Science Spending

HC Deb 21 January 1999 vol 323 cc1008-10

4. Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet)

What assessment he has made of the strength of the relationship between science spending and UK competitiveness. [65193]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers)

Our ability to compete effectively as a knowledge-driven economy will depend on our commitment to scientific research and its exploitation.

In partnership with the Wellcome Trust, we will spend an extra £1.4 billion on science and engineering over the next three years. That will ensure that we can retain our position as a world-class country in terms of science, reversing the decline in investment for which the last Government were responsible.

Dr. Ladyman

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new post, and thank him for his answer.

Given what my right hon. Friend has said about the link between science and competitiveness, and given that the Government, through the comprehensive spending review, have already been more generous to public-sector science than most scientists dreamed was possible, will my right hon. Friend tell us what plans he has to stimulate further science and research in the private sector? In particular, will he tell us what thought he has given to fiscal incentives such as tax rebates for companies that reinvest a significant proportion of their income in research?

Mr. Byers

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words of welcome. I agree that the £1.4 billion extra is an excellent first start, as is the 20 per cent. increase in the Department's innovation budget, but I regard it just as a start. It is beginning to deliver our commitment as a Government to science, but we can do more.

My hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention to the possibility of tax incentives for the private sector to support research and development. It is true that, with the exception of the pharmaceutical industry, spending in the private sector on research and development has declined dramatically over recent years. We need to do something to remedy that. We will look closely at how we can introduce a financial regime—a tax regime—that will promote and encourage investment in those important sectors.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)

I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post.

May I make a serious point about the level at which science, information technology and so on is represented within Government? I have long argued that we should have a Minister of State, rather than an Under-Secretary of State, in the Department of Trade and Industry to do that important job, but what signal does it give to the rest of business that the Secretary of State's Department has two unpaid Ministers dealing with science and technology? Surely that is a worthwhile job within Government, not just an add-on that is not even paid. Will he please start fighting for science and technology in his Department?

Mr. Byers

Whether the Ministers are unpaid or not, they have managed to achieve far more in their period of office than the hon. Gentleman's Government ever did. The fact that we have secured an extra £1.4 billion for the science base shows that we are achieving value for money from our Ministers. I should have thought that he would congratulate the Department on that fact. If it helps him, he will be pleased to know that, as the Cabinet Minister responsible for the Department, I shall take a close personal interest in how we can encourage and exploit the science base and the knowledge that we have.

Mr. Ian Pearson (Dudley, South)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. In particular, I welcome his comments about the boost to the science and engineering base. Is he aware, however, that, under the Tories, spending on development fell to a paltry 3 per cent. of total civil Government R and D expenditure, perpetuating the problem of Britain being good at R but bad at D, and of commercial ideas that were generated in Britain being exploited elsewhere? Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment about what can be done to improve the percentage of expenditure that goes on D, so that we can have a joined-up Government approach to tackling the development gap?

Mr. Byers

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have already begun discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about how the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment can jointly deal with the many weaknesses that exist because of the situation that we inherited. There is no doubt that it is one of those sectors where we have the potential to be world class. It has been neglected and we now have a Government who are delivering on that important agenda. We intend to move forward and to deliver on our commitment to the science base and to our scientists, so that we can ensure that we are world class in the century ahead.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)

I too congratulate the Secretary of State on becoming the third Labour holder of that office in under two years. I wish him every success in trying to clear up the dreadful mess that was left behind by his predecessor—a mess both in the Department and in the wider business world. I trust that the plight of British industry will be at the top of the Secretary of State's list of priorities.

Given the Government's enthusiasm for the promotion of genetically modified food, does the Secretary of State see any conflict of interest in Lord Sainsbury, the Minister in the other place with responsibility for technology, being an investor in Sainsbury's, the first supermarket to promote that food; an investor in Diatech and Innotech, two companies that are involved in the technology sector; and having links with the Gatsby Trust, which finances research in the sector—while at the same time controlling policy and grants to the industry? Will the Secretary of State ask his Minister to step aside and find a Minister who has no actual or apparent conflict of interest to do the work?

Mr. Byers

I shall not be asking that Minister to step aside because steps have been taken to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. On the day on which the House of Lords has produced a significant report on GM foods, I would have expected that, as the principal Opposition spokesman on such matters, the right hon. Gentleman would have addressed the substance of that report. The fact that he has failed to do so says so much more about his priorities than it does about his real desire to move the debate forward in this important area.

I have no doubt that there is no conflict in my Department on these matters. I will ensure that there is an open and transparent public debate about GM foods which will restore public confidence in this important area. I can guarantee that, but it will not be helped if, instead of seeking to rebuild public confidence in our science and scientists, he simply stands on the sidelines sniping continuously. That is no way to conduct a responsible and reasonable debate.