| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.15 am
Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on securing the debate. The fact that he did not have sufficient time to cover everything demonstrates the need for more parliamentary time to be allocated to the subject, which is crucial to the competitiveness of British industry.
The hon. Gentleman set out a formidable list of inventions and discoveries by British scientists and inventors. I do not recall whether he mentioned the discovery, by a British scientist, of the electron in 1897--a discovery from which so much scientific and technological work derives. The hon. Gentleman asked for a number of Government initiatives. I am sure that he will join me in proposing the issue of a commemorative stamp next year, marking the centenary of the discovery of the electron.
The Government have a key role to play in creating the conditions for encouragement of invention and innovation. It is clear from his comments today that the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of that role. The hon. Gentleman is not renowned for commitment to proactive government, believing instead in minimal,
"could not care less" government. He is known for belonging to the "get government off our back" school of thought. Therefore, it is good news that he is prepared to modify that quaint and damaging philosophy in regard to invention, innovation and related technological activities. I agree with much of what he said and I anticipate the Minister's response with interest.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the invention by Trevor Baylis of a new radio which can be used in remote parts of the world and would allow those regions access to the BBC World Service. It is a pity that, although a British invention is on the front line of radio communications, the Government are cutting back on the message that we want to impart. Invention and innovation are essential to a strong, wealth-creating economy. They are also important in improving the quality of life through the provision of life-enhancing and life-giving drugs and of modern means of mass communication and the solving of environmental problems in Britain and elsewhere.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Britain has an enviable reputation for the number and quality of its inventors and innovators. That reputation goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution and continues to the present day. It has to be accepted, however, that too many of the ground-breaking inventions discovered in this country were never translated into manufacturing strength. There is an all too depressing history of great ideas being discovered in the United Kingdom but developed elsewhere. That history cannot be undone; we must learn from the failures of the past and put in place mechanisms to avoid a repeat of such a mistaken approach to new ideas in the future. The hon. Member for Dover commented on some ways in which that could be done.
It must also be recognised that invention and innovation do not exist in their own separate compartments. They are by-products of a multi-faceted structure involving the private and public sectors, from education through centres of higher learning and research to a vibrant manufacturing base. If all those elements are not pulling together or are not in place, our overall capacity to discover new ideas and translate them into marketable products will surely flounder.
We still have a strong, well-respected science and technology base, from which our major inventors and innovators are still drawn. If it declines, so will our capacity to discover and to develop new ideas. Tragically, on any measure and by any analysis, our science, technology and research and development base is experiencing decline, and as a result of Government policies further decline will take place. Two recent publications of studies undertaken by the groups Save British Science and the Science Alliance, made up of trade unions involved in the sector, point all too graphically to the damaging effects of Government policies on the nation's science, engineering and technology base.
I do not agree with all the conclusions of Save British Science--a non-political group of eminent scientists who have developed a detailed analysis of what is going on--but its publication points out that one indicator of the UK's relative decline in the scientific sphere is the number of Nobel prizes obtained by scientists and researchers working in this country. In the decade following the second world war, 10 Nobel prizes were awarded to UK scientists. In the decade after that, we won 11; in the decade after that, 12. Between 1976 and 1985, however, we won only eight, and that dropped between 1986 and 1995 to only one.
That dramatic recent reduction in what could be classed as the high ground of scientific endeavour runs in parallel with the Government-induced collapse of the British manufacturing sector. Between 1979 and 1994, the proportion of gross domestic product generated by that sector dropped from 28.5 to 20.9 per cent. When the Government took office in 1979, there were 6.6 million jobs in manufacturing; by the end of last year that number had fallen to just 3.9 million. While the Government forced through that retreat from manufacturing, they also participated in a retreat from publicly financed research and development activity.
Save British Science points out in its publication:
Those are dramatic and worrying trends, and the cuts are matched by others of similar dimensions in the higher education sector. As the Association of University Teachers and others have pointed out, the Government plan to cut £630 million in real terms from spending on higher education over the next three years. A 6.3 per cent. cut in spending in 1996-97 will be followed by cuts of 3.7 per cent. in 1997-98 and 1.9 per cent. in 1998-99. Perhaps more critically, the universities' capital funding allocation for England and Wales has been cut by 30 per cent.--£110 million--in 1996-97, with a further reduction in the following year, giving a total 50 per cent. cut over the next two years.
It is hard to see how any of that can be seen to be encouraging industry to commit itself to long-term R and D investment or to be a facilitator of innovation and technology transfer.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield):
Does my hon. Friend agree that, with all those cuts in university research and development, it is hardly surprising that vice-chancellors and senior scientists in the university world are all talking about low morale? In some ways morale is more important than cash, but the latter is related to the former because there is a feeling that the Government do not care about innovation and research.
Mr. Ingram:
I agree. If time permits, I shall discuss the collapse of morale among researchers. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which has been highly critical of the Government recently--to the point of suggesting that cuts in medical research will lead to deaths. An anonymous spokesperson at the DTI tried to rebut that idea, with the result that the head of the British Medical Association accused the spokesperson of being a liar. That shows just how deep the anger runs in the university and research sectors.
The Government's attitude and cuts are hardly likely to lead to a resurgence of Britain's pre-eminence in the generation of innovative ideas or new inventions. All in all, the picture presented is a dismal one. I realise that the Minister may claim that he has other indicators pointing
to successes. He is likely to say that R and D has increased in real terms in the past year and now stands at£14.6 billion. That is true; but a careful analysis of the statistic by comparison with our major international competitors shows that in certain key sectors--aerospace, telecom, cars and chemicals--we are lagging behind.
Much of the increased expenditure is down to one sector--the pharmaceutical sector--coupled with an unexpected rise in defence R and D. The Minister must therefore deal with the real dimensions of Government policy and their impact on the nation's science and R and D bases. He must not rest on a few specious feel-good indicators. Without a commitment to research, there is little hope of expansion at the level of innovation and invention.
That relationship is borne out by recent figures produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which measures the level of relevant activity in a country by its inventiveness co-efficient: defined as the number of patent applications filed by organisations in a given country per 10,000 of population. The UK co-efficient fell from 3.71 in 1981 to 3.23 in 1993. In the same period, the OECD average rose from 4.38 to 5.61.
The reason for the decline is clear. The most recent OECD science and technology indicators show a dramatic fall in the number of UK companies and organisations applying for patents in the UK--from just under 21,000 in 1981 to just under 19,000 in 1993. While I accept that the details of patent data should always be treated with care, the overall trend speaks for itself. Put simply, it would appear that there is less innovation in the UK under the Government than there was before they took over.
The hon. Member for Dover is to be congratulated on stimulating today's debate. He has highlighted several concerns, and many others could be examined. If time permitted, it would be useful to look at how the Government are undermining areas of research excellence under their direct control--the public sector research establishments, which could be used as part of an incubator strategy for small start-up companies looking to test innovative ideas. The hon. Member for Dover mentioned that possibility. Those establishments are faced instead with--at best--contraction to possible privatisation or even closure.
I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has directed Ministers to examine the future of the research establishments with the object of obtaining more contracts from the private sector--not in itself a bad thing--privatising them, or rationalising them. No mention is made in that directive of the overall scientific objectives of the establishments and how they could be used to create wealth or enhance the quality of life. Is the Minister convinced that such an approach helps in any way to bolster or add to the sum of innovative activity?
There is significant demoralisation within the nation's university research base, which is the generator of so many new ideas and innovations. There is an increasing movement towards short-term temporary contracts for so many researchers. There were 11,500 such contracts in 1982, but there were 21,500 in 1994, and the trend continues. Researchers in such circumstances spend so much time worrying about the future and trying to generate more finance to keep themselves in a job that
they overlook many new ideas. There is a less conducive environment nowadays within our centres of research excellence to stimulate the pursuit of new ideas.
It would be tempting to enter into a debate on the many detailed ways in which a Government can assist in the generation of new and innovative ideas, and the ways in which the inventor can be helped to the market, but that would be the wrong approach. The debate should focus not on the minutiae of Government policy or on whether this or that glossy shop-window initiative is working as intended by the Department of Trade and Industry, but on the fundamentals of Government policy.
"The gap in total civil R and D investment between Britain and other countries remains wide, in some cases wider. In a unique act of policy the United Kingdom Government has deliberately reduced its investment in civil R and D in real terms. Expenditure in 1993 was approaching £500 million per annum less than in 1981 and it continues downward . . . as a fraction of national wealth there has been a steady fall from 0.72 per cent. of GDP in 1981 to 0.47 per cent. of GDP in 1995."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |