Regional Development Agencies
60. The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration
has prompted Government to give the Regional Development Agencies
(RDAs) a greater role to play in the promotion of business-university
links. The Committee has in the past expressed doubts about the
scientific capabilities of the RDAs.[85]
Similarly, witnesses to the 2003 inquiry by the House of Lords
Science and Technology Committee into Science and the RDAs expressed
concerns about their lack of scientific and innovation based expertise.
Our contacts with businesses and universities in the UK have tended
to reinforce this view, although there are good examples in some
regions, such as the North East and the North West. The House
of Lords Committee called for the RDAs to review their capabilities
in this area.[86] We
understand that the level of expenditure on science, engineering
and technology is variable across the regions.
61. Since the above criticisms were made, however,
the Government has taken a number of steps to improve the scientific
capabilities of the RDAs. The Science Minister told us that, by
the end of 2004, all the RDAs would have established Science and
Industry Councils "with on the whole good people on them
representing both academics and industry".[87]
Collectively the RDAs invested £250 million in science, engineering
and technology-related activities in 2002-03, representing approximately
15% of their budgets.[88]
It is too early to tell whether or not the establishment of
Science and Industry Councils within RDAs will improve their performance
on science, engineering and technology-related matters. We look
forward to reviewing the situation in next year's Scrutiny Report,
when the Councils will have been in operation for a year.
Technology Strategy
62. The Innovation Report, published in early 2004,
identified the need for the Government to adopt a more strategic
approach to technology innovation. The Government has promised
to use the new Technology Strategy to achieve this goal. The Strategy
is designed to provide "a business-driven framework for identifying
emerging technologies which will have a significant impact on
sectors where the UK has the potential to exploit such technology
and the research capacity to maintain a leading global position,
as well as deriving wider economic, social or environmental benefits".[89]
DTI's various business support schemes have been rationalized
to allow the redirection of funds towards technological innovation.
These funds will be spent in line with the Technology Strategy
and administered by a Technology Strategy Board.[90]
DTI has pledged to invest at least an annual £178 million
in the Technology Strategy by 2007-08.[91]
63. The new business-led Technology Strategy Board
was appointed in October 2004. It is chaired by Graham Spittle,
Director of IBM's Hursley Laboratory. The remainder of the membership
consists of five further representatives from business, all recruited
through open competition; two venture capitalists with a technology
interest; one regional representative with a background in business
and one Research Council Chief Executive, representing the interests
of all the Research Councils. A number of Government officials
will also sit on the Board.[92]
The Technology Strategy Board first met on 1 November 2004.
64. The new Technology Strategy is a step in the
right direction, and the attendant rationalization of DTI's existing
business support schemes is welcome, if overdue. In particular,
we welcome the tacit acknowledgement that civil servants in Whitehall
are not necessarily best placed to identify opportunities for
investment in innovation.
84 Investment Strategy, p 69 Back
85
Fifth Report of the Committee, Session 2003-04, Too little too
late?: Government Investment in Nanotechnology, HC 56, para 66 Back
86
Second Report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee,
Session 2003-04, Science and the RDAs: follow-up, HL 103 Back
87
Q 191 [Lord Sainsbury of Turville] Back
88
Investment Strategy, p 143 Back
89
As above, p 70 Back
90
Q 1 ["Science Question Time"] Back
91
HM Treasury, 2004 Spending Review: New Public Spending Plans 2005-2008,
Cm 6237, July 2004, p 141 Back
92
Ev 53 Back
