Civil R&D: Funding (Hansard, 8 June 1992)

§ The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, government funding of civil research and development for 1992–93 is expected to be £3.05 billion, an increase in real terms of more than 2 per cent. over last year. Forecasts of civil R&D spending in the private sector for 1992–93 are not available, but in 1990 UK industry spent £6.3 billion on research and development.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, I am pleased to hear that there is an increase in real terms in the current year. That does not appear to be the view of many commentators in the field, but it is good to hear it. Does the noble Baroness accept that we still lag behind our international competitors in the field and that it is a serious matter?
In view of what the Minister said about the private sector, is she aware of the splendid and outstanding work being done by Parke-Davis in the field of coronary heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and also the exciting new potential cure for asthma? Will the noble Baroness say what co-ordination exists between the public and the private sectors in research and development?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The UK Government spend more as a proportion of GDP on civil R&D than Japan or the United States. What also matters is what the private sector is doing. The noble Lord referred to specific funding and, as a member of the Alzheimers Disease Society, I am aware of the work going on in that field. We should also be proud of the work in this country in the area of research and development.

The Earl of Bessborough
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the system continues whereby industrial research associations are funded partly by the private sector and partly by the Government? I apologise for not having given her notice of the question. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham would say, that system worked very well because if the industry agreed to fund research to a certain extent, the Government would assist it.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am able to say to my noble friend that there is joint funding which continues to great effect. It is also true that the Government have moved away from near market research which has had the advantage of the private sector becoming much more involved. The contribution from the private sector has increased from 77 per cent. to 85 per cent. of funding. That is a good record.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the initial part of her reply, welcoming some increase in funding. However, is it not a fact that the budget for R&D in this country is heavily skewed in favour of defence rather than civil R&D? In relation to R&D in the civil area, how does our budget compare with that of our main competitors in the European Community, particularly France and Germany?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I have to disagree with the noble Lord in his premise. The total amount for research and development for science and technology 1102 is £5.8 billion; the civil amount is £3.23 billion, which includes technology transfer. The Government defence cut of that is £2.57 billion, so it is not skewed in favour of defence spending.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, will the noble Baroness reply to the second part of the question I asked; namely, how does our effort compare with the efforts made in France, Germany and other European member states?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I have a number of comparative tables but it would take too long to read them out. However, I have said that as regards civil R&D our record as a percentage of GDP is better than that of the USA and Japan. However, as regards other countries we have a better record than some while we have a worse record than others and are on a par with yet others. If the noble Lord wishes to ask me a specific question, I shall give him a specific answer in writing.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, in a recent speech the President of the Board of Trade emphasised the need for further development of our manufacturing base. Many would support those words. Can we take it that, as an essential part of that development, the whole question of the effort put into civil R&D is being looked at afresh?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, one of the advantages of having set up a separate department with a Cabinet Minister is that there will be more effective and better co-ordination across Whitehall departments. That includes the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and my own department, which is concerned with the university and polytechnic sector. The question the noble Lord has asked will be seriously considered when the new system is in force.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, will the Minister advise us what proportion of the funds that are spent on research and development is of relevance to manufacturing industry?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I cannot be specific on that point because even some of the money spent on defence has some impact on manufacturing, as does money spent in the medical world. There is almost no part of research and development that does not have an impact on manufacturing, whether that concerns the equipment used for research or equipment that is devised as a result of research.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, what are the advantages in transferring government-sponsored research and development to Mr. Waldegrave's department? Is the Minister aware that some of us feel research and development may become buried among a host of other matters? As the Minister knows, the right honourable gentleman is responsible for a wide range of functions and R&D may become neglected.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, that is a quite extraordinary statement. R&D has never had a higher profile and it has never been more exposed than at present. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be diligent in promoting 1103 R&D. I believe great attention will be given to research and development, and that has been welcomed by the scientific world generally. The rising profile that is attached to the funding of research and development has also been welcomed. I simply disagree with the noble Lord's comments.