| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Scientific Research
2. Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West): What recent discussions he has had concerning science with Ministers in other Departments which sponsor scientific research. [115661]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, DTI Ministers and I hold regular discussions with colleagues in other Departments on all manner of issues, many of which have a science dimension. My noble Friend the Minister for Science set up the ministerial science group in 1998. That built on the ministerial foresight group.
Dr. Starkey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and welcome the work of the ministerial scientific group. May I urge my right hon. Friend to be even more persuasive in convincing his colleagues in that group of the value of scientific research? In particular, will he draw the attention of the Agriculture Minister to the fact that it is not entirely sensible to reduce his research budget at a time when research could lead to new options that would help to inform the diversification that is being urged upon farmers by his Department?
Mr. Caborn: I know that my hon. Friend has a history in the field of science and that she is well respected for her work. Last December, the Government announced
13 cross-cutting reviews as part of the 2000 spending review, one of which is to examine how the science spend across Departments can be more joined up. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is spending about £30 million on its research and development budget. My noble Friend the Minister for Science has held discussions with Agriculture Ministers.
Let me put the matter against the backcloth that, in the comprehensive spending review, the Government are investing about £20 million in science, engineering and technology over three years. That represents a £1.5 billion increase for the pre-CSR outturn. That is commendable. If the Conservatives had shown similar foresight when they were in government, we might not be experiencing some of the current problems in industry.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury):
Specifically on the question of scientific research, may I ask about the Secretary of State's catastrophic decision for my constituents and for the north-west to award the Diamond synchrotron project to Oxford rather than to the existing facility at Daresbury? There has been complete confusion about the Government's reasons for that decision. Initially, the reasons were given as pressure from the French Government and the Wellcome Trust, but yesterday, in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the Minister for Competitiveness said in a debate in Westminster Hall that the decision was made for scientific reasons only. Will the Minister confirm the true reasons, and will he reverse this perverse and damaging decision?
Mr. Caborn:
I respect what the hon. Gentleman says--he should convey his views to his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. They are sitting on the fence on this issue. The point made in the Westminster Hall debate was that science was one of the issues, but the partnership with the Wellcome Trust and the actions of the French Government also brought about the decision.
3. Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central):
What representations he has received regarding surpluses in the mineworkers' pension schemes. [115662]
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell):
I have received a number of representations on the subject of coal miners' pension surpluses. Some have called for a re-examination of the deficit guarantee-surplus sharing arrangements that were established in 1994 to safeguard members' pension entitlements; some have drawn attention to pension entitlements in respect of pre-1975 service, and others have urged greater access to early pensions.
Mr. Illsley:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware of reports from the coalfield communities campaign that the Government are about to take about £4 billion from the mineworkers' pension scheme surplus, which is their entitlement under the 50 per cent. division rule? Is that the case? Does she agree that as the mineworkers' pension scheme will no longer be in deficit and the Government will no longer have to guarantee a deficit, it is time to negotiate the 50:50 split
Mrs. Liddell:
I studied in some detail the document from the coalfield communities campaign. It is very interesting and quite perceptive about the changes that have taken place in the industry over time. I have to say to my hon. Friend that the agreements arranged at the time of privatisation were made with the full support of the industry and the unions. As a consequence, the Government have to date received £519 million from the two coal miners' pension schemes--not just the mineworkers' pension scheme--and, over a 10-year period, will be paid about £1,670 million. In return, the Government give a guarantee about miners' pensions. That has allowed for a much more aggressive investment strategy, leading to 20 per cent. increases in miners' pensions. The trustees of the scheme are happy with the arrangement. Indeed, it is the envy of many mature pension schemes.
A revaluation of the scheme is now taking place. I have asked the trustees to consider whether there are other ways in which, in particular, those on extremely low pensions under the pre-1975 arrangements can receive assistance from the scheme. I will certainly keep the matter under constant review.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale):
Is it not the case that the Government will never be called upon to meet the guarantee? Although the Government may be legally in the right, they are certainly morally in the wrong.
Mrs. Liddell:
The hon. Gentleman should do his homework. The Government have already paid £400 million into the coal miners' pension schemes since 1994. Some £132 million was paid into the mineworkers' pension scheme to meet deficiency contributions in respect of the additional cost of benefits payable to members made redundant, and an additional £268 million was paid into the staff superannuation scheme to provide early pensions.
4. Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central):
What assessment he has made of the impact the internet will have on overall levels of productivity in the next two years. [115663]
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt):
All the indications are that e-commerce will help to drive up productivity, but we have in hand a programme of research to measure its impact, including the impact on productivity.
Mr. Davies:
I welcome my hon. Friend's response. She will be aware that United States productivity in leading manufacturing sectors, such as steel instrument production and the manufacture of electronic goods, increased by 5.7 per annum between 1990 and 1996. Does she think that that evidence points towards a renaissance in productivity in British manufacturing? Is she, like me, concerned about a possible digital divide between the haves and the have nots? Individuals, sectors and regions should have access to new technology so that we are able
Ms Hewitt:
My hon. Friend is right on both points. I am certain that the impact of e-commerce will help to create this country's 21st century manufacturing base in all sectors. On Tuesday, I published the Government's strategy for countering the digital divide and for ensuring that, in every part of our community, children and adults will have access to the internet and the skills and confidence to use it.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
Has the Minister noted that Three Com, which supplies equipment to the Department of Social Security, the Ministry of Defence and many other Departments, has announced that it will no longer be supporting the products that it has sold to the Government? What effect will that have on the productivity of computer systems that are already under pressure and not working properly? Will the Minister make a statement on that? The Government may need to have urgent talks with Three Com about the future of government computing and its productivity.
Ms Hewitt:
I am not aware of the specific announcement or the contracts to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but next week we shall publish our strategy for e-government. We are also undertaking a review of IT procurement within government to learn the lessons of what were, frankly, disastrous IT procurement projects undertaken by the previous Government.
5. Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
What assessment he has made of the future of the textile industry in the east midlands. [115664]
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson):
The textile industry in the east midlands faces strong competitive pressures which, regrettably, have led to a number of closures and job losses. However, there remain many companies which, with the Department's help, are responding to the competitive challenges through investment in new technologies and design.
Mr. Coaker:
Is my hon. Friend aware that tens of thousands of jobs nationally and many thousands in the east midlands have been lost? If all those jobs had been lost in one day and from one plant, the furore would have been far greater. I urge my hon. Friend to do all that he can to ensure that a positive message goes out about the future of the textile industry in the east midlands. Will he do everything possible, in the various trade talks that he attends, to continue the Government's work to find new markets for the textile industry?
Mr. Johnson:
My hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters and I commend him on his work on behalf of the textile industry. There are outstanding textile companies in the UK which compete on quality alone in a difficult competitive world. We have set up a textile and clothing strategy group, which has produced 25 recommendations that we are considering carefully.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Given that between September 1998 and September 1999 no fewer than 36,000 textile and clothing workers lost their jobs and that the projection is for a further 100,000 job losses in the next four years, why does not the hon. Gentleman understand that to burden businesses with £30 billion of extra taxes and regulations in this Parliament represents a death sentence for small textile businesses throughout the east midlands?
Mr. Johnson:
I had not realised that Buckingham had moved to the east midlands. The problems in the textile industry did not start on 1 May 1997. There are difficult problems, but in the textile and clothing strategy group, on which I sit with right hon. and hon. Friends, the question of the additional costs to which the hon. Gentleman refers has not arisen. The problems relate not to various employment relations Acts, but to the difficult world market in which our companies are trying hard to compete.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the main reasons for textile company closures, including the recent closure at Shirebrook in my constituency, is that Marks and Spencer and other big stores have changed their purchasing policy and are moving away from British goods to plants outside the United Kingdom where there is cheap labour and all the rest of it? However, another reason is that many textile manufacturers, not content with their factories in Britain, are setting up plants in Morocco, the far east and various other places. They are the same people who employ the British textile workers, who are mainly women, and they are throwing them out of work because of the money they make overseas. That is the reason--it has little to do with anything else.
Mr. Johnson:
My hon. Friend as always makes an important point. In the east midlands, we are working through the enterprise grant fund to assist SMEs in the textile and clothing industry to compete in difficult circumstances. Marks and Spencer's decision did not help our cause at all.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |