| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.26 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North): I should like to go a bit further than to say that I am delighted, because I am ecstatic. If they would take me back, I might even go back to that laboratory and sort out the internal guttering. We may have had some of the best equipment in the world to do molecular biology, but every time it rained, water came through, which we saw on the benches.
Like other hon. Members in the debate, I welcome the Government's action. They are sending a very strong signal not only to Wellcome but to many other organisations, which will realise that the Government are committed to science, technology and engineering. Those other organisations will pile in. I tell those who say that we need more money that I think that that will happen, as the Government's signal is very strong.
I should like to say a few things about science, although I shall be brief, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. We live in a very exciting time. Climate change, biotechnology and the burgeoning world of information technology will have to be dealt with, and new ways will have to discovered to solve new problems.
I returned today from a visit with a British parliamentary group to Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where we met parliamentarians from Germany and the United States. Despite all our arguments about global warming, we ended up at a dinner with Newt Gingrich. We did not make much progress with him on the global warming issue. However, he said that he had not realised that we could not use cellular telephones in the United States, and that he would do something about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) negotiated that matter rather brilliantly.
International competition is what it is all about in science and technology, and we must not fall behind. Although we have come a long way, we must continue to make progress if we are to benefit our economy. I tell the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that the Government's action on science and research has not started only in the past two days. A few months ago, the Chancellor provided £50 million for a new initiative to encourage universities to interact with industry and to start thinking--to use that word--entrepreneurially. The Government have shown over time a gradual building up to the commitment that has been demonstrated in the past two days.
Science affects foreign policy. New drugs developed in countries such as the United States and Britain are important in helping countries to overcome medical and
economic problems caused by AIDS, for example. Science is therefore part of meeting our foreign policy commitments.
Much has been said about the research exercise, but I would add one thing. Interdisciplinarity is very important. The old words have to change, and we need new types of committees to decide where the money goes, breaking down the old disciplines. As for training, too many young people are stuck in laboratories to do PhDs, and are simply told to get on with them. There is as yet no real commitment to training them to develop in the emerging world of science of which small businesses form a part.
Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford):
I welcome the substantial accord between the Science and Technology Committee's report and the Government's comments. Like all my colleagues on the Select Committee, I also welcome yesterday's announcement of substantial funding, which not only gives practical force to the Select Committee's recommendations but demonstrates the Government's commitment to the role of science at the heart of the national economy and our national culture.
The report and the Government's response to it mark an end to an era in which the role and purpose of university research became confused and in which its strength and confidence declined. Yesterday's announcement means that the Government have accepted their responsibility for the essential funding of university research.
The message from the previous Government was that research in universities should be targeted on economic application. As such, it was becoming ever more short-term. That is not what has given this country a reputation for being the creative engine of world science. Moreover, it is not what industry wants. Industry does not want a cheap source of development carried out by institutions that are not designed, staffed or equipped for it. Industry wants universities to be a source of new, creative ideas and new knowledge, and a source of able recruits well trained in modern research methods.
Industry can and should take that fundamental knowledge and understanding and apply it in the development of technology or products targeted at particular markets. That is what industrial research and development is for. Industry is in the best position to understand markets.
Some university research may be in the mainstream towards applications, and some may be driven by the curiosity of individuals. Both elements have to be catered for. We have struck an arrangement in the dual funding system that does just that. The support that has been announced for the Higher Education Funding Council
ensures that universities will be able to speculate and generate the new ideas that might not be thought of if we stick within the tramlines of established wisdom.
A major finding of the Dearing report was the parlous state of university capital support for research. For example, many researchers were working on instruments that were inferior to those currently used in industry. The Select Committee's estimate of the deficiency was£410 million to £430 million, and the Minister's generosity has surpassed that with the £600 million joint funding. It was vital that the deficiency should be made good; without it, there was substantial evidence of a likely dramatic decline in the standard of our university research.
The deterioration, once rectified, must not be allowed to develop again. Research councils and all externally commissioned research must bear the full indirect costs of the work they sponsor. Again, the Government's extra funding of research councils will enable them to meet that extra cost without reducing the volume of research that they sponsor.
Not all universities have appeared to be in a position to assess the full cost of their projects. Without such arrangements, the proposals cannot work. If every university works out its own scheme, there will be a prodigious waste of effort. Such a variety of schemes would bewilder external sponsors. I welcome the proposals to develop a common scheme of costing under the auspices of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
I support what has been said about the inadequacy of short-term contracts and the jeopardy in which they put those who are engaged in research, who are the foundation of our scientific capability. They are a national asset. However, those points have been made.
I should like to talk about another aspect of university research--transferring it out into the wider national economy. Although I do not believe that university research should be over-constrained by the needs of industry, it is important that the results from universities can be easily transferred to industry. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries are good at that. The engineering industry is less good.
The major problem lies in transferring results and applying them in small or medium companies that have little technological expertise. In Germany, that is done with the help of the frauenhofer institutes, which undertake contract development for small companies that provide the market targets. That is a spur to innovation in small and medium companies and helps to transfer scientists and technologists from academic research into that sector of the economy--the mittelstand.
We have no such tradition of intermediate institutions. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council is to be congratulated on establishing a few similar institutions, called Faraday institutes. I welcome that important pilot scheme. However, that is not truly the role of a research council. The aim is for research to be commercialised. It would be more appropriate for the Department of Trade and Industry to take the initiative over and expand it, perhaps in conjunction with business links. In that way, this country may better grow internationally competitive technology-based small companies. It would help to ensure that the fruits of the country's major strength in science and technology contribute to our prosperity.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and Committee members on a thorough and well researched report that builds on the Dearing committee's comments and concludes with unanimous and valuable recommendations. The Government responded on 15 June. That was before the publication of the comprehensive spending review, but there seems to have been some understanding of what the conclusions of the review would be.
We welcome the additional taxpayer resources for science research, amounting to £471 million over the next three years. We do not go as far as the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams), who described the move as superlative, or the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who was ecstatic. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was right to draw attention to the fact that we are talking about not just Government funding for research, but overall expenditure on research and development. One can see clearly from figure 1 of the Select Committee's report that Government expenditure on civil research and development was cut significantly in real terms during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government. The Minister may be embarrassed to be reminded of that, but it is in the report.
The Opposition warmly welcome the generosity of the Wellcome Trust and the £400 million of new money that it will provide over the next three years. Would it be fair to describe that as money that would not otherwise have been spent on research? Would it have been spent in some other way on research unless the Minister had managed to garner it for the infrastructure project? Is it totally new money?
It was interesting to note the terms of the quotation of Dr. Michael Dexter, the director of the Wellcome Trust, in yesterday's Government press release. He said:
"In proposing this partnership with government, the Trust was quite clear that it would not invest money that would merely substitute for government funds, or leave a bad position on current funding unrectified.
That clearly suggests that the Wellcome Trust proposed the partnership and that the Government were responding to its terms in ensuring that, as a condition of that funding, a significant sum would be raised in addition to allowances for inflation.
We sought assurances that even in the absence of the £600 million joint capital fund, the government would be making significant increases in basic science funding after allowing for inflation."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |