HC Deb 01 May 1996 vol 276 cc1118-26 1.27 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, which is important to my constituency. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), who is extremely interested in wind turbines, are in their places.

Energy consumption is increasing, and it is right for the Government to weigh up the environmental impact on the country of increased demand. They have to fulfil their Rio commitments to reduce harmful greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, and the acidic gases, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are associated with traditional fossil fuel burning.

Sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide damage crops, cause a decline in forests, acidify lakes and damage the soil. Historic buildings and metals are also eroded and, of course, there are the damaging long-term effects on human health. Asthma and bronchitis are examples. We cannot be insensitive to the appalling problems that will face the world if action is not taken to reverse global warming and acid rain.

Faced with increasing energy demands and improved research, which is able to quantify in detail the environmental damage that is caused by fossil fuels, how substantive is the lure of any energy source that offers a menu of safety and cleanliness and which is renewable and natural? Why do I seem to do a rather poor impersonation of Don Quixote by tilting at windmills when I should be embracing them? It was Don Quixote who, on glancing at 30 or 40 windmills on the plain, stated that he was prepared to engage in battle to slay those giants: For this is righteous warfare, and it is God's good service to sweep so evil a breed off the face of the earth. He was a few hundred years ahead of his time. If he was to travel around some parts of the country, he would find no shortage of monstrous giants to tilt at.

In 1991, there were 13 wind turbines; today, we have 518. In my constituency, two anemometers are testing the strength of wind power. If it is sufficient, there will no doubt be an application for wind turbines in the Ribble Valley, which is one of the most beautiful parts of the country. Some wind turbines are 100 ft high, and there are proposals for some more than 200 ft high, monotonously pumping iron and producing relatively small amounts of energy at enormous cost to our natural environment by wrecking the peace of rural areas, scarring the countryside and ruining landscapes. As they multiply around the country, they will prove to be a price not worth paying.

The more I investigate wind turbines, the more I am convinced that the Government will take a long, hard look at their efficiency and benefits compared with the massive sacrifice that some parts of the UK have had to make. They will say that enough is enough. I hope that they will reach that conclusion sooner rather than later. As the chairman of the Countryside Commission said at the beginning of the year: England's scenic countryside is in danger of being turned into a windpower wilderness. Seventeen wind energy sites have already been earmarked in or adjacent to sites in the vicinity of national parks. Seven are to be developed on heritage coasts or areas of high landscape value. We are in danger of industrialising some of our most beautiful countryside.

If economic benefit and the efficient production of energy were on the side of the wind argument, cost-benefit analyses would fall more often on the side of the wind factories. However, they do not. According to planning policy guidance 22, the aim of the planning system is to secure economy efficiency and amenity in the use of land in the public interest. That is where wind turbines do not measure up to the hype that surrounds them.

It would take a wind farm the size of the city of Birmingham to produce the same amount of electricity as a modern 1,000 MW nuclear power station. When I learned that, I did not think about the amount of space involved or the raw materials needed to build so many wind turbines, but it made me realise how inefficient wind farms are. There are 518 wind turbines in Britain. To put the matter into context, at 5.10 pm on 29 January this year, UK demand for power was 48,400 MW. The 40 wind farms produced 64 MW of that energy. That gives some idea of how many we would need to have a real impact on our energy supply.

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North)

May I invite the hon. Gentleman to attend meetings of the all-party renewable and sustainable energy group, which discusses such matters regularly and makes it clear that the energy and electricity supplies of the future will depend on relatively small contributions from a range of different renewable resources? Does he accept that the impact of wind energy is as nothing compared to the huge ecological impact of the continued use of fossil fuels—let alone that of the use of nuclear energy?

Mr. Evans

I would be delighted to attend future meetings. We must examine a variety of energy resources, but also what measures can be taken to ensure that the fossil fuels that are burned contribute less to sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Certain measures must be taken by the energy companies to reduce harmful emissions into the air.

That does not mean that we should do away with one energy source and cover the United Kingdom with windmills. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the biggest wind farm in Europe is in Powys; it has 103 turbines that produce in a year what a conventional 2,000 MW power station produces in two days. It would require 16,000 windmills to produce that energy.

As well as driving up the costs, the intermittent nature of wind brings other disadvantages. According to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: the variable and unpredictable nature of wind energy may mean that…not all of the potential savings in emissions will be realised. That failure to fulfil its potential is caused by two main deficiencies. First, there is the need to provide reserve capacity. Secondly, there are cycling losses caused by the additional fossil fuel used in the increased start-up and shut-down of stations due to the need to adapt to unpredictable changes in the supply of wind. Fossil fuels would still be needed.

Wind power supplies up to 0.1 per cent. of our national electricity needs. To reach the potential that is often talked about, which is in the region of 10 per cent. of the nation's energy, we would need between 30,000 and 40,000 wind turbines. That would occupy 1,500 square miles. It is not only a case of not in my back yard, but not in my front yard as well.

The Countryside Council for Wales said in its policy document on wind turbine power stations: while they are welcomed as a source of renewable energy, the scale of their contribution to meeting energy needs does not justify overturning established planning policies and safeguards".

Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley)

I have no interest to declare. My hon. Friend will agree that the wind factories are blown. The biggest U-turn in politics this decade has been that by the Greens, the conservationists and the rest against wind farms. They are recognised as blights on the land.

My hon. Friend can frighten them away. He can be Don Quixote. We frightened them away from the Bronte moors by sticking to the truth and by putting the facts to the people, not by hiding behind the spurious figures and comparisons that are turned out by a business that is in the honourable profession of making money, but also in the dishonourable profession of irreparably scarring the landscape.

Mr. Evans

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is his own Don Quixote. I congratulate him on his success in preserving the natural beauty of his countryside. Up to now, the argument in favour of windmills has been dominant. People have been afraid to say that there is a downside to them. That is why I have initiated this debate.

Even Friends of the Earth, which recently wrote to me saying that the best way to stop pollution and save energy is to turn off the light and the television set", admits: most of the best areas for wind energy, due to the high mean annual wind speeds, correlate with areas that have…landscape and conservation value. Those are often beautiful areas.

Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the subject in the way he has. Does he agree that the point is not so much the existence of wind turbines, which have an important part to play in renewable energy, as the problems that he mentioned with their location? To speak selfishly, that is especially true in his constituency of the uplands that form an important part of the landscape for many thousands of my constituents who live miles away from them. Does he agree that it is invidious to put the biggest windmills so far all the way down Kirby moor in south Cumbria, blighting an important landscape?

Mr. Evans

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not only people who live in such places who suffer from the visual impact of wind turbines. Thousands of people visit those places because of the beauty of the countryside. The last thing they need is industrial activity—and that is what it is—created by the imposition of wind turbine factories.

The siting of such turbines must be handled sensitively. That is one of the major reasons that I sought the debate. It is not only the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry but of the Department of the Environment to take action to review PPG 22, which has done some damage in respect of where turbines are to be sited.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen the wind farm at Cliviger, between my constituency and Calder Valley. It is in a most beautiful area, and is visible wherever one is in Burnley. The planners said that it would be possible to see it only in close proximity. It is very damaging, and further wind farms in our area would be unacceptable.

Mr. Evans

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know his strong feelings on the issue. One would have to have extremely impaired vision not to be able to see the windmills in his constituency.

Mr. Pike

They can be seen from your constituency.

Mr. Evans

Indeed, I can see them from mine. I know about his problems, and wish him well in any future fights to prevent further intrusion on the open countryside in his constituency.

Not only is the north-west suffering. In Scotland, there is a proposal for 37 turbines at Helmsdale. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), whose constituency includes Helmsdale. He has fought the proposal.

It is amazing that such an application has been accepted, particularly in the face of opposition from Scottish National Heritage, the community councils, local landowners, tenants, tourists and most of the local inhabitants. There is a very strong campaign. I understand that those 37 turbines would be visible from one of the most scenic stretches of road in the country. It would have a devastating impact in the area, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will use his power to look at the decision, and—hopefully—his good sense and judgment to overturn it.

As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has intimated, some of the turbines are far taller than Nelson's column and can be seen for miles around. I agree with my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, who said about wind turbines when he was Secretary of State for Energy: nobody could call them beautiful, in fact they are extremely ugly". Lord Stoddart made the point succinctly when he said: wind turbines are visually ugly and destructive of the landscape. The best way of obtaining energy is to conserve it. When applications to erect wind factories have reached a public inquiry—there have been four to date—they have always been defeated, because the environmental impact has always outweighed the energy they produce.

Apart from the problems that I have already mentioned, there are also problems of noise and electromagnetic interference. The latter affects television signals, and people have to switch to cable television to overcome interference. Unfortunately, the noise problem is not so easily overcome. Mechanical noise has resulted in several turbines on a wind farm in Holland being stopped for eight hours each night due to complaints from neighbouring residents.

One victim of wind factory blight said in The Daily Telegraph a couple of years ago: The 'thrump' of the blades and grinding gears is driving us to distraction. My kitchen amplifies these noises sickeningly. Since commissioning in July, the house has frequently vibrated with penetrating soundwaves. At night, these disrupt sleep, even when all the windows are closed. As I write, turbine droning is audible above the computer's hum. For my family and those in a similar plight on windfarm sites in Wales and Cornwall, there is a distressing human cost to this supposedly environmentally friendly electricity. For us, this is no brave, new, clean energy but a rapacious industrial giant. Research in America, Japan and Germany predicts that people living within two miles of wind farms may have medical effects from infrasonic vibration. One person is the first in Wales to achieve a council tax reduction because the value of his house has fallen. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has even admitted that the noise is clearly disturbing and unpleasant, and may have some psychological effects. If we want the green and the peace, turbines are not for us.

Even such an authority as Jonathon Porritt wrote in The Daily Telegraph: The modern wind turbine is a mighty intrusive beast. It's not into nestling, blending in or any of the other clichés so beloved of rural romantics Of course turbines have to be obtrusive in the landscape, in order to catch the wind.

Turbines have also proved deadly to birds. A two-year study in California showed that 500 birds had been killed, including 78 protected golden eagles. Other studies have demonstrated that some of the more astute birds fly up to 500 m away from the wind turbines to avoid them, and therefore reduce their natural habitat. If it were not for the non-fossil fuel levy, skewing the price in favour of such a form of energy generation, nobody would touch it.

Mr. Dafis

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans

No, I am coming to the end.

Wind turbines are relatively inefficient, highly visible and extremely ugly. They scar the natural beauty of the countryside; they are a blot on the landscape. Their continuous noise—audible and subsonic—is extremely monotonous and unpleasant, and might cause health and psychological problems. Bird habitats are destroyed, and many birds are killed. Tourists dislike them, and residents suffer through lower property values. Infrastructure still has to be erected in the countryside first to direct and then to harness the energy produced. If it were not for the subsidy, we would not be buying their power.

What is in favour of windmills? There is the mythology that, somehow, there is no downside to the sticking of a few harmless windmills out of the way in remoteish areas where they will produce bounteous amounts of energy at no cost to anyone. I am afraid that that is tosh.

I ask the Minister to look again at fresh ways in which to conserve energy, and at research into improving the harnessing of wind energy, making it more viable, and giving more weight to local authorities so that they feel secure in saying no to unsightly turbines in the countryside—not only in areas of outstanding natural beauty or national parks, but areas abutting them. Many areas outside areas of outstanding natural beauty are still remarkably beautiful. If we are to persist with such turbines, we must get the siting right. If we do not, we will be guilty of ruining one of Britain's greatest assets: our green and pleasant land.

1.45 pm
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for giving us the opportunity to debate wind power. I also thank him and all hon. Members who are present for not falling into the obvious trap of saying how appropriate it is that politicians are discussing wind.

My hon. Friend's speech and the interventions in this very short debate show the interest in the subject. My hon. Friend will have noticed that there is not a completely unanimous view on wind power. I should like a much longer debate in future, because the matter is extremely important and valuable to our country and our economy.

My hon. Friend raised the specifics of wind power. It is a major part of the renewable energy scene. In supporting renewable energy, the Government are committed to the principle of sustainable development, and make it the touchstone of their policies. If my hon. Friend has some idea that the Government will walk away from the idea, he is doomed to disappointment.

Government policy is to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy sources, including wind energy, whenever there is the prospect of it being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable, to contribute to the diversity, security and sustainability of energy supplies. My hon. Friend rightly referred—if he did not mention it, I certainly would—to the reduction in the emission of pollutants.

In doing that, the Government have to take account of what influences business competitiveness. We are working towards 1, 500 MW of declared net capacity of the new electricity generating capacity from renewable sources by 2000. That broadly sets out the Government's objectives. The principal instrument for achieving that 1,500 MW by 2000 is the making of orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation—with parallel arrangements, as everybody knows, in Scotland and Northern Ireland—that goes under the name of NFFO. That makes it sound like some sort of toffee bar, but I think that everybody knows what it stands for. It is a considerable success, of which the Government can be rightly proud.

Already, more than 330 MW of declared net capacity is operational, of which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has said, about 66 MW comes from wind. There are 37 wind projects, including 28 wind farms, operating in the United Kingdom. I am very pleased with the progress made in that direction. It shows that the Government have been right to give some support to the wind industry to enable it to gain a footing.

To justify that confident support, the industry has had an opportunity to show its skill and enterprise. The Government announced a fourth renewable order in England and Wales in November 1995 for another 400 MW, which will help us towards the target of 1, 500 MW. There are also proposals under SRO-2 for an expected 70 to 80 MW of new capacity in Scotland, and for 45 MW of new capacity in Northern Ireland under the NI-NFFO 2 order. These are aims and the objectives of the NFFO programme.

I have been most encouraged by the response to the NFFO orders, which expresses the enthusiasm and commitment to an emerging industry. The industry is not just about providing energy for this country from renewable sources, as there are other areas of activity that can help this country. I wish to talk in a moment about the export and manufacturing capacity created in this country through the NFFO orders.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley calculated that the city of Birmingham would need to be covered with wind farms if we were to reach the 10 per cent. energy level. I must assure him that the Government have no intention of turning the city of Birmingham into a wind farm—the wind levels there are not quite sufficient. Nevertheless, we must remember that, if we were to move towards that 10 per cent. level, we would reduce the pollutants coming into this country from carbon sources by 8 million tonnes of carbon. That is an immense amount of pollutant, and it cannot just be lightly tossed to one side. The 10 per cent. figure is the maximum practical response that can be achieved, but would require, I understand, some 1 per cent. of the UK's land area to bring that about.

The export potential of wind energy is considerable. It is estimated that about 50,000 wind turbines, representing 22,000 MW of electricity generating capacity, can be built in the next 10 years, and that the business is worth £11 billion. In Britain, the NFFO programme has created success stories. The packed Gallery up there ensures that such success stories receive no publicity in the press.

For example, a company called Airlaminates is selling wind turbine blades around the world, and its orders in 1995 have exceeded £2.3 million. Coupe Foundry Ltd. in Preston has won some £2 million of orders to supply the major components of a German wind turbine. McNulty Offshore in South Shields recently won an order to supply 30 towers, with a value of more than £2 million, for a wind farm in Scotland. Aerapack Ltd. is planning to go ahead with a factory in Scotland to manufacture complete wind turbine blades. I wonder whether the workers in those factories would want wind energy to be tossed to one side, following the rather draconian measures advocated in some quarters.

Progress ultimately depends on developers' abilities to find sufficient sites that are acceptable in planning terms, particularly from the point of view of noise and visual impact. I must emphasise that the holding of a NFFO contract does not confer any special presumption in favour of gaining planning consent.

Mr. Dafis

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Page

With respect, I want to put on record the planning process, and I literally have only a few minutes to do so. Today's debate is not long enough to do the subject sufficient justice.

In view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, I thought that it would be helpful to set out some of the planning arrangements in detail. The Government recognise that renewable energy is different from fossil and nuclear forms of generation, in that they are decentralised and small scale. Hence they differ in land use and other material planning considerations.

In considering this, the Government issued specific planning guidance on renewable energies, PPG 22, in February 1993. PPG 22 reiterates the fundamental principles of planning, and deals with particular issues raised by renewables. It states that planning decisions have to reconcile the interests of development with the importance of conserving the environment—the issue at the heart of sustainable development. Specifically in relation to energy, it states that the Government's general aim is to ensure that society's needs for energy are met in a way that is compatible with the need to protect the environment, both global and local.

PPG 22 says that planning authorities must weigh carefully the Government's policies for developing renewable energy sources with those for protecting the environment, and draws particular attention to those relating to the countryside, PPG 7, and the coast, PPG 20. PPG 22 states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the structure plans of the county council and the local plans of the district councils. Those plans are required to include policies for conserving wildlife and the natural beauty and amenity of the land. PPG 22 also requires that they now take account of the Government's policy on renewable energy.

Although we have had a quick gallop through the subject, I hope that the House will return to it in the fulness of time in much greater detail, because it is of immense value to our society. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley's parallel with Don Quixote is a good one, and perhaps he should not use it in the future. If I remember rightly, Don Quixote had a fairly chequered career, most of which was completely and utterly unsuccessful. Wind power is here to stay, and we must make sure that it is introduced in a sensitive fashion.

It being six minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.