§ 3. Mr. Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the new round of funding for computer research, ESPRIT II, proposed at the recent European Economic Community in Luxembourg.
§ Mr. PattieWe have not yet received formal and detailed proposals for ESPRIT II, but we have made clear, in the Research Council, our strong support for programmes like ESPRIT which promote the competitiveness of European industry.
§ Mr. WainwrightHow do the Government propose to recover the ground on computer research and development which has already been lost to Japan and the United States? They will be unable to do so as long as they continue to spread thinly the relatively modest resources that they have put aside covering projects such as EUREKA, RACE, Alvey I and possibly Alvey II as well as ESPRIT. Would it not be much better to concentrate on the one scheme that is Communitywide and that would put the resources of Italy, Benelux, Spain, Denmark, and so on behind us?
§ Mr. PattieThe hon. Gentleman's question indicates, dare I say, a lack of depth on this matter. Those projects are not alternatives. There is no point in suggesting that we should concentrate entirely on a European programme if we do not at the same time maintain a reasonable national capability to complement that European activity.
§ Mr. DalyellI agree that there should be some depth in these matters, but have the Government reached any judgment about the effect on the ESPRIT programme of British and European participation in the strategic defence initiative programme?
§ Mr. PattieThe short answer is no. The time scales involved are rather different. Participation in SDI envisages participation in various technology programmes which look at much longer-term requirements than the ESPRIT II or even ESPRIT I programme would involve.
§ Mr. Geoffrey RobinsonWill the Minister confirm that he is resisting Treasury pressure to treat every departmental contribution to European programmes as alternative funding that therefore involves a cut in national funds? The hon. Gentleman says that we must have a reasonable level of nationally-funded operations, but does he realise that unless we have very full funding for our national programmes we shall not be able to participate effectively in the European programmes? Will he therefore give an assurance that our contribution to Europe will not be made at the expense of United Kingdom programmes, and at the expense, in particular, of Alvey II?
§ Mr. PattieI am happy to confirm that. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), we are not talking about alternative or substitutional activities. It is important to put that on the record.