Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

The furthest that I could go towards agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is to say that we should certainly aim to harness as much as we can the renewable elements of marine energy. She has prompted me to get to my feet to question a couple of things. First, she said that marine wind farms would damage wildlife; actually, the evidence so far from the Thames array and the initial assessments of other wind farms suggests that the pillars on which they sit are likely to create extra habitats. Even the RSPB does not argue that they damage birds, so I wonder just where the damage to wildlife that she foresees will come from. Secondly, the case has not been proven for nuclear, although I do not want to get into that debate now. The noble Baroness mentioned the Severn barrage and big offshore wind farms, such as the one likely to be built north of Lundy. If a project went ahead—I am not a solid barrage supporter, but we must harness the power of the Severn by some tidal method, whether by tidal lagoons or the softer tidal reef that was referred to—and if the large wind farm is built, the grid will not support a developed Hinckley or any other nuclear power station in the south-west. That will be automatically ruled out. I simply ask the noble Baroness: is it not better to have a free source of energy from the waves, the tides and the wind than one that will cost us for ever, because we will have to dispose of nuclear waste?