APPENDIX 57
Memorandum submitted by British Telecommunications
plc
In general we are in full agreement with the
major proposals emerging from the White Paper and in particular
welcome the strengthening of links between universities and business
and the design blueprints for investment and support to encourage
companies to innovate and adopt new technologies. However, we
would like to ensure that excellence in R&D is retained and
the emphasis on skill building is maintained and is not lost in
the drive for a more entrepreneurial culture. Both need to exist
side by side.
We welcome the Government's promises to invest
in renewing the infrastructure for science and technology at higher
education institutes which is sorely needed. The additional money
that will go towards key technology areas that will shape life
in the 21st Century such as genomics, nanotechnology and quantum
computing is essential if the UK is to improve its position in
wealth creation and the quality of life of its people.
The additional money to support post-graduate
research students is also welcome as is the innovation of an extra
£4 million to assist in the recruitment and retention of
fifty top researchers in the UK. However, we see this as a stop-gap
measure, in that we believe that if the UK is to retain top academics,
wherever they are in this system, then the overall level of remuneration
in higher education needs to be improved. We believe this would
also go some way to raising the status of scientists and engineers
and make this a vocation that many young people would want to
follow.
As we stated in our previous submission to this
Committee, we believe that capturing children's imagination and
encouraging them to take up careers in science and engineering
must a priority in any policy and technology. We therefore welcome
the Science Ambassador's Programme but again believe this should
be an ongoing programme which should continuously impact children
in both primary and secondary education.
In terms of Foresight, we are pleased to see
that a Foresight fund will be put in place but would very much
welcome detailed strategic documents outlining the Government's
science and technology programme for each department. These we
would envisage as a central plank of government policy. We believe
these could be core documents which would allow government, industry
and academia to plan for the future. In addition, we believe that
a Minister of Cabinet rank with responsibility for science and
technology would also send the right messages concerning the Government's
priorities in Science and Technology.
We stressed in our last submission that the
programme for Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community,
HEROBAC, was welcome and really encouraged universities to work
with local businesses. It is pleasing to see that this will receive
extra money over the next three years. The additional money allocated
to new regional innovation funds is something we at BT are particularly
interested in, given the emphasis that we have placed on establishing
the Cambridge/Ipswich high tech corridor. We are, via our own
Brightstar initiative, encouraging clusters and incubators to
be set up in the local environment and also at our central R&D
site at Adastral Park. The new corporate venturing tax reliefs
established by the Finance Act 2000 are unfortunately of no help
to BT here—because the rules are so narrowly drawn (not
to say unduly complex), none of BT's investments in start up companies
set up so far would qualify. This would indicate either a positive
policy decision to exclude such companies from the relief or that
the relief is itself misdirected.
We are also encouraging the links between academia
and business by our involvement in the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology and Cambridge Initiative, CMI, and we have also
partnered with University College London to set up on site at
Adastral Park. As part of this initiative we are encouraging other
industries in the area to be partners in this exciting university
venture. In the future, we intend to establish a corresponding
business school alongside this technology development. We would
be happy to share our experiences in this arena with the Select
Committee.
Two areas which we feel are not fully addressed
in the White Paper are the efforts needed to address the skill
shortage, particularly in the area of IT and communications. We
are not sure how the Government is going to deal with this as
it earns only passing comment in the White Paper. We understand
that the imposition of new rules by the Inland Revenue under IR35
has made the UK a less attractive location for IT professionals
operating through their own company and this must surely run counter
to the Government's stated intention of putting the UK at the
forefront of the IT revolution.
In addition, we have some concern over the proposal
to change the rules regarding ownership of intellectual property
rights, especially within academia. This needs to be carefully
considered so as not to drive away industry from investing in
academic research. There is real possibility of this happening.
A number of years ago industrial development officers in academic
institutes tried to claim all the intellectual property rights
generated under industrial contracts as belonging to that academic
institute. This caused major problems for larger industrial concerns
and led to many contracts with academia being cancelled. This
was very difficult for pharmaceutical companies in particular
who survive solely on their intellectual property, so whilst endorsing
entrepreneurialism within universities, we feel the issue of governance
over intellectual property rights needs to be thoroughly thought
out. We would be happy to take part in any discussions on this
topic as we have significant experience in this area. Please contact
Dr Graham Davies.
We would also be happy to provide guidance on
the posting of intellectual property rights on internet sites
which is not such a simple matter as described in the White Paper.
What is posted and how it is written is critical if one is to
achieve any significant sales. We would be willing to share our
experience with companies such as Yet2.com and uventures who already
operate in this space.
Finally, we reiterate our concern over the scientific
debate that goes on in the media. We believe it is essential to
have transparency on all topics relating to science and technology
if the public at large is to be a partner in this process. However,
we would like to see a well reasoned debate taking place on peer
reviewed material. Where such debate is conducted in an environment
of limited understanding, there is the danger that "the baby
will be thrown out with the bath water" and that the potential
benefits to the quality of life and to the UK economy as a whole
will not be fully realised.
We would suggest if an increase in R&D is
to be achieved it would be worthwhile considering enhanced tax
beliefs for large, as well as small companies, as it is within
large companies that the vast bulk of R&D is conducted. It
is unlikely to cost the Exchequer inordinate amounts in tax relief
but may well have a disproportionately beneficial effect on the
R&D environment in the UK.
In conclusion, we believe that this White Paper
and its proposals are a significant step forward in raising the
profile of science and technology, not forgetting engineering,
as a cornerstone in the Government's overall programme.
10 January 2001
| 
