Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460-475)
Dr Peter Hedges, Dr John Whittall, Mr Arnold Black
and Mr Jeremy Tait
26 FEBRUARY 2008
Q460 Lord Lewis of Newnham: The MTP
co-ordinates the work of its contractors to collect products,
sales and information. How do you go about doing this? How far
do the estimates of these sales influence future developments?
Mr Tait: The programme operates through making
available to Defra expertise in many different product areas.
We have an expert who focuses on refrigerators, another on air
conditioning equipment, another on electric motors, for example.
Across all of the priority domestic appliances and some commercial
and indeed industrial products, those specialists work with the
supply chains, with the businesses that provide these products,
to establish the basic fact of how many products are out there
in use now, what their efficiency levels might be and how they
are used in practice, in order to work out in most cases the carbon
emissions arising as a result of that product. These are then
forecast into the future based on market trends and technology
trends. We have a pretty good picture of how this particular product
is impacting on carbon emissions in 15-20 years' time. This is
public information. There is a debate with stakeholders and businesses
who supply these products to make this information robust. Then
we look very closely at what initiatives might reduce that, what
is the potential for improvement, and what needs to be done to
bring that improvement about. I should say this information is
shared at a European and a global level. The evidence that is
gathered is applied to influence the development of European Directives
in this field and, indeed, will influence the Chinese Government
in setting standards and the Australian Government in setting
standards. The programme then works with stakeholders to stimulate
change in the market-place, with the Energy Savings Trust, the
Carbon Trust and DCLG. We worked with the Department of Culture,
Media and Sport on the digital television issue, bringing the
evidence into discussion, working out the impacts and stimulating
the discussion and agreement amongst those stakeholders of the
priorities to make an impact.
Q461 Baroness Platt of Writtle: SMEs
often face specific difficulties when developing waste reduction
strategies and may not have the necessary resources or staff to
develop novel technologies. What research or work do you undertake
to address the specific needs of SMEs?
Dr Whittall: Of course SMEs are involved across
the patch in terms of the impacts of research and development
programmes. More specifically, one of the recommendations of the
Sainsbury Review was that the Technology Strategy Board leads
the reinvigoration of the Small Business Research Initiative (or
SBRI). We are still in the process of formulating our plans for
that but it is likely that it will involve contracts or procurement
against a particular objective, and that may be in advance of
the current state of the art, so it is to try to improve performance
through procurement. Another intervention that we have is Knowledge
Transfer Partnerships, whereby typically a graduate is working
on a project with a company. It can be from six months to three
years, it is very flexible, and there is very high participation:
86 per cent of those schemes involve the participation of SMEs.
Dr Hedges: From our perspective, we see the
SME sector—and it is very rash to make this kind of comment—very
much into the kind of high-tech SMEs, some of which will be university
spin-outs or other technology companies. They tend to engage with
the research base quite well and we have a number of support schemes
to engage them through research projects or through collaborations
in our various research activities. We take quite a lot of interest
in spin-out companies which have been generated from research
that we have originally funded. The vast majority of SMEs are
not in that sector at all. The issue in terms of engagement with
the university research bases is then making them aware of the
opportunities that exist, like knowledge transfer partnerships.
We co-sponsor KTPs. We specifically enable or provide PhD studentships,
where, effectively, a company is given a voucher to support a
PhD studentship for the university of their choice and we distribute
most of those centrally to large companies with which we have
interactions. We use the knowledge transfer partnerships and the
RDAs as agents for us, effectively, to distribute further of these
to SMEs, and that is on the basis that KTPs and RDAs have much
better links direct to SMEs than we do.
Q462 Baroness Platt of Writtle: The
difficulty is that with SMEs they are small and perhaps under
40 employees. Keeping their head above water is their first priority.
Dr Hedges: It is.
Q463 Baroness Platt of Writtle: This
would feel rather remote from their struggle for existence. I
can quite see where there have been university spin-outs, that
is a different kettle of fish, but it is, as you say, the vast
majority.
Dr Hedges: Yes. That is why I think things like
the KTP scheme are quite useful because that provides them with
an additional member of staff to get state-of-the-art knowledge
from a university company and it provides very good training for
the placee, some of whom go on to have a post and others who go
on and do other things. The KTP scheme was praised in the Sainsbury
Review.
Dr Whittall: We are looking to double the number
of KTPs over three years.
Mr Black: Clearly it is a key role for the Resource
Efficiency KTN to engage with SME communities. That is essentially
what we are there for. We provide the advice and support and we
act as an honest broker, if you like. We have also been quite
successful in getting a number of SMEs to collaborate together
to address a problem. Unfortunately they tend to be very interested
in what is hurting them now rather than the innovation of their
business for tomorrow. As you say, they are very much driven by
the cost issues of today. The way we tackle that is basically
helping them through the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme
(NISP) to solve their immediate problems and then, once you have
established a working relationship with these guys, you can start
ringing them up and saying, "Can I come and see you for a
couple of hours and talk to you about something else?" We
also deliver most of our information across the Internet through
an interactive portal that is provided by the Technology Strategy
Board within the programme. We find that is quite useful because,
of course, they can access information as and when they require
it rather than during the working day and that sometimes has a
significant advantage. We have started to use internet collaboration
software called Interwise which, instead of you having to get
a number of SMEs or a number of companies in a room together to
explain best practice, they can sit at their desks, log on to
an online session—a bit like your webcam now—and have
a live Q and A session with that. We find, surprisingly, the SMEs
take to that technology much more than the large companies because
they have far less IT issues about using it; they just do it because
they own all their computers and everything and they do not have
to worry about placating an IT department. We are making quite
large strides in that direction. It is true that unless you can
prove you are going to save them money, they will not see you
a second time. I tell all my team: "You've got to go and
save them some money the very first time you talk to them."
Q464 Baroness Platt of Writtle: Do
they receive any extra support when they have joined any of these
things you are talking about?
Mr Black: Our programme is entirely free. It
is funded out of the Technology Strategy Board. We do signpost
them to the funding activities that are available to them, like
grants for R&D which is run out of the RDA programme, whereby
they can access funding, sometimes up to 75 per cent.
Q465 Baroness Platt of Writtle: Perhaps
you could let us have information about that.
Mr Black: Yes. I will arrange to get that.
Q466 Lord Lewis of Newnham: That
would be very valuable.
Mr Black: By the very nature of the fact that
we are engaging them, we can assist them through the process.
We can get them engaged into the larger collaborative projects
that they possibly would not want to get involved with; for example,
Framework Seven. We are starting to do a lot of EU Framework Seven
proposals. Unfortunately the EU definition of a small to medium
enterprise is 250 employees, which is somewhat larger than we
typically see in the UK. Having said that, they are absolutely
key to these programmes because, in many instances, they are the
end user and a lot of these research programmes deliberately have
to have an end-user community to sell the research on to, so they
are quite useful to engage from that point of view. Funding is
not great—it could be better, is the best way to describe
it—but there is some out there. John will be able to tell
you that with the public procurement side of things there is a
drive now to awarding contracts to SMEs to do with innovative
procurement rather than offering them a grant. Grants normally
come with strings attached, and they do not like strings, so,
if you can offer them real live work then they are more inclined
to help actively. John, I do not know whether you would like me
to expand on that.
Dr Whittall: That is one of the models for the
SBRI on which we are still working.
Q467 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
Perhaps I could add a comment before coming on to the next question.
I did a lot of work when I was at the Science Policy Research
Unit on SMEs and one of the interesting features about the Continental
model—in particular, perhaps Germany and Scandinavia—is
the link between the SMEs and the local Chambers of Commerce.
It is very important to try to get more people from universities,
perhaps linking up with further education colleges, on to things
like Rotary Clubs and so forth, where you are meeting people and
you are talking to them. I think this informal social linkage
is a very important part of what goes on. The next question is
about government policy. There really does seem to be something
of a lack of clarity as to who is responsible for promoting waste
reduction. On the one hand you have Defra with its Waste Strategy;
the Environment Agency is responsible for the management of waste;
DIUS now supports the innovation and research side; and BERR promotes
business interests. There is a very real question as to who is
responsible for waste reduction as a whole and for encouraging
joined-up thinking between the various bodies. In addition to
these government departments there are of course the plethora
of non-departmental public bodies of whom you yourselves are prime
examples, who are all trying to do some of this work as well.
Dr Hedges: The first thing to say is that waste
is not unusual. Lord Lewis mentioned my slightly curious job title.
If you looked at any of the areas of my current responsibilities
you could ask exactly the same question. Where is the joined-up
government strategy on manufacturing? Where is the joined-up strategy
on crime and terrorism? If you said, "Okay, we will have
a single body that does everything to do with waste" that
would have interfaces with a wide range of other bodies in other
directions. I have a lot of sympathy with the question but the
way certainly we try to address it is to ensure that we have as
best and as effective links with as many other stakeholder organisations
as we can. Particularly with the Environment Agency and with Defra.
We have regular discussions with the Technology Strategy Board.
Obviously we come under DIUS but in terms of the other public
bodies. If you asked me to say who worries about waste, I would
say it is Defra. Defra is the primary government owner. Most of
the policy drivers come from there. Ultimately the Environment
Agency is an agency of Defra. If Defra has a clear waste strategy—and
it published its strategy last year, as you have said—ultimately
all the agencies that then work to Defra take that strategy as
the primary direction that we then focus our own efforts around.
We do talk. As an example, I was formerly on Defra's Waste and
Recycle Research Advisory Group—and it is not now me, it
is one of my colleagues—and, equally, I am on the Advisory
Board of WRAP, which is a formal relationship. That is the way
we manage the relationships. I accept it would be nice if we had
a single joined-up body that was responsible for it in its entirety,
but I suspect if you had one it would have more of a problem interfacing
with everybody else with whom it needed to interface in this situation.
Q468 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
Picking up a point that was made earlier: if business wants "long,
loud and legal", it does help to have a single voice.
Mr Black: Yes.
Q469 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
Picking up the point you have made about Defra being the lead
department, what input in terms of funding and other support do
your organisations receive both from Defra and from BERR?
Dr Hedges: In terms of Defra, we co-funded a
project on landfill with Defra last year just as an example. We
are also in negotiations with Defra on another project at the
moment which is just going through peer review. In one case it
was one of the projects that just came in which they agreed to
co-fund and in another case it was one which we jointly commissioned
with them. That is two specific projects in this space. The first
on landfill was led by Professor William Powrie of Southampton.
Q470 Lord Lewis of Newnham: What
aspect is he looking at?
Dr Hedges: He is specifically looking at landfill
practice; for example, reducing run-off and so on from landfill.
It is more about: If you have to do landfill, how do you do it
best? rather than how we avoid things going into landfill in the
first place. That is just as an example. In terms of Defra's own
waste R&D it covers a broad spectrum, including the social
policy issues as well as the more technical side of things. We
have regular meetings with Defra. Our Chief Executive is on the
Science Advisory Board of Defra, so interactions are generally
pretty positive.
Q471 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
Defra has had some considerable financial problems over the last
year as a result of some agricultural escapades. Have any of your
budgets been hit as a result of this?
Dr Whittall: The Technology Strategy Board was
one of the delivery partners for the BREW programme. For the last
four years in the order of £35 million worth of collaborative
R&D has been funded through the BREW programme which, going
forward, will not be re-funded. There will be no additional funding.
Q472 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
You are not getting any new funding.
Dr Whittall: Exactly.
Mr Tait: The Market Transformation Programme
is funded through Defra entirely and it benefited from BREW funding
over the past three years. Its funds were £3.895 million
this year from BREW plus £0.905 million from other DEFRA
programmes and next year we are told it will be £2.75 million
total.
Q473 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
In the Waste Strategy document it was claimed that a new products
and materials unit would "catalyse actions across the supply
chain, to improve the environmental performance of products through
their life cycle". Is this going ahead? What progress has
there been on this unit?
Mr Tait: There is the preparation of a set of
road maps that the Sustainable Products and Materials Division
are leading on. There are 10 such road maps already in a fairly
advanced draft state covering things as diverse as milk as a product,
electric motors, televisions and plasterboard as a particular
waste issue. Defra is currently preparing a report which is to
be published in the spring which will lay out progress made and
look at the options for taking these road maps further forward.
Mr Black: Coming back to the question on funding,
we are not funded through BREW at all. We are funded through the
Technology Strategy Board and ultimately through DIUS. However,
we did have strategic collaboration with NISP who are funded by
BREW to supply them with innovation managers. In effect, we had
one dedicated specialist in each of the English regions and we
have just been advised that because of the accompanied funding
cuts to NISP they will no longer be funding that programme, so
we are losing six or seven specialists as we speak.
Q474 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
NISP, the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme, unlike the
Carbon Trust or even the Energy Saving Trust, does not tell you
what it is all about. It does seem to me to be a rather silly
name to have adopted for a programme which is aimed at waste reduction.
Perhaps you could not possibly comment, so I will leave it there.
Mr Black: I believe they have already given
evidence, so perhaps it would have been appropriate to ask them
when they were here.
Dr Hedges: In defence of the name, which was
nothing to do with me, as a biologist I understand what symbiosis
means and if you think about the future of resource efficiency
certainly there are visions that adopting a more symbiotic relationship
between businesses and between resource streams is ultimately
the thing which we need to do. The whole point is that one business's
waste is another business's resource. That is the nice thing about
the name: it presents a vision for business which is much more
the way that we need to go but I accept the point—
Q475 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
The average small-sized business—
Dr Hedges: The average small SME might not get
that.
Chairman: There are a couple of areas we have
not covered but our time constraints are such that if we need
to get back to you we will on one or two other items. As far as
you are concerned, if you think there is anything you would like
to supplement your evidence with when you see it in writing, then
we would be more than happy to receive it. Thank you very much
for a very interesting session.
| 
