Table Of Content

HOU/L HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 1997-98 2nd REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE REPORT WITH EVIDENCE Ordered to be printed 29th October 1997 Cowon. roe STATTONERY OFFICE £4-65 HL Paper 30 ' > : £45 8% a bY L2 I&SSBRF RAeRsY HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 1997-98 2nd REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHN OLOGY | —— Xe | ov Me Scsace oa MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE REPORT WITH EVIDENCE Ordered to be printed 29th October 1997 PONDON TD DHE SIrATIONER Y OFFICE £4-65 HL Paper 30 : * ae ae A) “ Py may a Taoe = ¥ ‘ “eal ps wer ha " ts ¥ 7 £as3 = +h,2 ) Bie 7 = | he . e = ; “nh —y | <1R OE Ap5e Tr y SMP OvOa“naRyU o S - ai io. Pcw ea*l l 4o+e2 ,8 Se ¥ \ ée s e‘ e wr 3 ew Sc * ¢ er eSgae,t te ee~e tahe e: e wf ¥ % FP|i SPae ‘ ‘ = oP ky a y > St i, > = Gu, ip rT "i a * . rm Poe eae dete a wr é ‘ YG 7 3 ‘ pe <0 oll. iy SPP, ese Ng :d : y aoe oe *) eaoA A / ose ; ‘ie * i / ; 9 , ¥ “ i ’ , a - & «?°% i. , Yank? al é ie | a i See- er: y “ye tab a ub AI, at * woe We Uh ots eer e ae wi ret . C0E : B: Op y e ;Be e2%k, e> ‘ p €V -e s= Ssor f ea & ; | : ets - wets ¢ + . iv *s ¥ mea ‘ a; y ‘ ra he4 Ay =e :a e Ssa. aid ae : ; . iea ce 7 Le - ~ ' ; rik ‘ ' ; ; 4 f : ¥. , 4. we ceoere nn *7 ‘ Pay Wa3 k : * f . ; ’ Z : V*i et ehne d. beé fhzeTaetyr s el “2 4 iLee teh e hwa; a: 7' a4s o4. ans aé rptaydn t 27 ‘4 : aJyM f oMdCe Doyd e wtea e; ; 5 ; a i As } i tir ieee. , ’ ert vt a. ea i F one ’ E ‘ ‘ , as ‘ rs > ‘ iv aeee . t‘h+ e 4 r;e ; 4 Att . } 4 | ( TS OALLE ap i - pee eae a » ae . ‘ wisi ly *» . at Te nfeye SUNYi GEES, ate Csxoe.P MS oe ae.r ees; AJn . gh age ’ ; Py vw Ss) < og Ae te Ae hs a oe oy ieee, teat ae 1 vy $ a f * , a y f , P « ead e ie . 2e e j : d ane 4 aa! See Bie Aye Sek ¢ e/oty be P ie ssB i 2 BS wi pre ah ; oi is ‘ VAS 1 pea hl ; = *% ei. e ¢ . ift fe= CONTENTS o5e ee we ww el 8 Cee 6) 68 "e) 0 (> 16) 0) © @ 8 gue «6 o < Appendix: Membership of the Select Committee Mirae a) 6.4. eo Stas everwuis) 6 bai /e (se Je ¥e).6 \e\e) se) © es 6.i es "6 EVIDENCE The Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP, John Battle MP and Sir John Cadogan Oral evidence 29th October 1997 ............ Spee 0 le; fel (©) 6) wee (9) why egw alu) ieie one) s's) eb ia) ie: fer) ee) ie) te) Ie pupplementary note ........MA\b:s. 'ee.e,. ve SiM emee! OC awe e™ 0)J el elle, 6: 8 {ens enn 0) c6. MAW wile, 2.0 & a) ie : x » ing wy BAe ide fa vei ni Lane yy: “an it. j Y‘ liey A p‘aea eLie h ea: 7 i WiTeay ; \(" Wt Pe a ae on “as PA etn she us aT. ve OR va” BA iPM ey Tey UP ae* P \ re , NeA 4et ! . BR; Ro y 4 H‘ T eeak See ae , mAs) i Deeee ervia ed hAyt AeBa Haryi h; : ‘in , i Ti i fat Pe VenC‘aS 4 \ aa’) k gA 7 t y ae ait wi AS “4( oly) ee ayaid Aree a * i Aa Mn RL i Ose, Pi ‘a A F i = oY Ti > aa verbs ; aan Raat etd eho Toa Bide a a} bov mSO L io*t b‘ as J Wesi d ‘ “Ay j i WEN iy .4 i} eleucha Ua d ple eee eea Ue ee ‘la br 'e PR ee at | ' Pro Loaner? (i Lhphinie MOP oy Geej r ; tes.1 } Yseei 2t4 V >e e'eliat@ 9) 4 y ot his RA tl) ce Meado eh latf id toate (RRP ; dtg dh ce a ig <p): i f)f ie Yrn y'i-t>t ,e rs vine j B< e2e ¥ a F ! LAN * eee ‘ Vy a WD)a tate a aa, A tay on ie é Pid ' \ x if Live "i ' Heme ee Ui vi ie, SECOND REPORT 29th October 1997 By the Select Committee appointed to consider Science and Technology. ORDERED TO REPORT MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE On Wednesday 29 October 1997 the Select Committee received evidence from the Right Honourable Mrs Margaret Beckett MP, President of the Board of Trade; John Battle MP, Minister of State for Science, Energy and Industry; and Sir John Cadogan CBE FRS FEng, Director-General of the Research Councils. The witnesses presented the science and technology policies of the new administration, and answered particular questions on the Dearing Report; public expenditure on science, engineering and technology; telecommunications and information technology; and the EU Framework Programme. A transcript of these exchanges is appended to this Report, for the information of the House, together with answers in writing to two questions concerning innovation. SECOND REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY APPENDIX Members of the Select Committee Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Craig of Radley Lord Dainton Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Flowers Lord Gregson Baroness Hogg Lord Howie of Troon Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Kirkwood Lord Perry of Walton Lord Phillips of Ellesmere (Chairman) Baroness Platt of Writtle Lord Porter of Luddenham Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Tombs Lord Winston MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY 29 OCTOBER 1997 Present: Craig of Radley, L. Perry of Walton, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Phillips of Ellesmere, L. (Chairman) Flowers, L. Platt of Writtle, B. Gregson, L. Porter of Luddenham, L. Hogg, B. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L. Jenkin of Roding, L. Tombs, L. Kirkwood, L. THE RT HON MarRGaRET BECKETT, a Member of the House of Commons, President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and Mr JOHN BATTLE, a Member of the House of Commons, Minister of State for Science, Energy and Industry, were examined; and SiR JOHN CADOGAN, CBE, FRS, FEng, Director-General of the Research Councils, was called in and examined. Chairman our strong science and engineering base, and, in particular, recognise that its most important resource 1. President, Minister and Sir John, welcome. and its most important output is, in fact, the people Thank you very much for coming. You will notice who are engaged in work in that science and you have attracted the largest audience that we have engineering base. Secondly, I want to develop had for some time, and that is not surprising. I stronger links between science, business and wonder, would you like to begin, President, by government. I hope the Committee will be aware that making any introductory remarks? the overall theme that we are adopting in the (Mrs Beckett) Thank you very much, my Lord. We department is to pursue competitiveness, in were delighted to take up your invitation to meet particular through partnership. That, of course, is your Committee and to build on the initial reflected in what we want to see in our relationship discussions that you and I had at our meeting on 17 with the science community and the relationship of July. I hope you will not mind if I say at the outset that community with others. Alongside the general, that I am extremely honoured, and intimidated, to very important task of helping British business to see such a distinguished gathering, and perhaps also make better use of science to increase their to find myself in such unexpectedly numerous competitiveness, we would also like to see more company; I thought this might be a quiet, relatively attention given to the role of science in contributing private occasion! Can I straight away introduce John to the quality of life. That is important in itself and it Battle, whom I hope most of you will know, or know is also very important in terms of contributing to of, who is our Minister for Science, Energy and public understanding of science and, in particular, Industry, and of course you already know Sir John the understanding of our young people about the Cadogan, the Director General of the Research importance and the worth of the contribution that Councils. Can I straight away apologise on behalf of science can make. That, I think, has to be a Sir Robert May, the Chief Scientific Adviser? He very particularly important theme. Thirdly, I want to much regrets the fact that he is not able to be with us strengthen the voice of science in government, so that this morning but he has what I hope the Committee decisions across government are based on the best will think is a very worthwhile engagement, he has a scientific advice. I hope I will not offend anyone by long-standing engagement to give a major saying that it has often struck me as evidence of a presentation to the United States’ National defect, to some degree in our educational Academy of Science Forum on Biodiversity, on the achievement in the past, that so many, even among theme of “The Quest for a Sustainable World”. I the political classes, find difficulty in distinguishing hope the Committee will feel this is an engagement he between evidence and opinion. J think that anything should be carrying out, and I think he will make a that we can do to strengthen that kind of worthwhile contribution to that discussion. understanding across government can only be of I was particularly pleased to have been given the general benefit. We intend to take a measured—if job of Cabinet Minister for Science and Technology you like, an almost analytical—approach to the alongside my responsibilities as the President of the development of science and technology policy. I have Board of Trade because I have some degree of given the matter some considerable thought but I do scientific and engineering background myself. As you not think there is any dramatic single step that we will be well aware, my Lords, that is not always can, or should, take that will in some way transform common in the House of Commons. I am assisted, our approach to, and our success in, science policy. obviously, in that role by John Battle and supported It seems to me it is a question rather of a whole range by Sir Robert and Sir John. I would like to take the of small actions across a range of activities, and that opportunity to briefly outline what I see as the main that is, therefore, the way government should direct aims and the key priorities in that role as Cabinet its own attention. I also think it is extremely Minister for Science and Technology. First, I think it important, and we have already begun—John and is vitally important both to maintain and to build on I—to do this, that we should listen very carefully to 2 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE THE RT HON MARGARET BECKETT MP, MR JOHN BATTLE MP 29 October 1997] [ Continued AND SIR JOHN CADOGAN Chairman contd.] what the scientific community and others have to say as is the Government as a whole—we are about their perception of the needs and problems of undertaking a comprehensive spending review. That the science base, and that we should consider our review is taking place across all departments. The science and technology holistically—to use the rather Committee may be aware, but let me reaffirm, that fashionable word—as a system, rather than being a one of my early actions was to confirm the ring- little destructive and concentrating on particular fencing around the science budget within the DTI issues. and, also, to establish a separate spending review for We have taken a number of steps, even in these the science budget. I cannot, of course, predict what fairly early days in the Government’s life, which I the outcome will be either of the considerations on hope do begin to demonstrate our commitment to higher education research or the comprehensive make a difference. The science and engineering base spending review, but they are being very carefully does form part of the top level of the education considered and examined. You have, I think, now system—and I mentioned earlier our concern for the received the Government’s responses to the helpful people in the science base. As we see it, it is creating reports on the Innovation-Exploitation Barrier and the researchers who will both continue to enrich the on the European Union Framework Programme, science and engineering base itself and also be and we will between us endeavour to answer your employed in industry to modernise, innovate and to questions on these and any other issues that you want create wealth. We think it is important that they are to raise, my Lord. treated properly, and we are very mindful of what we 2. Thank you very much, indeed. We were, as you have heard over recent years—concerns about know, proposing to begin with the Dearing Report security and about the feeling that there are limited and the science and engineering base, which you long-term prospects. We are supporting work to improve the career management of contract mentioned towards the end of your introduction, although of course we recognise that the Dearing researchers, following up the research careers Report was addressed to two departments, of which Concordat, which I very much welcome. Also, of you are one. Particularly in your part of the course, I have taken, and will take, a strong personal interest in encouraging the participation of women at responsibility, Dearing identified a funding gap of, I all levels in science and technology. In government, think he said, £110 million per annum behind the full as I say, we very much endorse Sir Robert May’s costs of research funded by the Research Councils. guidance to departments on the use of scientific He suggested three ways in which that might be met. advice in policy making, and we are arranging for The first one, additional money, is perfectly that guidance to be followed throughout Whitehall. straightforward but probably rather difficult. The In information and communication technologies we second one, fewer grants, is certainly a practical have injected new finance into the “IT For All” option. The third one, however, “dual support initiative and promoted an accelerated roll-out of the transfer”, seems to me to smell of robbing Peter to Information Society Initiative Programme for pay Paul and would change the science base in other Business. We are consulting now on the National directions. I wonder whether, first of all, you accept Grid for Learning, about which you may have heard the report’s finding that there is a shortfall in some publicity, and we will soon be launching—very resources and whether you have come to any view soon, in fact—the Internet Enterprise Zone. From about the options that Dearing presented? the point of view of promoting long-term thinking, (Mrs Beckett) There are two things that I would we have put new momentum into the Foresight say initially, my Lord. First of all, Dearing does, as Programme. We undertook immediately an audit of you say, identify (and he puts a particular number on Government departments’ support for Foresight and it) a funding gap that he believes has arisen as a result published the results of that last week. It has been of cuts made over a substantial period by the decided to set up a new ministerial group to oversee previous government, and that those cuts hit progress in getting Foresight thinking embedded into investment in the science infrastructure. Of course, mainstream policy-thinking across Whitehall. The although they do not put the same figures, the same setting up of that group has been very much point has been made by other commentators. I have welcomed by a number of my senior Cabinet particularly in mind the pharmaceutical colleagues. We have also invited bids for the new companies—more widely and quite specifically, the Foresight Link awards for projects to address American-owned pharmaceutical companies, who, Foresight priorities, making £10 million of DTI the Committee may recall, made a report a couple of funding available for that, and we are renewing years ago now indicating the same phenomenon. He efforts to engage business more fully with Foresight, also, I think, makes a separate point which has its especially small firms. On quality of life, we have own importance, which is the issue of the funding of injected new life into the EQUAL initiative, which indirect costs and whether or not Research aims to use research to help to give older people a Council—and, indeed, other—grants actually do longer period of higher quality life. They are the cover or recognise the proper costs of research. You perfect example of the concerns about which I spoke will know that some moves have already been taken at the outset. (and perhaps I will ask Sir John to come in on this ina I am not going to try, My Lord Chairman, to moment) to increase the recognition of indirect costs. itemise everything that we are doing or the individual So, obviously, this is an issue where we do recognise steps we are taking, because that would take up too the point that the Dearing Committee makes. We are much of your time, but, obviously, we are also looking, indeed, at the different options that he considering very carefully the research proposes, but also, obviously, in the context of the recommendations of the Dearing Committee and— comprehensive spending review itself. So while I