| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, and the hon. Gentleman has had his say.
If we are to achieve anything approaching the 10 per cent. target by primarily using onshore wind farms, which is the most likely situation, we will need between 6,000 and 7,000 2-MW turbines. We currently have about 1,000 onshore turbines, so we would need about six times as many. That would mean that few parts of our green and pleasant land would be far from a wind farm, which is exactly what worries many of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). It would be awful if large parts of Hardy country were covered by what most dispassionate observers would describe as pretty ugly installations. Almost no one likes wind farms, although their initial impact is such that some people like them to begin with. A passage from "The War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells describes the Martian invaders as
"Monstrous tripods . . . striding over the young pine trees, and smashing them aside in its career; a walking engine of glittering steel, striding now across the heather; articulate ropes of steel dangling from it, and the clattering tumult of its passage mingling with the riot of thunder".
Those words of 100 years ago describe the average wind farm today equally well.
I must admit that wind farms have a certain majesty. I spend my holidays at Delabole in north Cornwall, but while it is amusing for a week or two, I would not want to live there. Many of the people who have spoken, particularly Opposition Members but also the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who made a
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1250
memorable contribution, have made precisely that point. Many people pay lip service to wind farms, but do we want them next door to us? Precious few people would say yes.
Wind farms may have consequences for human health—I admit that, as yet, those are ill-researched—with worrying reports of increased headaches in their vicinity, particularly in Cornwall. There are also clear risks for wildlife, especially migratory birds and bats. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, for example, has objected to a total of 52 wind farm applications, even though it is in favour of wind farms, including the ridiculous application to build 26 turbines on Romney marsh, to which various hon. Friends have referred.
No matter how enthusiastic one might be for renewable energy, no one can deny that there are significant environmental downsides to wind farms. No one who has spoken on either side of the debate today could deny that a large environmental price is attached to having wind farms anywhere near us. It would be an environmental catastrophe for our green and pleasant land were we to seek to achieve an unduly large amount of our renewables obligation from onshore wind.
There is not only a big downside but a relatively small upside. Sometimes, the enthusiasts in this debate make it sound as if wind power is a fantastic solution, and that it will be the answer to climate change. Of course, it is important that our motion mentions climate change, which was obviously not noticed by our friends the Liberal Democrats, who claimed that it did not. It is all about climate change, and sometimes people who are enthusiastic on the subject make it sound as if wind is the be-all and end-all of their energy and renewables policy, but the truth of the matter is that wind farms, whether onshore or offshore, simply do not add up. They are effective only 27 to 28 per cent. of the year, sometimes there is too little wind, and occasionally there is too much, and they must be switched off as a result. They require lines of pylons, often to remote and beautiful areas, to connect them to the grid. As the Government's record so far demonstrates, they go nowhere at all towards providing the renewables obligation.
By contrast, Her Majesty's Opposition strongly support the obligation but believe that it can be achieved only by a basket of renewable sources: solar, wave and tidal, hydro, offshore wind, as well as biofuels and biomass—very important but not even mentioned in the Minister's speech. The Labour party has put all its renewables in one basket—onshore wind farms—and will fail to achieve its targets and the hopeless aspiration in the White Paper of 20 per cent. as a result.
The Opposition of course are by no means opposed to onshore wind farms, and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar gave a good example of how they would fit in extremely well in her constituency. We are by no means opposed overall to onshore wind farms in their correct place. When I raised the matter with the Minister during his speech, he claimed that all the polls demonstrate that people are strongly in favour of onshore wind farms—
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gray:
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have only a minute to go.
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1251
If the Minister is correct in saying that 70 or 80 per cent. of people across England are in favour of wind farms, he need not fear local opinion, but the fact that he has had to reissue planning policy statement 22 shows plainly that he does. We believe that the new PPS22 slants the planning presumption against local people and in favour of national decision making, and in favour of the developer, to which we are wholly opposed. We would take an early opportunity to redraft PPS22 to give the local people the ability to decide on whether they want a local—
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gray: I am afraid that I cannot.
That would give local people the ability to decide whether they want a wind farm. There should be no presumption that that decision will be overturned on appeal, and no presumption in favour of wind energy. There should be a presumption in favour of local decisions. Were that to mean an end to the massive expansion of what I believe to be absolutely hideous wind farms—[Interruption.] I am not ashamed to say that they are hideous. I challenge any hon. Member here to say he loves them. Of course they are hideous, but the question is whether we want them.
If that presumption means an end to the massive expansion of these hideous wind farms, to be replaced by other forms of renewable energy, so be it. If we seek to save the global environment by achieving our 10 per cent. renewables target through onshore wind farms alone, it is our belief that the damage to our rural environment will be greater than any advantage we gain from it. Most green initiatives involve some kind of balance. It is our view that the Government have allowed the renewables balance to tip too far in favour of onshore wind farms, and I commend the motion to the House.
9.50 pm
The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am not altogether clear where the Conservatives are coming from on this issue. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) says that wind farms have their role in relation to renewable energy, and indeed they do, and then the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) talks basically about hideous killer alien wind farms from outer space, which does not strike me as a balanced view of the role of wind farms. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire quoted fiction. I always thought his speeches were complete fiction. I think that he proved it tonight. I will come back to some of those points in a moment, but I want to deal with some of the other points that were made. We heard a range of reasonable speeches. Hon. Members have made some fair points.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) pointed out that, sadly, opportunism underpins the motion. This was an opportunity for a sensible debate on some serious issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is knowledgeable on energy from his time in opposition,
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1252
talked about the range of issues in relation to wind farms. He talked about the impact on property prices, but according to work by bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the impact is more perception than reality. RICS did not find any impact on property prices where wind farms have been erected.
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) made an extremely good speech, which was well balanced; he said that it was agnostic. He talked about the number of turbines that may be needed. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned the figure of 6,000. It depends on the balance between onshore and offshore. Wind turbines generally are getting larger and more efficient, particularly the offshore ones, so it is wrong to cite such figures.
The hon. Member for East Surrey talked about how to encourage renewables through the use of fiscal incentives. I agree that there is a range of fiscal incentives. I do not agree that they have been minor. The introduction of the renewables obligation certificates was a major change. The renewables obligation and the climate change levy have had a major impact in boosting renewables. Nevertheless, I do not dispute that more can be done. We should consider that as part of the debate about how to get the balance of energy right.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the future of micro-power. Again, there is a considerable future for micro-power in this country. I believe that we will see more development of micro-power. We certainly want to encourage it as a Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) put PPS22 in the proper context. It is about getting the right balance between a national strategy and taking into account people's legitimate concerns. That is important, but the most important point that he made is that, if we are serious about renewables, wind is the most established and is cheap compared with some of the other renewables that are still being developed and coming on stream. They will have their place, but if we are serious we need to make a start. He put the nuclear question in its proper context, too.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) clearly outlined the risks that we face in terms of climate change and made a good case on that. He said that he supported offshore wind. We need both: offshore and onshore wind. Again, there is a balance to be struck. He talked about repealing PPS22. That is linked to the promise that the Conservatives are apparently giving—that local people will have a veto on applications for wind turbines. If that were the case, it would kill investment in renewables dead, because companies would not put the investment in.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |