Energy Efficiency: Funding (Hansard, 3 April 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper)
My Lords, as part of the new policy initiatives for energy efficiency announced in June last year, the regional activities of the Energy Efficiency Office will receive substantial extra support in 1989–90. This will enable the 11 regional energy efficiency officers to conduct marketing efforts at regional level, to help them to hire local expertise to advise commerce and industry and for local promotions and events.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, I appreciate the regional effort being made in energy efficiency, but can the noble Baroness indicate whether the funds made available for regional offices and the funds made available for the centre add up to what was available last year; and whether that is intended for the future? Secondly, does she not agree that an increased effort in energy efficiency is the best and most effective way of minimising the greenhouse effect?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the emphasis of the campaign has been redirected to the regions, as has, to some extent, the money. Taking into account all the measures to which I referred in my original Answer, the total cost of regional support for 1989–90 over and above basic office running costs will be nearly £400,000, compared with£80,000 in 1988–89. On the noble Lord's second supplementary question, I agree that energy efficiency measures are extremely important in combating the greenhouse effect, and it is towards this end that the Government are directing their policies.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, regarding energy efficiency, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether it is the case that the research being done into the provision of energy through wave power has now been abandoned; and if so, why?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, that question strays too far from the original Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, we must be grateful for the advance which the noble Baroness has announced. However, if the Government believe 890 that energy efficiency is crucial in the battle against the greenhouse effect, as she has just said, why have they cut the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office by half? How can she reconcile that with the other things she has just said?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, this is a classic case of a pump-priming exercise. We believe that the pump has been primed. The ability that the Government now have to change the resourcing of the Energy Efficiency Office is a direct result of the successes to date in raising consumer awareness of energy efficiency. A number of the measures formerly carried out by the Government and by taxpayers' funding are now being carried out by industry itself. The funds which the Government are providing are over and above what else is being done by industry itself as a result of the original successful campaign.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Baroness really seeking to imply that this tremendous global problem, in which the Prime Minister herself has indicated an interest, should be dealt with by finances from private industry? Is it not the case that the Government themselves, under the aegis of the Prime Minister, should take all the initiatives, including the financial initiatives, in this matter?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the Government are taking initiatives. They have already announced a new best practice scheme in this respect. The Secretary of State has announced the new drive for energy efficiency in the public sector. There are also the reductions that will take place in the areas of direct subsidies and general advertising, where the general awareness of the public has been raised.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, in her reply to me was the noble Baroness seriously saying that research into wave power has nothing to do with energy efficiency or with the greenhouse effect, which she mentioned in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra?

§ Baroness Hooper
No, my Lords. I said that the noble Lord's question strayed a little far from the original Question on the Order Paper. I should be happy to answer a specific question which the noble Lord may wish to put as he has in the past on that subject.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, so that we can be quite clear about the sums involved, can the noble Baroness confirm that, taking all aspects of government support for energy efficiency in 1988–89, the sum made available was just over £20 million and that that will be reduced in the coming year to £15 million and in the year after that to £12million? That includes all that is being done to support the regional effort.

§ Baroness Hooper
Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord is correct in the figures that he quotes. The 1988–89 figure of £20.8 million will be £15 million in 1989–90. However, in response to his Question on 891 the Order Paper I indicated that larger funds were available to the regional officers as a result, because this is the way in which we feel it best to target our approach.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, the House is becoming confused at this stage. How can all these reductions be classified as priming the pump?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I was not trying to classify the reductions as priming the pump. I said that the original campaign was a pump-priming exercise. We believe that it has been successful and that we can use the taxpayers' money better through a more targeted approach now.