AT A recent question time in the House of Commons Alan Whitehead, MP for Southampton, asked Margaret Beckett, the secretary of state for at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), what plans she has for supporting the development of energy crops. It was an important question as Whitehead was until recently an able minister at the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions before being dropped from the front bench for inexplicable reasons.
Beckett replied that a biomass study team would work with stakeholders to identify barriers to developing bioenergy and ways to overcome them. Other studies will consider economic issues and renewable heat.
Whitehead wanted to know which would be tackled first: the development of biomass-based power stations, or the securing of long-term energy crops to fuel them? And would DEFRA be working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry? Wait for the biomass study group鈥檚 report came the reply.
Advertisement
David Kidney, MP for Stafford then chipped in saying that DEFRA had generously given a consortium of farmers in Staffordshire grants to produce energy crops, and 1000 hectares of land would be planted with the tall perennial miscanthus grass by next year. Although the technology to convert biomass to energy is in place as is the first customer, the project is in doubt because of the difficulty in securing a contract to supply renewable energy for a given length of time and at a price guaranteed to make the contract viable, Kidney said.
I strongly agree with Kidney that until this industry is well established the government must help ensure a regular supply of renewable energy at a guaranteed price. Many ministers, too long silent about nuclear power, have harped on about renewables. They have a duty to get stuck in on biomass. It was not sensible of the government to get rid of Whitehead when it did.
ONE of the most delicate issues that I face as an MP relates to research using great apes. Ever since the Speaker of the Indonesian parliament presented me with a baby orang-utan, which I gave to Edinburgh zoo and often visited, I have felt an affinity with primates. So I read with some horror this magazine鈥檚 well-researched feature, 鈥淯nseen failing of primate research 鈥� a shortage of apes and monkeys coupled with poor reporting means we are learning less than we could鈥� (21 August, p 6).
In general terms, I prefer that these animals should be bred locally rather than imported from abroad as most are then reared in regulated conditions. Recent statistics from the Home Office show that the number of procedures performed on primates has risen, though not the number of animals used. Such reuse is permitted, where previous studies have been so mild that general anaesthesia has not been needed, or for work such as taking tissues, in which the animal is under anaesthesia until killed. The Home Office is also concerned that the lack of purpose-bred animals may also lead some to consider using animals caught in the wild.
I鈥檓 glad to say the Home Office is unwilling even to consider this, for reasons of scientific validity and animal welfare, except in exceptional circumstances. Certainly, I would be in no position to contribute this view, were it not for the wonders of modern drugs 鈥� tested in depth on animals.
