HC Deb 17 February 1986 vol 92 cc3-5
3. Mr. Chapman

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about recent increases in public funds for research into alternative forms of energy; and what have been the results therefrom.

11. Mr. Ron Davies

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of funding proposed for research into alternative sources of energy in 1986–87.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad)

The Government have identified what we believe to be the most promising renewable energy technologies, and major support will be given for their development. Expenditure on the renewable energy programme is currently running at about £14 million a year.

Mr. Chapman

I welcome the increase in Government funds for research and the fact that more than 400 projects are being supported. Which research programmes show the most hope for renewable forms of energy that will make a significant contribution to our energy demands —apart from wind, which has already been mentioned?

Mr. Goodlad

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition of the very substantial increase in funding for research and development into renewables. He referred to the very important advances in wind energy, as described by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

A further major achievement of departmentally funded research and development has been the establishment of a passive solar design and the use of waste as a fuel, which are both cost-effective energy technologies.

Mr. Ron Davies

Obviously the expenditure referred to by the Minister is welcome. However, as 10 times that amount — £486 million — has been spent on sacking mineworkers, has not the Minister got his priorities slightly wrong? Would he not be better advised to take steps to conserve and protect our coal capacity, at least for the forseeable future, because coal will remain our primary source of energy?

Mr. Goodlad

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the importance of coal in our energy resources has been recognised by the Government through massive investment, and that will remain the case.

Mr. Speller

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week that only 17 per cent. of the money spent on energy research is on non-nuclear. Does that not mean that the share for alternative energy is very small? Does he not think that a rather larger percentage would be justified?

Mr. Goodlad

The level of funding on research into renewables has been considered by the Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power, which decided that the total size of the programme was reasonable.

Research and development for different technologies have different inherent costs. The development and trial of boilers for burning waste paper and board is obviously small scale, and therefore not expensive, whereas fast reactor development is inherently large scale.

Mr. Benn

In considering what resources the Government should devote to renewable energy sources, has the Minister taken account of the latest release of radioactivity at Sellafield, the great anxiety about the dangers in that area, the number of releases of radioactivity from Windscale and now Sellafield, the failure of the Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc to provide information and the fact that the United States has not ordered a nuclear power station for nine years? Does that not point towards less nuclear and more coal conservation and renewable energy?

Mr. Goodlad

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will keep in proper perspective the matters that he has raised. Of course all relevant factors are taken into account. During the last four years of the Government in which he was Secretary of State, departmental spending on renewable energy research and development amounted to £7.6 million. Over the past four years of this Government, departmental spending on renewable energy research and development has amounted to £56.8 million—over seven times as much.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Is the Minister aware that if it were not for the incidents at Windscale, which have more to do with managerial incompetence than with deficiencies in the technology, nuclear power in Britain would have an excellent future? Will he accept the importance of my comments in that context and do everything possible to ensure that higher standards of management are introduced at that plant?

Mr. Goodlad

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and, as I have told him before, it is extremely important that the magnitude of any incidents should be kept in the proper perspective. I believe, as I know he does, that nuclear power in Britain has an excellent future.

Mr. Eadie

The Minister must recall that on 25 October 1985 the House debated alternative sources of energy and the broad general view was that to spend £14 million on that was not enough. It was also announced that we did everything but scupper the wave energy programme, yet we have now learnt that the Norwegians have developed wave energy. Is that not a slap in the face for British expenditure and British technology?

Mr. Goodlad

This Government have spent a great deal more than was spent by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in power. It lies rather oddly with him to suggest that there should be greater expenditure. He will be aware that the Advisory Committee on Research and Development has advised that the amount is reasonable. The wave energy programme was ended because a detailed assessment showed that it would be uneconomic for large-scale use for United Kingdom electricity supply.