This debate is incredibly important. The convention was referred to. I am one of those who maintains that part of the all too widespread cynicism about politics is due to people happily committing themselves to convention requirements, but conveniently brushing them to one side when it comes to the crunch. The fact that the convention says something must be done is not the point. The point is that it underwrites the principle that in a civilised, decent society the dimensions about which we are speaking are crucially important. Why do we want energy? We want it to sustain a society that is worth living in. What is a society worth living in? It is a society that values landscape, beauty and aesthetic considerations. If we undermine those, what on earth are we doing?
It seems to me that there has been rather a neurotic reaction to wind farms. I refer to the absurd argument that they do not produce very much electricity. Alternative energy comprises an aggregate of many generation methods producing modest amounts of energy. The important point concerns where these things are sited. A strategic approach is desperately lacking. One tactical skirmish after another takes place across the country.
I applaud the idea of a national policy statement to consider social implications. That would ensure that everything does not land up on the doorstep of the inarticulate and disadvantaged as opposed to the doorstep of the more privileged sections of the community who can look after themselves. I am concerned also about the aesthetic and other considerations about which we are speaking. It is no good just leaving this to luck. One could have a philistine Secretary of State. We are very fortunate as the present Secretary of State is no such thing, but that situation could arise. Therefore, one must ensure that these serious considerations are written into the Bill. If this is not the right way to do it, we should look to my noble friend for a convincing suggestion on how it can be done.
I leave the Committee with the following thought. We have read the literature and we have seen the way that the mills of the industrial revolution resulted in the rape of some of the most beautiful parts of our countryside. We can see how that could have been carried out more wisely, sensitively and rationally. We must learn from history and not do that all over again. Of course, we need wind power but we need wind farms to be sited sensibly. We must ensure that the principles that require the Secretary of State to take into account wider considerations than purely economic ones when considering energy generation are written into the Bill.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Judd
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c277-8 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:30:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_498166
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_498166
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_498166