| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gillan: How much will the Minister put into the forward programme?
Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Lady knows, we have made our spending plans clear: we are sticking to existing limits. The hon. Lady must take into account the prudence that we shall exercise. Unlike the previous Administration, we shall be wise spenders of the public purse. In his excellent Budget last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put that aim into practice.
Some local authorities are leading the way in providing unified and more conventional services, using technology. The views of the public on the schemes will be sought and recorded through market research, and results published to inform the debate.
My hon. Friend the Minister rightly made a great deal of the importance of skills, training and education in taking forward the information society. Much has been
done, but much needs to be done. Without a well-educated population and a skilled work force, we shall not be able to take full advantage of the new technologies to improve the United Kingdom's competitiveness and to improve our daily lives.
There is still much that we need to do. Clearly, we need to work closely with industry to bring that about. That is why our plans to revolutionise learning in the United Kingdom include the university for industry. That is a bold new venture which will bring new opportunities to adults seeking to improve their skills and realise their potential. It will bring learning to the workplace, the home and the community, and it will be a vital part of our information society. The university for industry will simplify and widen access to learning; it will improve the availability and quality of information and materials and stimulate demand for learning.
I was disappointed to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks when he knocked the university for industry. I was mindful of the fact that when the Government of Harold Wilson introduced the Open university, the then Conservative Opposition voted against it. I am afraid that times do not change--it just shows that the Conservatives have learnt nothing.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
The one thing on which everyone in the House can agree is that the Open university, as introduced by the late Lord Wilson, is excellent. We pay tribute to the university for its excellent standards. Conservatives believe that the university for industry is another good idea, but we are worried that only £5 million has been set aside for that excellent idea.
Mrs. Roche:
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has admitted the Conservative party's past mistakes--that is welcome news. The hon. Gentleman has a cheek to criticise us for taking forward the initiative when the Conservative Government did nothing about it.
In one of the more useful parts of his speech, the hon. Member for South Dorset mentioned the century date change problem. That problem also highlights the skills issue. According to recent surveys by the Computing Services and Software Association, across the IT industry--both among IT suppliers and user organisations--many thousands of job vacancies remain unfilled.
That situation is likely to worsen as more businesses seek to ensure that their systems are prepared for the century date change. To address those issues, I shall be hosting a millennium skills summit later this month. The aim of that high-level meeting is to recognise the challenges facing UK industry and commerce as a result of the shortages in skilled IT staff and to look for ways of addressing the problem in both the short and longer term.
During the debate, we also discussed the position in our schools. As I have said, we know that as many as 40 per cent. of school computers are now at least five years old; they are obsolete in today's terms. That is why my right hon. Friend's Budget announcement about funding for schools in that vital area was so widely welcomed by schools up and down the country.
Mrs. Gillan:
What period does the Minister consider is right for a school to keep a computer? How much of
Mrs. Roche:
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget an additional £1.3 billion to be spent over the lifetime of the Parliament to start tackling the backlog of capital repairs and equipment for schools. That is an immediate programme of capital investment to equip our schools with the infrastructure, including IT equipment, and the bright, modern schools that they need.
Mrs. Gillan:
Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Roche:
No. I will not take another intervention at this point. I do not know whether the expression "brass cheek" is a parliamentary one. Of course, I will not use it if it is inappropriate. I see opposite me on the Opposition Front Bench two former education Ministers, whose Government were responsible for letting our primary and secondary schools get into a disgraceful state of disrepair. I wonder why they do not hang their brass necks--if that expression is available to me--in shame rather than speak on this subject at all.
The issue is not only equipment but the skills and confidence of teachers in using and teaching new technology. The Stevenson report has made a valuable contribution to IT training of teachers. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham spoke about the White Paper "Excellence in Schools", which was published earlier this week. It has already set out our broad proposals for the national grid for learning. We shall consult specifically on those proposals in the autumn.
Our legislative programme for this Session includes a commitment to use lottery proceeds to support teacher training in information and communication technologies, and we shall consult on that shortly. We shall use some of that money to help existing teachers to raise their skills to the same level that we expect newly qualified teachers to achieve.
Mr. Fallon:
I have been following carefully what the Minister said on the national grid for learning. Does what she has just announced mean that the resources available to it will come only from the lottery, or is there new Government money? If so, in which year will it start?
Mrs. Roche:
Let me seek to help the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education
We wish to ensure that our measures develop the use of information and communication technology and life-long learning, to enrich our lives at school and university, in our work and leisure, in our homes and workplaces, and in our libraries and museums. The information society is also the learning society.
A great deal of interest has been expressed in the debate in electronic commerce, another area in which the technology is moving at great speed. I was in Bristol earlier this week looking at a small but rapidly growing high-technology company. It is already developing products to be used for electronic commerce, specifically aimed at small and medium enterprises. So the technology is moving apace. It is a wide area and issues such as intellectual property rights, information security, privacy, encryption, digital signatures, payment taxation and so on are emerging as important.
Certainly the House will return to these subjects in the coming weeks and months, not least when we respond to the consultation exercise initiated by the previous Government. I have no doubt that many of the issues that have been raised today, which are extremely complex, will be discussed in some detail.
We recognise that the effective harnessing of the huge potential of information technology is crucial to our national and social well-being. That is why we intend to use the best information society developments in the public interest. That is why we will aim for fair competition, open access and maximum social benefit. Above all, we will aim to spread the benefits of new technology to the many rather than the few.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe):
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Betts.]
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North):
We have just concluded a debate on information technology, and another important area of technology is biotechnology. Many people are beginning to recognise that the techniques of molecular biology will open up a plethora of opportunities that will influence society and a wide range of our activities. We should not then underestimate the importance of sound investment in people and technology.
I would be prepared to stick my neck out and say that biotechnology in particular will be the most important science for the next millennium. The United Kingdom is fortunate in having several world-class pharmaceutical companies which are already exploiting biotechnology in their research programmes. We must not jeopardise the investment in research and development or the flow of trained staff into those companies. Efficient technology transfer and R and D grants for such industries need to be augmented to ensure that United Kingdom products capture their fair share of intellectual property and its development into products.
Small start-up companies definitely have a place in that scenario. At the moment, the United Kingdom has a better attitude to those matters than most other European countries, but it is way behind the United States where existing patents and R and D investment dominate agricultural biotechnology. In the food and agricultural sector, current regulations and consumer groups have inhibited product development and that has allowed the United States to dominate now, as it will for the foreseeable future.
Much of the work is carried out at universities and research institutes. If we are to apply discoveries to biotechnological applications, we need a strong patent position. We must ensure that short-term views and decision making do not undermine the inevitable long-term and sensible conclusion that new genetics and molecular biology will have great value for our society.
We must not mortgage our future by failing to establish patents and strong R and D to underpin the agricultural and food industries, which are one of Europe's biggest industries. Effective patent legislation, harmonised at the European level, will be a major element in ensuring the continued growth of the biotechnology industry.
The current revised directive on patenting of biotechnological inventions takes account of previous concerns expressed by the European Parliament and it must be supported. I am well aware, however, of the depth of feeling about companies being able to patent natural DNA sequences, which would give them the potential to hold people to ransom through diagnostic testing. That potential will always be there as the human genome project unfolds. What should be patentable is the particular scientific methodology.
Nevertheless, the fresh directive should be welcomed because it clarifies the difference between discoveries, which are not patentable, and inventions, which are patentable, with reference to the human body. It reaffirms the principle that patent rights are without prejudice to
any national and Community legislation governing the use and commercialisation of the results of research. It clearly states that the germ cell therapy of humans is unpatentable. It introduces privileges for farmers to breed new plants or animals to replenish their stocks. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the future prosperity of an industrial nation is intimately bound up with the ability to innovate technologically--that is, to commercialise our scientific discoveries.
Biotechnology operates in an arena of international competitiveness where knowledge and skills can move quickly across national boundaries. The challenge of biotechnology is that it does and will pervade many areas of our lives and sections of our society. We need to resolve the problems now, not when the technology is upon us, as we may find that the public retreat from science, are hostile to technological products and are suspicious of the technology.
At the same time, there are signs in some industries that the potential of biotechnology innovation is not being exploited. There are some 1,800 biotechnological companies world wide, two thirds of which, including the 10 largest, are in the United States. There are 500 in Europe. The stock market valuation of biotechnology companies is in excess of £70,000 million, despite aggregate reserves being less than £15,000 million. That suggests investment for growth and growth potential.
In 1992, following the launch of the alternative investment market project, money came into biotechnology from non-specialists, and companies were quoted on the stock exchange. The number of companies in Britain at this stage is small, but is increasing at a dramatic rate. It is estimated that currently there are 27,000 jobs in European biotechnology companies with direct applications of techniques, and some 200,000 in biotechnology and related activities. In the United States, however, £5,000 billion has been invested in biotechnology. Forty new drug products and vaccines are in use because of that and 300 more are currently in clinical trials to treat Alzheimer's, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, AIDS and obesity.
Enough of this business project discussion--let us look at the science. After all, that is the well from which all this springs. I am sure that hon. Members will have read the March-April edition of "Science in Parliament", which describes how researchers using oilseed rape in their quest for new industrial oils hit upon new treatments for tuberculosis and, possibly, cancer. It is a perfect example of how modern molecular and biological studies can show amazing and unexpected potential.
I could go on in great detail about other discoveries and describe how plants as well as bacteria, surprisingly, are being used to produce new human antibiotics and vaccines to treat the AIDS viruses. This week has been European plant biotechnology week. Some 130 of Europe's best biotechnology laboratories got together and formed 15 multi-disciplinary teams which are looking at major issues facing European agriculture. I am rather pleased that one of them, which has been looking at the environmentally compatible agricultural project, is based in the city of Norwich at the John Innes centre.
The production of pure chiral drugs by biotechnological methods is impressive. It is clearly a part of the future pharmaceutical industry. We no longer want the sort of tragedy that surrounded Thalidomide, where chemical impurities were associated with the drug.
Basic biotechnological research is also leading to real potential in producing agricultural products--corn, soya beans and cotton--in aquaculture and in the natural environment. It will play a role in the creation of renewable energy products, in recycling and in the greening of the industrial process. All that stems from a knowledge of DNA sequences and the splicing of DNA segments into new recombinant molecules.
That, at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, Standing Order No.16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Prescott relating to the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1997, and the Speaker shall put the Question not later than three hours after the start of proceedings thereon; and the said Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.--[Mr. Betts.]
11 Jul 1997 : Column 1245
2.10 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |