---

Mark Tami: Although I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the Tories, does he agree that the Liberals have exactly the same record on that issue?

Norman Baker: No, and if the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall list the occasions on which the Liberal Democrats have supported proposals for wind farms throughout the country, because we do that regularly. We are doing what I assume the Conservatives want us to do, judging by the speech made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk. We judge each application on its merits, so we support many applications and oppose one or two that are inconsistent with local planning guidance. The Conservatives advocate such a policy, so it is a bit rich of them to knock other parties that adopt it.

The motion cites the Conservative party's well-founded and proper regret that only 2.7 per cent. of energy comes from renewable sources. It is a disgrace that the figure is so low. We are blessed with the potential for renewable energy, whether that is produced by wave, tidal or wind power, or from other
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1226
 
sources such as biomass or perhaps even geothermal energy from underneath Cornwall, but we have not exploited that potential in any way. I must say that although the present Government have done little to increase the amount of renewable energy produced, that is because they inherited such a low base in 1997. Neither the Conservative nor the Labour party comes out of the situation with any credit.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the list of methods of producing renewable energy in the future that he provided would all fall under the 50kW measure, so they would all, in principle, be subject to local decision making prior to an inquiry? Does he agree that if the Conservatives had their way, it would be virtually impossible to introduce any form of renewable energy in a systematic and planned manner to meet renewables targets?

Norman Baker: I think that that would be the outcome. I am afraid that evidence from throughout the country shows that the Conservatives oppose any innovations on renewables, although they pretend to support renewable energy. The policy of absolute local determination might be appropriate if sensible local politicians were to approach the matter apolitically, but that is not the case at present, so we must consider the overall national interest as well as local interest.

Gregory Barker: Just to be clear, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he opposes local people having a say about installations in their communities?

Norman Baker: Certainly not. We favour a presumption from central Government in favour of wind farms, but that would not take away an appropriate level of local determination. A similar arrangement applies to mobile phone masts. There is a presumption in favour of development, but local people may have their say so that applications can be blocked as and when. The alternative systems would be either national diktat or local determination that could stop everything, which seems to be the Conservative party's policy, but neither would be in the national interest.

Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con): The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the Liberal Democrats supported wind turbine applications where they considered them appropriate. Which applications have they supported in constituencies that are represented by Liberal Democrat Members?

Norman Baker: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to make some progress, which I shall now try to do after taking many interventions, I shall come on to that.

The motion refers to a worry that has its basis in fact: an over-reliance on onshore wind farms. I say to the Minister, in a friendly and genuine way, that the Department of Trade and Industry has identified wind, and especially onshore wind, as the aspect on which greatest progress may be made most quickly. That might be right, but the downside is that insufficient attention is being paid to other possible renewable energy sources. They might be getting £30 million here, or £50 million there, but they are being squeezed out,
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1227
 
and insufficient attention is focused on them. The Government must widen their basket of renewable energy and give more help to alternative sources. They should do that now, rather than when wind power is well established, so that the schemes may progress in parallel. That would be my major criticism of the Government's renewable energy policy, to which I hope that the Minister will respond.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with care and agree with much of it. I agree that we need to resource the development of other renewables, but if we are to hit the target for 2010, wind will be the main way of doing that: about 3 per cent. could come from other sources, and about 7 to 8 per cent. from wind. Does he not accept that only half at most of that could be offshore wind, and that onshore wind must therefore be developed?

Norman Baker: Of course I accept that onshore wind must be developed—if that was not clear from my remarks, I am happy to put it on the record now—but what I also accept is that there is potential for wave power, tidal power and other sources of renewable energy, which are not being developed at the necessary speed because the Government are keeping their eye almost exclusively on wind power. I am seeking to correct that in Government policy.

I have a fear—I am not a conspiracy theorist by nature—that Government energy policy is not quite the same as the DTI's energy policy, and that Ministers' views are not always reflected in the legislation drawn up by officials. If the Minister had been present during consideration of the Energy Bill, he would have found it interesting to compare the statements honestly and forthrightly made by his predecessor, who is now the Financial Secretary, with the terms of the Bill, which do not deliver what he was saying he wanted. A large body of opinion in the DTI is wholly in favour of nuclear power, to a far greater degree than Ministers are. The Minister ought to watch that, as he may have been given information that will help the recreation of nuclear power in years to come rather than renewables. It would be convenient for some people—I am not thinking of DTI officials at this moment—for renewables to be strangled. If onshore wind, which is up there in lights, can be discredited totally, renewables can also be discredited as a consequence. That is a very dangerous outcome, which we must try to avoid. That is why politicking on this matter is reprehensible.

Gregory Barker: I find myself very much in agreement with the hon. Gentleman that if onshore wind is discredited the whole renewables agenda will suffer. Is not that the very reason that we must avoid forcing onshore wind into totally inappropriate sites, as the Government are trying to do, such as—to return to it again—Romney marsh?

Norman Baker: I do not wish to comment on Romney marsh, but there is a middle course between the exploitation of the issue for political purposes, in which I fear that some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are indulging, and railroading through, which some people
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1228
 
wish to do. Neither of those helps wind power or renewable energy. The sensible course is to put in place a policy process to which people can sign up, in which they have confidence, and which will deliver a significant increase in renewable energy in this country from onshore wind and other sources.

David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): I have been a lifelong opponent of nuclear power, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that renewables, no matter how optimistic we are about them, will not fill the gap that we are approaching? Security of energy is becoming the biggest issue facing us all, irrespective of which party we represent. If I can change my position and begin to consider such an option, surely that is the way forward. Security of energy must be the criterion that we all work towards.

Norman Baker: I agree that security of energy is important, but I do not agree that nuclear energy is the answer. We have just passed an Energy Bill that commits £48 billion of public money to clear up the mess that we already have. Imagine what we could do with £48 billion to spend on renewable energy—we would have 100 per cent. renewable energy in this country with that money. We have an ever-increasing mountain of intermediate and high-level waste, and no one knows what to do with it. There is no answer to that, and it is irresponsible to build that up further for future generations. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that a policy of energy efficiency—on which the Government need to do far more—and renewables development, plus, I suggest to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), some investment for the long term in clean coal technology, as we have hundreds of years of coal supplies under the ground, may be the way forward, rather than nuclear. Nuclear has too many uncertainties and question marks against it for us to proceed down that road.

Furthermore, variability of supply is an issue with regard to wind power. Obviously, wind stops and starts, so it is not like a coal-fired or oil-fired power station, and the grid capacity that wind can produce must be limited by that variability, but it is also the case, according to a report from Germany—the 2004 wind report by e.on—that the impact on the grid from wind power is detrimental and requires further investment above and beyond that which was expected. Germany has a heavier reliance on wind power than other countries. Has the Minister seen that report, and if so, will he comment on it?

The visual impact of wind turbines is a subjective issue—some people think that they look attractive, whereas others find them horrendous. I find it difficult to understand how people can object to wind turbines when they are quite happy with pylons all over the country. One of the problems with the current wind power proposals is that they concentrate on areas of population that are often a long way from the centres where the power is expected to be used. We must develop further a close relationship between the location of turbines and the populations where the wind power will be used. That is important not simply to minimise transmission losses and to avoid strings of pylons, but so
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1229
 
that local communities have ownership of the turbines and feel that they belong to them, rather than that they have been imposed on them.

---