having a debate of sorts on the environment today, and at least the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) is in the Chamber, unlike his opposite number. The Secretary of State is scrupulously absent, as she always is when we have environment debates in the House. I am not sure which country she is in tonight, but I hope that she will do us the honour of turning up to the House of Commons occasionally.
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1225
 

We need a consensus on climate change, but I am afraid that both the Conservative motion and the Government amendment are motivated more by rubbishing the other side than by suggesting a sensible way forward. The motion seemed vaguely attractive, although it was inaccurate in one or two respects, but the way in which it was presented was as thin as gruel, and the combative approach adopted by the hon. Member for South Suffolk showed that he was more interested in scoring political points than in dealing with the serious problem of climate change.

It is strange and regrettable that although the Conservatives say that they are interested in climate change, they are apparently happy to endorse the views of Professor David Bellamy, who said on 9 July:

"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers, and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."

That man shared a platform shortly afterwards with the leader of the Conservative party, which suggests that it was more important for the party opportunistically to find someone with vague environmental credentials who was opposed to wind farms than to deal with the important problem of climate change.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) mentioned roads and the "tarmac Tories" throughout the country. It is a fact that the hon. Member for South Suffolk said at the Tory party conference:

"To tackle congestion, I'll expand the road network".

However, that would not help to solve the problem of carbon emission. An answer has come back about cleaner vehicles, which we all support, but that was not a response to the point that was made.

The Conservative party's approach is inconsistent. It says that it wants to tackle climate change and to address real issues, but its proposals and policies run counter to that objective. That is true of their policies on both roads and energy. The party says that it is in favour of wind farms, but opposes them in every location in which they are proposed.

---