Wind Farms

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 8:45 pm on 25 October 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Peter Ainsworth Peter Ainsworth Conservative, East Surrey 8:45, 25 October 2004

I applaud the way in which the motion sets the debate about wind farms in the context of the much wider debate about climate change. I am sorry that the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats did not appear to notice that.

I am an agnostic on wind farms. I like the look of them, especially when they are abroad, but I am not sure that I should like to see them on a planner's map that affected my constituency. Therein lies the problem. The issue is compounded by the fact that, to achieve 5 per cent. of our energy needs from wind power, we shall have to build 6,000 of the things. Where are they to go?

The Government know that they have a problem, which is precisely why they changed the planning guidance. In doing so, they have set themselves on a possible collision course with public opinion, and that concerns me. Measures designed to improve the quality of the environment must be aligned with public opinion, not opposed to it. I appreciate that the Government have a difficult job, but they must be careful not to go looking for a fight.

The motion castigates the Government's performance, as Opposition motions do, but I am sorry that so much of this debate has been characterised by cross-party political bickering. There is a real need for political consensus on these issues if we are to avoid the disaster that threatens. The Government have undertaken some positive measures and set some useful targets. The fact that they are missing their targets and are likely to carry on doing so illustrates that their efforts are not yet sufficiently joined up or consistent.

The Government need to be much more imaginative in their use of fiscal instruments. They must use carrots as well as sticks to alter behaviour. Many of the measures introduced so far are peripheral, small fry and very small scale; for example, the Budget measure this year to reduce VAT on ground source heat pumps resulted, if it resulted in anything, in a chorus of "What is a ground source heat pump?". Such measures are useful and worthy, but will not make the difference between success and failure.

There are glaring inconsistencies. If the aim of increasing wind farm capacity is to cut CO 2 emissions, why on earth are the Government simultaneously proposing a trebling in aviation capacity, whose effect will be to negate any benefit from covering the entire country in controversial wind turbines? The Government need to be coherent if they are to be believed. They must send out clear, unequivocal messages if they expect people to go along with them.

We need an urgent step change in investment in renewable energy for three reasons. My hon. Friend Mr. Yeo has already touched on them. The first is that our increasing dependence on overseas oil and gas poses a long-term threat to security of supply. It makes good economic sense to become less dependent on others for our electricity needs.

Secondly, the declining role for nuclear power envisaged in current Government policy will leave a 25 per cent. gap in our energy supply in about 20 years' time. Some people say that we should start building new nuclear capacity. I am not convinced that that is politically or economically attractive, or even viable. The nuclear industry has betrayed too many promises in the past for us to be able to rely on it now. It is massively expensive and dependent on the taxpayer and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the issues about waste are far from being resolved. The Minister may want to know that, in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, Professor Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, said that his attitude to reinvesting in nuclear energy had been affected by the events of 9/11. There are genuine security concerns.