---

Science and Heritage (Science and Technology Committee Report)

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate and I thank the Minister for his response. I am very grateful for the support that we have had from all sides for the report. I am a bit surprised by the Minister’s response, partly because I think that he has misunderstood aspects of our report. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, also seems to have misunderstood two issues. It is not this report that is suggesting the appointment of a chief scientist but an earlier report—a review by the Office of Science and Technology of the scientific capabilities of different departments that made, in no uncertain terms back in 2004, the recommendation that the DCMS should have a chief scientific adviser. All that we did was to ask what was happening two years later and why nothing had been done to appoint a chief scientific adviser. Since the time when we started asking questions, the department began to move and the temporary appointment of Dr Michael Dixon as an adviser on how to set up the post has been pursued. In contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, we endorse the idea that the post should be there because we think that it would help the department in taking decisions, not just in heritage science. We recognise the very wide range of responsibilities of the department. In areas such as the switchover to digital technology or sports science, somebody with a hard science background has something to contribute. We think that it would not be an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy but would help in the better procurement of the needs for the department. That is why we backed this idea and asked further questions. The Minister spent most of his time telling us that there would be no more resources. Like everybody else we are ““Waiting for Godot”” in terms of the CSR. On all the recommendations that we have made to the department, not one asks for more resources. The body from which we asked for more resources was the Arts and Humanities Research Council—and we got them. As I said, the Minister misunderstood the report somewhat, but once again I want to thank all those who participated in the debate. We have had a good debate, which has been extremely helpful. On Question, Motion agreed to.