---

Renewable Energy (S&T Report)

My Lords, it has been enormously interesting to hear a description of a possible framework for a future to which Britain could look with enthusiasm. But we have heard also a great deal about the currently enormous waste in the energy sector. Those were the two themes that ran through the contributions this afternoon. It is a privilege for me to be able to take part in a debate to which so many eminent contributions were made, not least the opening contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I was struck by the great emphasis that both placed on the urgent necessity to create the right framework for large-scale investment in our energy future, and not only because it would be good for Britain. I believe that all the captains of   British industry agree on that. In May, there was a very interesting programme on the BBC about the possibility of the UK missing the Kyoto target. It well made the point that Britain could become a world leader in low-carbon technology if the Government supported long-term policies to combat climate change. We could have exportable technologies that would be very good for our balance of payments and technology base. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool also painted a good picture of why pursuing this route would be not only in our own interests but, more importantly, in those of the world. The impact of climate change will be felt not only by us, but, to a much greater degree, by the world’s poorest countries, where it will be unimaginable. I was very heartened to hear in advance of this debate a report from the US on the Senate’s debate on   climate change, led by Senators McCain and Lieberman. They initiated it in an effort to change opinion, both in the US Senate and in the US generally. The change of heart that is beginning to take place in the Senate, led by those two Senators in particular, is extremely encouraging. It is a very good base on which to build as we move into the G8 summit. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to build on it as well. So many positive comments were made in that debate. Also in advance of this debate, I was pleased to hear that Malcolm Wicks, Minister with responsibility for   energy, is launching a consultation on micro generation and its place in the UK’s energy future. My noble friend Lord Ezra has for years promoted the idea of micro generation and quite rightly so. All parties in the House seemed to share a sense of   frustration, so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord   Whitty, that although many of the technologies are in place, progress has been much slower than we would have liked. So often when we raise an issue in this House—for example, tidal power, which has been mentioned several times this afternoon—the reply has been, ““Well, it’s too expensive at the moment. There are environmental considerations””. Of course there are environmental considerations, but we have to pilot these ideas and get round some of these problems. Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Methuen, spoke well about the possibilities of tidal power. The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, made the point that it is a very predictable technology. Living as I do on the edge of the Severn Estuary, I would say that it certainly is. But the private investors to which the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred, need that policy encouragement from government before they are willing to invest in that sort of technology, which is still commercially risky. At a time when the Government have seemed to prevaricate in their attitude, the atmosphere of uncertainty does not bring forward any private finance. The other theme that ran very strongly through this afternoon’s speeches was that of waste. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, talked about waste energy—which was a different form of the waste issue but a very important one to consider. It is almost incredible that we still landfill as much as we do, when you consider that that is a possibility. In saying that, I am aware that my own party’s policy is not at the moment in favour of incineration—so I am expressing a private view. But I believe that it is something that we must consider in future. Noble Lords also contributed on the issue of waste, explaining the waste that happens as we transmit electricity over long distances. I was very struck, back in 2004, when the DTI published its UK Energy in Brief information, which included a pie chart that showed losses of the UK’s energy mix run at 33 per cent. If only we could start to capture some of that which is lost—and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the loss of heat from power stations—we would be a considerable way towards closing the energy gap to which many noble Lords referred. Addressing wastage is a crucial part of what we must do. That point was highlighted by a question from my honourable friend Norman Baker on the theme of ““Stand-by Britain””, highlighted today in the Independent. He was talking about the sort of loss that occurs because we are all careless about how we use energy at the moment—leaving our TVs and washing machines and every possible appliance on stand by. I believe that it is for the Government to try to change behaviour through information campaigns, but it is also for them to help industry to look at designs for intelligent appliances that turn themselves off unless they are instructed to be on stand by. How can it be that every year we commit to the atmosphere 1 million tonnes of carbon because of being ““Stand-by Britain””? That is disgraceful. In the few minutes left to me, I turn to one particular part of the report that was especially interesting. I thought that the entire report was interesting, but this is a part that I should like to ask a question about. I refer to the current lack of support for community-based and smaller-scale projects. Paragraph 98 of the government response says that the Government share the Committee’s desire to ensure that community-based and smaller-scale projects are supported, and they say that they are developing a micro generation strategy, but the timescale is fairly short before the community renewables initiative is due to finish in March 2006. At the moment, many communities have the will to develop a range of renewables strategies, but they lack the advice on how to do it. There are very few readily available advisers that a parish, town or district council can turn to. But more than that, they lack the ability to raise the sort of finance that they might be interested in investing. I put it to the Minister that one possibility would be to have a form of community grant guarantee, similar to that brought in as export credit guarantees. We could have community energy guarantees. It would not be a case of a community asking for a grant; it would raise its own finance and invest the money. However, it needs some form of guarantee before approaching the market to raise the money. There is an enormous future in tying in different kinds of generation such as wind power or tidal power to local communities. In that way some of the objections that have been raised could be overcome. In conclusion, the report of the committee of the   noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, contains many useful pointers to the way forward. Communities would very much welcome a government response on the matter that we are discussing.