| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the Minister happy with the percentage spent in R&D on hydrogen-based fuels to replace carbon-based fuels, particularly in the automotive industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is a very important question. The Chief Scientific Adviser has recently made a study of the energy research carried out across government. This has disclosed some areas where more research should be done, including the area of hydrogen research. That is one of the areas which I believe will receive more support in the future.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the money spent on transferring the results of government-sponsored research to business and industry in addition to the budget for basic science, or has it been at the expense of that budget?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the money spent on knowledge transfer is in addition to the expenditure on basic science. We have increased enormously the budget for basic science in this country. It is now in the region of 10 per cent up in real terms on what it was when the Government came to
power. If we are to have knowledge transfer it must be on the basis of a strong basic research base. It is interesting that a recent survey of universities revealed that most spin-off companies and knowledge transfer come from the world-class research universities. One would expect that kind of indication.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the chairman of a Faraday initiative I can testify to the increased efforts now being made to stimulate knowledge transfer from universities to industry. In terms of the amount of money put into civil research, has the gap which used to exist between this country and other major developed countries now been closed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a considerable way to go in terms of the amount of money—not only government research money but, more importantly, business research money—that is put into research. As I said, since coming to government, we have increased the basic science budget by 10 per cent in real terms, and that should be seen in relation to the 17 per cent real terms net decrease which occurred in the previous decade. Consequently, we still have a long way to go to catch up. As regards total expenditure, we are behind France and Germany, the two countries whose performance we would most like to be comparable with. Germany is ahead of us because German industry does much more R&D than we do, and France is ahead because the French Government do much more research than the British Government do. Either way, in making comparisons with those countries, we have to make certain that we treat each country's R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister continue the attempts, in which I believe him to be already engaged, to explain to Her Majesty's Treasury the distinction between government-sponsored research and government-controlled research? Is he aware of a report in the Independent on Sunday, on 5th May, that the Treasury is now attempting to approve the science councils' research budgets on a line-by-line basis? Does he agree that that is the ultimate proof that the Treasury regards public money as a form of barium meal? Does he agree that the results are about as appropriate as if we should transfer our economic forecasting to a committee of microbiologists?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that one should always be rather careful about making statements based entirely on newspaper articles. In this case, however, I was concerned by the report. I therefore spoke to people at the Office of Science and Technology, who, in these circumstances, might be expected to be deeply concerned. They have had no discussions with the Treasury whatever, let alone on a line-by-line basis; they have simply submitted their application for funds under SR 2002. I think that, in this case if no other, the Treasury is utterly blameless.
Digital Television
3.2 p.m.
Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Within what time frame they expect the Independent Television Commission to make a decision on the future of the digital terrestrial television platform vacated by ITV Digital; and what opportunity there will be for parliamentary scrutiny of that decision.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Independent Television Commission is responsible for the award of the licences, under accelerated procedure. Potential applicants must submit to the ITC a confidential expression of interest by this Thursday, 16th May 2002, and their full applications by 30th May. The ITC will then publish the programme proposals of the applications and invite representations, which should be received by 6th June. The commission expects to announce the award of the licences on 13th June. The issue of parliamentary scrutiny will, of course, be a matter for the usual channels.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is more important to get this decision right than to get it done quickly? Does he agree that, as sad as the demise of ITV Digital is, it offers us a wonderful opportunity to provide a free-to-air platform for the 40 per cent of viewers who have expressed no wish to purchase subscription digital television?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct that it is important to get this decision right. However, we see no difficulties with regard to the procedure. We anticipate that interested parties—who have been aware of the difficulties of ITV Digital for some time—will get their applications in and that the ITC will be able to make the appropriate decision. As for the future, although we all recognise the importance of extending the opportunities for digital television, we see no reason why this present difficulty should last into the long term.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the chances of any commercial television company taking over digital terrestrial are rather slim, and that the only companies that would take it over are companies that we would not want to get their hands on it? Will he therefore encourage the public service broadcasters—not only the BBC, but Channel 4, Channel 5 and ITV—to take it over themselves, in order to use it as a platform to provide digital television services that nearly everyone can afford?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, although my noble friend is very knowledgeable, on this occasion, I shall have to say to him, "Wait and see". The deadline for the submission of applications is in the very near future, and it is anticipated that appropriate bids for the licence will be submitted.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government's policy of wanting analogue
switch-off by 2010 is now in disarray? Does he accept that there is no possibility of that happening by 2010 unless the Government are prepared to dole out free set-top boxes to the 40 per cent of the population who do not want to purchase Mr Murdoch's service? If that is the case, has he persuaded the Treasury to release those amounts of resources?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on the noble Lord's final point, I can assure him that I have not persuaded the Treasury to do that. Moreover, my efforts to that effect have not been extensive thus far. The obvious point is that the noble Lord is perhaps being overly pessimistic—2010 is still some years away. We should take joy from the fact that digital television has already been extended to a substantial proportion of the population. There would be no question of switching off the analogue signal until a vast majority of the population were able to receive digital.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, will the Minister respond to the question that was asked? Is the Government's analogue switch-off target of 2010 still firm policy or not?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thought that I had answered the question in a suitably positive manner, despite the fact that there has been a dismal representation from each of the two Benches opposite. The fact is that progress has been made on digital television. Given that the new licence will be awarded in the very near future, there is no reason at all why the Government should not continue to be optimistic about the rate at which people engage in digital television.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, in view of the problems faced by independent digital television and the fact that the quality of terrestrial digital television programmes is improving, and given that we are all aiming to reach the appropriate moment for switch-off, does the Minister agree that a relatively cheap set-top box which allowed access only to terrestrial digital television is one way of reaching that goal? People would see the improved quality and that might encourage a wider take-up of the service.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's constructive suggestion, and I know that she takes a very keen interest in these matters. However, I must insist on our present position. First, we must see the award of the new licence, and, secondly, we must see the rate at which the British public decide to take up digital television. As I said, the take-up rate has been very encouraging in the first three years in which the service has been available. A very substantial proportion of our population have taken up digital television. Although no one would deny that the current situation is a setback, that does not mean that we cannot recover from the setback to hit the timetable outlined earlier.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |