§ 2.41 p.m.
§ Lord WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the split in the national investment for development between the coal and the nuclear power industries.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, in 1977–78 expenditure on coal research and development by the National Coal Board, the British Gas Corporation and the Government was some £34 million, and that on nuclear research and development by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was £105 million. In addition, the electricity supply industry spent some £19 million on research and development 1321 related to nuclear power, and about £9 million on research and development related to fossil fuel burn.
§ Lord WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. May I ask him whether the money which is being spent nationally on coal comes from the Government or from the National Coal Board? Will he agree that the money spent on nuclear energy comes directly from the Government, and will he confirm that the Government's contribution is minimal with regard to the research and development in the coal industry?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, expenditure on coal research and development comprised expenditure by the National Coal Board of £26.9 million of which £4.3 million was financed by the European Coal and Steel Community. There was expenditure by the British Gas Corporation of £2.6 million, a Department of Energy contribution of £2 million to joint projects under the International Energy Agency, and there was also smaller expenditure on research for health. With regard to the second part of the question, the electricity supply industry already make a contribution to nuclear development. They also bear five-sixths of the cost of operating Windscale.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has yet had a chance to study the report of the IIED, and the article by one of the co-authors, Mr. Gerald Leach, in the New Scientist of 11th January, showing that between now and the end of the century only a very small fraction of the nuclear capacity postulated by the Department of Energy is required, and that therefore some £20,000 million to £30,000 million of unnecessary expenditure on R and D could be saved and put into conservation. Is this not a matter of fundamental importance to the future energy R and D policy in this country, and will the noble Lord be ready with a reply about it when we have the debate tomorrow?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I do not think that it is possible to draw a conclusion between coal and nuclear power, since the two industries are so very different. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, the 1322 £105 million of expenditure covered work on gas cooled reactors, water moderated reactors, the fast reactor and fusion and also included £20 million of expenditure on nuclear safety and the environment, as the noble Lord, I am sure, will be glad to hear.
§ Lord DERWENTMy Lords, in view of what has happened so far this afternoon, would it not have been more suitable and friendly if the noble Lord had asked some noble Lord on this side of the House to ask his Question for him?
§ Lord TANLAWMy Lords, can the noble Lord give an indication of what proportion of the funds which he has mentioned as having been spent on nuclear research has been spent on the nuclear process of gasification of coal?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I cannot, I am afraid, because the British Gas Corporation have decided to finance in total the design study of what is known as the composite gasifier. The Government will consider their position when the results of the design study are available.
§ Lord TANLAWMy Lords, is the Minister able to say whether the Atomic Energy Authority are able to give any further advice on this process?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I am not able to do so without notice, but I expect that that is so.