The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
David
Marshall
†
Austin,
John
(Erith and Thamesmead)
(Lab)
†
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
†
Ellwood,
Mr. Tobias
(Bournemouth, East)
(Con)
†
Harris,
Dr. Evan
(Oxford, West and Abingdon)
(LD)
†
Hendry,
Charles
(Wealden)
(Con)
†
Howarth,
David
(Cambridge)
(LD)
†
Kaufman,
Sir Gerald
(Manchester, Gorton)
(Lab)
†
Palmer,
Dr. Nick
(Broxtowe)
(Lab)
†
Taylor,
Mr. Ian
(Esher and Walton)
(Con)
†
Vis,
Dr. Rudi
(Finchley and Golders Green)
(Lab)
Walker,
Mr. Charles
(Broxbourne)
(Con)
†
Watson,
Mr. Tom
(West Bromwich, East)
(Lab)
†
Wicks,
Malcolm
(Minister for Science and
Innovation)
Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
European
Standing
Committee
Monday 18
June
2007
[Mr.
David Marshall
in the
Chair]
European Research Area
4.32
pm
The
Minister for Science and Innovation (Malcolm Wicks):
When I saw the original list of members of the Committee, I was
disappointed to see that some fond sparring partners might not be here,
but the hon. Member for Wealden in his place.
Research plays a vital role in
enhancing the competitiveness of the economy in the UK and at the
European level. I therefore welcome the opportunity that the debate
offers to focus on such an important topic. The occasion for the debate
is the green paper entitled “The European Research Area: New
Perspectives”, which the Commission issued to launch a
consultation process on the future development of policy in this
field.
The concept
of a European research area was launched in 2000 as part of the Lisbon
process. Broadly speaking, it aims to encourage the creation of a
Europe-wide single market for research, including the free circulation
of researchers and knowledge, the effective co-ordination of national
research programmes and initiatives funded at the European level. That
is a vital part of the Lisbon strategy, and Great Britain put it at the
centre of the process that was launched at Hampton Court during the UK
presidency of the European Union.
A great deal
has happened since 2000. For example, the number of doctoral students
in the UK from other EU countries has increased to 12,000—more
than 20 per cent. higher than in 2002-03. UK expenditure on
research and development has increased, led by the substantial increase
in the science budget. At the European level, the sixth framework
programme was implemented between 2002 and 2006, with the introduction
of new approaches, particularly support for the co-ordination of
national programmes. The UK has performed well and secured about 14.5
per cent. of the budget, or more than £1 billion—a very
good result.
A major
achievement last December was the launch of the seventh framework
programme, which provides substantially increased resources for
research at the European level and includes, for the first time,
European-level competition for funding of basic research through the
new European Research Council. The importance of the framework
programme in advancing the European research area agenda should not be
underestimated and will, I believe, only become greater over time.
Nevertheless, as the latest European-level figures show, a great deal
more needs to be done, especially about increasing private sector
research expenditure, and we remain a long way away from the target of
spending 3 per cent. of GDP on research and development. Indeed, the
latest figure is 1.84 per cent.
The framework
programme is only part of Europe’s research efforts. If the
European research area concept is to succeed and have the desired
positive effect on our economies, other issues need to be considered.
The Commission green paper is designed to examine those issues by
encouraging a cross-Europe debate on such topics as researcher
mobility, co-ordination among member states and developing research
infrastructures. It raises many important questions, and we in
government encourage all UK research stakeholders to participate fully
in the consultation process inaugurated by the green
paper.
The Government
will prepare an official response to the questions raised in the green
paper and will listen to the views of the UK research community to
inform that response. The present debate will play an important role in
helping to formulate the Government response. As we are still at an
early stage of deliberations, hon. Members will appreciate that I
cannot necessarily undertake to give cut-and-dried answers on every
issue that might arise—always a useful part of my speech, it
suddenly occurs to me. That shows my serious but modest approach to
this matter. I can, however, set out some general principles that will
inform the UK response to the green
paper.
We want to see
joined-up policy making in this field. The green paper covers research
issues. Other European debates are going on concerning closely related
areas, such as higher education and innovation, as well as the single
market review. There is also a vital role for research in supporting
European progress on challenges such as climate change and energy
security. It is important that the outcomes of those discussions are
properly linked.
We
also want to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is properly
addressed. Research policy and funding is primarily a national
competence. We need to ensure that European-level initiatives have true
added value over and above national-level action and that the right
balances are struck between competition and collaboration and between
diversity and critical mass. The green paper should spark a serious,
wide-ranging debate on the future of the European research
area, as is appropriate given the importance of the subjects
that it covers. Today’s debate is an important step in that
process.
The
Chairman:
We now have until 5.32 pm for questions to the
Minister. May I remind hon. Members that questions should be brief and
asked one at a time? There is likely to be ample opportunity for all
hon. Members to ask several
questions.
Charles
Hendry (Wealden) (Con): I thank the Minister for saying
how fond he is of me. I had not realised that until this occasion. It
is perhaps a shame that we should have to wait until a reshuffle is
upon us to discover the affection that lies underneath it, but it is
always a pleasure to have the chance to debate with the
Minister.
When
does the Minister expect the target of 3 per cent. of GDP to be
invested in research and development to be reached, both across the EU
generally and within the UK? Can he confirm that, at the moment, the UK
figure is about 1.9 per cent., which means that there is a great deal
of further progress to be made? When does he expect the target to be
attained?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I do not think that we have a specific date in mind
for that. It remains our objective, but I am also interested in another
question and I should be grateful for colleagues’ views on it at
some stage, perhaps not today. I am referring to how we measure R and D
in the type of economy and society that is now emerging in the United
Kingdom. I am not trying to change the goalposts, but I was discussing
the issue with colleagues earlier today, and in a more traditional
economy, with much traditional manufacturing, engineering and so on, it
is relatively easy to see R and D—it might be a new piece of kit
or a new machine.
I am
interested in the question of how we measure innovation and therefore R
and D in, say, the creative industries, the very successful retail
sectors that we have, or in financial services. Given that the British
economy arguably is ahead of some economies in respect of
post-industrial restructuring, it is important that the R and D that
undoubtedly exists in, say, the creative industries is captured in the
data. We need to grapple with that methodological problem in the coming
months.
Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): I am tempted
to pursue that line of questioning. The Minister will know that I am a
member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and in our
report on the Office of Science and Innovation we commented on the
Government’s plans to examine how R and D is measured. I have
seen the Government’s response but I do not think it has yet
been published, so it would be inappropriate for me to refer to it. It
would be wise for the Government to make it clear that they are not
moving the
goalposts.
My question
is on the same lines. The European Union is falling well short of the
hugely ambitious target of 3 per cent. that was mentioned by the hon.
Member for Wealden. At what point does the Minister think the EU will
decide that that target is just so unreachable that it no longer serves
a useful purpose, and that it might be sensible to reapportion ambition
towards more realistic targets that can be achieved, and not only in
this country, which is struggling to meet its own targets? I do not
believe that any other places in the European Union, or at least not
many, are making huge progress towards 3 per
cent.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Across the European Union, and certainly here in
the United Kingdom, we must be committed to the innovation agenda. The
hon. Gentleman and the Committee will appreciate that in the global
economy, when we are developing what many call a knowledge economy,
which is at least in large part science-based, we need to get better.
We are getting better here and across Europe at ensuring that
scientific discoveries translate into the marketplace wherever
possible. In simple terms that is what we are about across sectors. We
must be about doing things in novel ways when it is appropriate and
doing things more smartly. R and D is a part of that, although not the
whole story.
The
objectives are clear. I indicated earlier that there are some
conceptual, methodological challenges to ensure that we can measure
innovation and R and D in the service sector. When we mention the
service sector we are now talking about more than 80 per cent. of the
British economy, so we have to get this one
right.
Dr.
Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green) (Lab): On the
question of the 3 per cent. target, in his introductory comments my
hon. Friend the Minister said that we were at 1.84 per cent., or
something like that. Are we lagging compared with other European
countries, are we in the middle or are we higher than
others?
Malcolm
Wicks:
If I have precise data on that, I shall send them
to my hon. Friend. At the moment a piece of work is being completed
that examines innovation in a number of European countries to assess
where we are. It is a qualitative, rather than quantitative, piece of
work by outside experts, but when we see reports on all the countries
it will help to inform us. We neither at the top of the league nor the
bottom, we are somewhere in the middle, but, as I have said, I am
worried that we might be selling our position short because of our
difficulties.
I think
that I have made the point clear, but I shall add that if one went into
Rolls-Royce or some such company, one would be clear about what R and D
was and what the result of it looked like. But in music or the retail
sector a great deal of research is done, leading to the development of
new approaches to stores and so on, but we do not always capture that
in our data. That is my concern. If I have data on league tables, I
shall send them to my hon. Friend, but with something of a health
warning about methodology and
data.
David
Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): I should first declare my
interest as a Cambridge university academic and, in the interests of
complete openness, mention that my wife is the director of the research
services division
there.
I wish to ask
the Minister about something a bit more specific: the proposal for the
European Institute of Technology, which is mentioned once in the green
paper. As he will know, it did not get a favourable reception from the
League of European Research Universities, which
said:
“We are
sceptical that the European Commission fully understands either the
operation or the achievements of Europe’s universities and
believe that its desire to create its own ‘flagship’
university in the terms currently proposed is both misconceived and
doomed to failure.”
I
wonder what is the present state of that proposal. Would the Minister
agree, given what he said about ensuring that Europe respects the
principle of subsidiarity and that it adds value rather than
subtracting from it, the €300 million presently proposed for the
EIT might better go to the European research council, which seems far
more likely to add value in the way
described?
Malcolm
Wicks:
Yes, except that they probably have different
purposes. The EIT is about technology, but the research council is more
about basic research. They are in the same family, but they have
different objectives. The Government are discussing the matter with the
European Council; indeed, we meet again next Monday morning. As hon.
Members can imagine, I look forward to flying out there on Sunday
afternoon to take part in that debate. We have discussed the matter on
a number of occasions.
The United Kingdom supports the
concept of a European Institute of Technology. It is a pragmatic and
sensible idea, and it has a good deal of support among member states.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the President of the Commission is pushing
hard for it. By arguing for a cautious approach—we are not being
negative—we mean that we should try one, two or three projects
rather than going the whole hog immediately. We should taste it and
see, and the research should be properly monitored and
evaluated.
We also
believe that a budget of €300 million is way over the top. We
are arguing strongly for something far more modest—something
that is more in line with our overall approach to its
development.
Mr.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East) (Lab): The Commission has
said that the report will point us in the right direction to create a
genuinely Europe-wide research area. What are the benefits to the
United Kingdom of a Europe-wide research area? Notwithstanding the
difficulty of definition, has my hon. Friend taken any advice on how
much extra investment, in pounds sterling, it would give to research in
the
UK?
Malcolm
Wicks:
We need to consider its impact on the UK. However,
I am a European, and I believe that we should consider also its impact
on Europe as a whole. Certain aspects of research require a critical
mass—one that no individual member state can resource—if
we are to compete with China, the United States and so on. We should
not be too bashful about supporting a European project. Knowledge is
global; fortunately, it has no respect for national frontiers. Although
most research will be done by member states, we need to build up a
European aspect, for the reasons that I have indicated.
The UK is
very good at research and science. The indicators of that—the
scientific publications, work being peer reviewed in the reputable
journals, and particularly that research that is most widely
cited—show that we are second only to the United States of
America. Of the most widely cited scientific papers, 12 per cent. or 13
per cent. are British or co-authored by Britons, yet we are only 1 per
cent. of the world. Indeed, the sixth framework programme shows that,
because of their excellence, British researchers get more than their
share of research money as our applications are so good. That is not
the major reason for doing it, but supporting European initiatives has
the happy effect of benefiting the British economy and British
science.
Mr.
Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton) (Con): I endorse the
Minister’s point about the need to consider the European-wide
system, not least because many companies that operate here are owned
abroad. Even Rolls-Royce has centres of excellence elsewhere in
Europe—indeed, it has 26 around the world.
Is the
Minister satisfied that the UK education system is comparable with
Europe’s? For example, the Government are committed to the
Bologna process, but many universities are not very well informed as to
how it will be funded or whether they will have to restructure their
courses. The UK’s teaching and research is no worse than that of
the
rest of the continent, but it might be regarded as
such if international companies consider the continental criteria to be
more acceptable than those of the UK.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I shall not read out the answer on the Bologna
process that I prepared earlier. However, it is important in that it
offers an opportunity to both the UK and Europe. It is not about
harmonising higher education across Europe—I suspect that that
would be difficult enough to do within Britain if we were ever to try
it—but it is part and parcel of what we are discussing. A single
market has a number of logics, some of which affect science, research
and teaching. Like the hon. Gentleman, who has more experience than I,
I am impressed by the excellence of research in our universities and
hospitals and by the number of workers from other parts of the
world—certainly from other parts of Europe. That has
implications for higher education. However, I think that we can be
encouraged that so many overseas students—from Europe and, in
particular, from China—choose to study here because of the
excellence of British
universities.
Charles
Hendry:
The United Kingdom has been extremely successful
in attracting students from outside the European Union, particularly
those doing research work after their first degrees, to come and study
at our universities. Is the Minister concerned that if the ERA is
established successfully, it might diminish the appeal of UK
universities because that research work will be spread across the whole
of the European Union, and it might become more difficult for us to
attract such students and the revenue that they bring into university
sector? Linked to that, is he concerned about the loss of science
courses in our universities? Dozens of physics, chemistry and
mathematics courses have closed. Will that not make it more difficult
for us to attract the sort of research work that they have
involved?
Malcolm
Wicks:
The picture of people studying the stem science
subjects—engineering, mathematics and the rest—is a bit
mixed. Some indicators point in one direction and some in another.
There has been an increase in applications to study science or the
sciences at universities in the coming year. We will have to wait for
the data in order to see how many translate into actual places. On the
other hand, there have been one or two notable examples of important
departments closing down. It is a mixed picture and, as we try to build
a more scientifically literate society, we must all work far harder to
equip more of our young people to take part in the knowledge economy. I
share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about ensuring that people
can study science and the related disciplines at an appropriate
level.
On his first
question, given globalisation, we should never be complacent. We can
frighten ourselves with the mighty statistics on how many people study
science and related disciplines in India and China. I do not think that
we should be frightened—it comes down to quality, and we have
high quality teaching and research. We must ensure that the allocation
of research moneys across Europe is based on peer review and academic
excellence. The research money must not be parcelled out across 27
member states; it must be allocated on the basis of excellence, and it
is up to British science to demonstrate its excellence and the quality
of its research applications. I feel very confident on that
score.
Dr.
Harris:
I strongly agree with what the Minister said about
the importance of the allocation being peer-review led. We are lucky
that we are in a position to do well out of pooled funding on that
basis.
One of the
first questions that is raised in the consultation concerns the
realisation of a single labour market for researchers. Does the
Minister recognise that, compared with other professions and jobs in
which people move abroad, the science sector is relatively low paid and
has relatively poor working conditions? It is a relatively difficult
sector even in this country—let alone when someone transplants
themselves abroad—especially for women. Does the Minister
recognise the challenge posed by poor working conditions and narrow
career prospects in science in this country and across Europe that is
mentioned in the Commission document? In particular, young women in
their 20s and 30s who start out in a research career face challenges.
They may find it difficult to cope with starting a family while
maintaining publications, their salary, and moving
abroad.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I agree with the broad thrust of the hon.
Gentleman’s comments: we must ensure that conditions here and
across Europe, including in relation to mobility, allow us to fulfil
our ambitions in Europe in science, technology and innovation. I am
slightly puzzled by his phrase “poor working conditions”,
but I suppose that he meant it generically. I have only been the
Minister for Science and Innovation since November but, when visiting
universities, I have been impressed by how many new buildings have been
constructed as a result of uptake and the increase in the science
budget—particularly the science research investment fund money
provided to build new laboratories. In the narrow sense of “in
the laboratory”, working conditions are often very good. I would
be surprised if the hon. Gentleman disagreed with
that.
Dr.
Harris:
I did not mean
that.
Malcolm
Wicks:
The hon. Gentleman meant a broader issue. We have
improved incomes in a number of ways, for example at post-doctoral
level things are moving in the right direction. There has been a
significant increase in the science budget and in the last Budget from
the Chancellor, science funding was guaranteed a real-terms increase
during the course of the comprehensive spending review. That should
encourage those who wish to pursue careers in science.
Some
of the mobility issues are difficult to deal with. Although I am
committed to the idea of a single market for science and scientists, it
makes sense if —this is the logic of a single labour
market—people can pursue their careers in different European
countries. We must ensure that that can happen for scientists and
perhaps also for technicians. I am not convinced that there is a
special case for pension arrangements, as is argued by some in the
European Commission. I prefer to approach that matter as a more generic
issue. In a single market, issues about mobility, and the consequences
of conditions and benefits need to be dealt with—whether the
group concerned is made up of artists, medics or scientists. I am not
convinced that there are special difficulties for scientists that are
different from those of other potentially mobile labour
forces.
Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): That is exactly
that point that I would like to pursue with the Minister. He spoke
earlier about knowledge being free, which is to some extent true.
However, knowledge is also power and whoever has that power, has
influence over how they use it. We need to distinguish what happens
during the research phase and what happens once that research has been
used to create a product or provide the answer to a solution. If
research is successful it must, of course, be shared with the wider
community, the country and the world.
Naturally, as a Conservative, I
am cautious about introducing new legislation. How does the initiative
reconcile with the healthy competition that exists, for example with
what is happening in aerospace research in the UK and America? How do
we reconcile the idea that is mentioned on page 2 of the summary of the
European research area where it states that we should have
“effective knowledge sharing” between
“public-funded research to
industry”.
We live in
the real world where many initiatives are sponsored by industry, which
will not want its secrets shared during the research phase. Issues
concerning intellectual property rights and patents also need to be
dealt with. I would like the Minister to take a minute or so to
consider how the sharing initiative can be reconciled with a real
role.
The
Chairman:
Order. Before the Minister responds, I reiterate
my opening remarks that questions should be brief and, hopefully,
replies will not be all that long. Question time is followed by a
debate in which hon. Members will have the opportunity to
participate.
Malcolm
Wicks:
The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue.
I said earlier that knowledge should not respect national boundaries,
and in the quest for knowledge, and given the importance of the
publication of academic journals or their online equivalents, I stick
to that ideal. What the hon. Gentleman has described as “the
real world” is important, however. Increasingly, there are small
and large companies whose intellectual property rights, as we now call
them, are among their key assets. Those rights can take different
guises, such as the trademark or the patent. We take the matter
seriously. Indeed, we have recently renamed the Patent Office the UK
Intellectual Property Office, not only to have a name that people do
not understand, although that is an issue, but because the concept of
the patent does not quite cover the importance of intellectual
property.
I
do not have a crisp answer for the hon. Gentleman, who has raised an
important point. We need to encourage more scientists and academics to
think about how they can commercialise a good idea. It is encouraging
that, after a slow start, we now see in our universities more spin-out
companies, headed up by academics, often with help from the
universities. Often, such companies are set up in collaboration with
other companies, so intellectual property becomes important. When I
have raised the issue, I have been assured by the scientific community
and by universities that one can maintain the important tradition of
the academic journal article or scientific paper while seeking to
protect intellectual property. That important issue is largely down to
timing, and we need to think it through.
David
Howarth:
I also want to ask a question about intellectual
property and patents. Incidentally, I notice that the document refers
to the community patent and the stalling of that process. I hope that
the Minister can tell us where that process has got to—I hope
that it is not a prelude to the return of the notion of the software
patent.
My point
follows the question asked by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East.
The document gives the impression that uniformity in the way in which
universities, researchers and outside funding providers resolve such
questions would be a good thing. The other point of view is that there
should be diversity in the way in which questions are resolved, so that
different attempts, which might have different effects, can be tried.
Different universities might want to attract different sorts of
researcher and different sorts of outside funding. Does the Minister
agree that any European-level attempt to impose uniformity on those
relationships would not be a particularly good
idea?
Malcolm
Wicks:
We are talking about our old friend subsidiarity in
a new guise. I guess that we are trying to have our European cake and
eat
it.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I shall not pursue that line too far, in case we
all get verbal indigestion. We want the benefits of diversity and
subsidiarity, but we must recognise—I hope that the hon. Member
for Cambridge will forgive me for saying this—that knowledge
flows across boundaries as scientists work together. It is interesting
to see how many of our excellent, widely cited scientific papers are
co-authored not only within Europe, but internationally, which shows
the importance of
globalisation.
We have
long been supporters of a unified European patent system, and we
support that proposal. As I have been urged to issue short answers, I
will say only that the idea has run into some practical difficulties at
the European level, and I think that it is fair to say that it is
making slow progress. It is not a case of either/or, because the
benefit of having a European patent alongside national patent or IP
offices is pretty clear. We should continue to work hard at putting
that principle into
practice.
Mr.
Taylor:
The Minister should beware of shortening UK
intellectual property to UKIP, which has nothing to do with anything
intellectual.
I have
a question about the figures that the Minister gave earlier, which are
often cited, about the number of publications that come from
researchers in this country. In that area, we clearly punch above our
weight globally. What concerns me is that the research assessment
exercise drives towards publication rather than stimulating the work
that can be done beyond the point of discovery. I have found that many
universities are very concerned about that, and, of course, it is a
competitive problem. Has the Minister examined the research assessment
exercise to see whether it can be rebalanced to raise the status of
those who work at the point beyond discovery, many of whom are
engineers?
Malcolm
Wicks:
The Department for Education and Skills has
promised an evaluation of the research assessment exercise, and we
support that. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. It
seems to me that in the 21st century the university should essentially
be about three things. Two of them are obvious; the first is teaching
and the second is research and academic excellence in terms of
science—I use the word “science” broadly. The
third thing, which the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, is knowledge
transfer. Other words have also been used to describe that process,
which is about innovation and contributing to the economy and society.
Until recently, the third area has undoubtedly been the weakest link,
and we need to build it
up.
I look forward to
a time when a university might not be in the top 10 when it comes to
the traditional measures of academic excellence, but it none the less
develops a huge reputation, maybe regionally, nationally or even at
European level in some areas, because of its knowledge transfer and its
engagement with industry. We support that process. Every year, we have
the higher education innovation fund, which is about £100
million, or something of that order. That fund is allocated to the
universities to encourage knowledge transfer, so that specialists in
universities can help academics to commercialise their idea, if it
seems
appropriate.
I
want to see that third aspect of the university’s role
encouraged in the future, and one way to do that is to try to measure
it. We know how the RAE works, so I guess that we can measure the
quality of teaching. How can we measure knowledge transfer? It is not
an impossible question, and I think that we need to measure that area.
It would be healthy if, in the future, some universities, including
perhaps some of the former polytechnics and some of the newer
universities, were to measure highly in one area, if not always so
highly in
others.
The
Chairman:
Order. I ask members of the Committee to
restrict their questions to the green paper on the European research
area and not to extend them to include UK
matters.
Charles
Hendry:
The green paper says this about effective
knowledge-sharing, which is one of the six suggested elements of the
ERA:
“This
would include: open and easy access to the public knowledge base; a
simple and harmonised system of patent and intellectual property
rights; and shared principles for the transfer of knowledge from
publicly-funded research to
industry.”
The Minister
will be aware that the UK is a global leader in scientific publication,
but there is constant pressure for it to be provided for free rather
than for it to be a commercial activity. Can he give us an assurance
that, in his discussions with his European counterparts, he will
protect this vital and very successful British area of
publishing?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I can promise that we will adopt a more neutral
position than the one that the hon. Gentleman has proposed. I do not
pretend to be as authoritative on this issue as perhaps I should be, so
I will examine the matter further. This is a genuinely interesting
debate, because our publishing industry, if I can put it that way, is
rather good at publishing
academic journals. That includes the referee system, so one can
guarantee the quality of the work, because it has been peer reviewed.
On the other hand, I also understand the other argument, which is that
those journals can take years to publish—I am not sure whether I
am exaggerating, but it can certainly take many months to get
one’s academic paper in the relevant international
journal—and that such delays inhibit the flow of knowledge.
Furthermore, the journals themselves are often very expensive. There is
a debate about that point, and it is probably sensible if the
Government are neutral. In the age of the internet, we need to be
careful—obviously, one can publish both in a journal and on the
internet. The Government’s position is neutral, and as Minister
for Science and Innovation, I am very interested in the
debate.
Dr.
Vis:
There is a big difference between invention and
innovation, yet I have only heard the word “innovation”.
Is the money going mainly to or only to innovation? Has any attempt
been made to make invention part of
this?
Malcolm
Wicks:
The other day in Bristol, I had the opportunity to
meet both Wallace and Gromit, so I am a great authority on
invention—I think that I understand the distinction. Our overall
goal as a society is presumably to do things in a modern way, where
appropriate, and to innovate so that we add value to services and goods
and are ahead of the game in the global economy, which often involves
innovation. Innovation is about doing things in a new way
, but I
take my hon. Friend’s point that innovation is not necessarily
the same as invention.
Invention is very important. I
met Wallace and Gromit—or, to be more accurate, actors dressed
up as Wallace and Gromit, because they did not seem to be made of
Plasticene and moved rather quickly—because we were launching
something for primary schools called “Cracking Ideas”.
The aim is to introduce children to the idea of invention in a fun way,
and it involves competition to see whether they can invent things. The
other purpose is to introduce them at an early stage to the kind of
economy in which they are growing up, where knowledge is important,
which is where our old friend intellectual property becomes important.
I agree with my hon. Friend that invention is very good. We have always
been good at it, and we need to get even
better.
David
Howarth:
Will the Minister respond to a particular
criticism of the green paper, which is that it concentrates far too
much on the supply side? It concentrates on what universities, the
Government and to some extent, although perhaps not enough, companies
are doing in research and development and not enough on the demand side
and what is called the absorptive capacity of businesses to use
innovation and to take innovation within their own organisations. What
does he suggest the European Union could do to increase the absorptive
capacity of European businesses for innovative research and
development?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I do not have the whole answer, but part of the
answer is to develop the relationship between our universities and
industry, whether large or small. I
suspect that we are better at this than some European countries,
although not all. I recently visited Stockholm to look at the Swedish
approach to innovation, and I was impressed by what I saw there. In
Britain, we are good, or at least we are getting better, at enabling
the scientist with an idea that might have the potential to get to
market and nurturing that individual through the process by helping
with the business case and so on. That involves not only the European
level, but the nation state level or the regional level. The RDAs have
a role to play, and we need to find ways in which such scientists can
be encouraged to commercialise their ideas. Not all will want to do so,
but growing numbers will. The trick is to establish a better balance
between academia and local business and to think through what that
means in terms of encouraging
innovation.
Dr.
Harris:
I hope the Minister agrees that the scientific
research community will want fairness in appointments to academic and
research posts in other European countries, particularly those that are
funded jointly, although that principle of fairness applies to all
funding. Does he have any thoughts beyond the Bologna process, which is
a critical part of ensuring that things are equal, or about how
progress can be made to ensure a level playing field for applicants,
internally or from other parts of the European Union, so long as
language skills are met? Will he ensure that there is no padding of CVs
or unusual approaches from referees or members of appointments panels
across the European Union? That is part and parcel of sharing resources
across the research
area.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Obviously, that has got to be right. It is almost a
clichÃ(c), but we must ensure that the best man or woman gets the
job, whatever their nationality, and that such appointments are not
subject to politics, which sometimes affects and infects appointments
at a European level. The only other point that I would add is that
universities or departments that take international or European
collaboration seriously often enable their academics to gain the
experience to get those posts in future. I do not think that we are
doing too
badly.
Mr.
Taylor:
Full economic costing is one of the problems that
I hear about from industry when it wants to collaborate with
universities. It is often applied too rigorously by UK universities.
Will the Minister give guidance to the English universities—I do
not think that he is even allowed to talk about Scottish universities?
From the point of view of genuine centres of excellence, we want to
encourage industry to work in long-term contracts with universities in
this country. If full economic costing is applied too rigorously by UK
universities, then, as Rolls-Royce was beginning to find, industry
signs contracts with institutions in Stockholm, where it can get a much
more realistic
deal.
Malcolm
Wicks:
This is a difficult one, is it not? Many of us have
signed up to the idea that if someone wants research done in a
university or research institute, they should pay the full
whack—full economic costing. Having run a social science
research institute in the field of family studies before I ventured
into this place, there was always a struggle about who
would pay for the electric lights, the electricity bill or the cleaning.
When the Government said that we want to move towards full economic
costing for future science funding of universities in terms of what the
Government or research councils should be paying, most people thought
that that was very good. I have now come across, as it were, not the
other side of the story, but another angle on the matter, which the
hon. Gentleman has just presented. Some companies say that it is too
much to pay the full whack, and we need to think that through. It is
not compulsory for universities to say that industry must pay the full
economic cost. Such matters can be settled between universities and
companies, and different universities may take different approaches.
The hon. Gentleman has flagged up the issue, which I was already aware
of and am looking
at.
Charles
Hendry:
Will the Minister tell us what discussions he is
having with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, and the
Government’s response to this green paper? Clearly, a huge
amount of research that is carried out in this country is related to
defence. Has he picked up any anxieties among his colleagues there that
sharing research work across Europe may provide complications for them,
especially with countries that are not involved with
NATO?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I have not had any particular discussions.
Obviously, the MOD is a huge customer when it comes to both research
and development. The best that I can do is assure the hon. Gentleman
that our response will be a Government response rather than just a
Department of Trade and Industry response, albeit that it will be led
by the
DTI.
Dr.
Harris:
Does the Minister agree that the increasing
globalisation of research—science has always been an area where
people have sought to access the knowledge globally—has
implications for access to the products of that research? Does he agree
that there is an increasingly strong case for different business models
of publishing, to enable researchers in different countries, including
the new emerging and accession countries in the EU, which do not have
huge library resources to buy every journal that we can? Does he
recognise a case for making much more publicly funded research,
including European research, open access? That should not be seen as a
threat to the publishing industry, which would receive its funding from
another source. We are good at publishing under the traditional model,
but I believe that we would be good at publishing under a new model as
well—I hope that the Minister agrees. There is an opportunity to
ensure that European-funded research within the ERA is available to
everyone without their having to rely on huge, escalating library
budgets.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We
had an earlier discussion on the same question, and the hon. Member for
Esher and Walton had a different take on it. I certainly agree that the
quality of science and the quality of the research output—the
academic paper—do not depend on the
paper being published quarterly at some expense in the traditional way.
It would be absurd to suggest that, and there will be significant
developments in the age of the
internet.
What
are we trying to do? We are trying to get the balance right, are we
not? We want to guarantee the quality assessment of the scientific
paper through a peer review, which is often associated with the
academic journal but does not need to be. Then there is the issue of
intellectual property rights, which the hon. Member for Oxford, West
and Abingdon raised—as I said, I do not think that those things
are incompatible—and there is also the issue of how we ensure
that people in poorer parts of the world who want to access the latest
research are enabled to do so without huge expense. I believe that that
is the set question, and I shall ponder it
further.
David
Howarth:
May I return briefly to the question of full
economic cost and bring it back into the European Union context? As the
Minister knows, one institution that certainly does not do full
economic costing for its grants is the EU itself, and it has often been
the subject of complaint. As a funding body, it assumes that the
grant-receiving institution will, to a large extent, subsidise out of
its own resources some of the costs of the project. Has he had any
discussions at European level about that? There is a reason why some
researchers would much prefer to do fully economically costed research
for the British Government or for any company that is sensible enough
to pay the full cost of the research, rather than for the EU, which
does not pay at that
level.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I have not had such discussions, but I will review
the financial arrangements for the seventh framework programme. It is a
generous programme, but I will look at the issue of economic costing,
and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will raise it with the
Commissioner Potocnik when I next meet
him.
Motion made,
and Question
proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 8322/07, Commission
Green Paper, The European Research Area: New Perspectives; encourages
UK stakeholders to participate in the consultation process which the
Commission has inaugurated; and agrees that the issues identified in
the document are of vital importance to ensuring the effective
development of the European Research Area.—[M
alcolm
Wicks
.]
5.23
pm
Charles
Hendry:
I thank the Minister for the way in which he dealt
with the question and answer session. His answers were constructive and
straightforward, as always. As this may be our last exchange before the
anticipated reshuffle next week, perhaps I could take this opportunity
to thank him for the way in which he has always conducted exchanges. He
has been unfailingly courteous, and sometimes his answers have even
been helpful, but perhaps that was an oversight. I wish him well in the
reshuffle and, on the basis of our contact, I certainly think that he
deserves to be in the Cabinet. I hope that that comment will not blight
his career too
much.
In the course of
the Minister’s answers, he discussed scientific publications. I
ask him to consider the matter further, because the Government were not
neutral
about it in a recent debate in Westminster Hall. In fact, they very much
supported the status quo, and I am concerned by what appears to be a
new Government policy emerging on the issue. Perhaps he could look into
it and write to me
subsequently.
Dr.
Harris:
The Government seem to have upset both of us. I am
upset with them because they are so neutral on the issue when they
should be creating opportunities for alternative business models.
Business does not always want to be conservative in such matters. It
wants to take the opportunity to embrace an author-pays model. We are
not talking about moving to a system in which no one pays but to one in
which authors and their funders pay to be published. That means that
everyone can see the results of publicly funded research. Surely,
everyone should see those results.
The
Chairman:
Order. Interventions should be
brief.
Charles
Hendry:
That goes slightly beyond the remit of the debate,
although I am surprised that a Liberal Democrat finds it peculiar that
a Minister should want to sit on the fence.
I am
generally supportive of the proposals for the European research area.
Compared with other major economies, the UK remains relatively weak in
terms of innovation, and we must address that issue very carefully. We
are hugely successful in terms of scientific research and we punch well
above our weight internationally, but we sometimes fall down when we
try to transform our ideas into something commercially viable. It would
therefore be helpful to know the Minister’s view on how the ERA
will help move us forward and make us more able to take commercial
advantage of this country’s scientific genius.
Industry projections suggest
that we need an additional 2.5 million people in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics by 2014, but the CBI has expressed doubts
about whether our education system has the capacity to achieve that.
The UK already invests less than 4 per cent. of GDP in knowledge,
compared with nearly 7 per cent. in the US and Germany. Clearly,
therefore, the issue needs to be addressed, and to the extent that the
ERA can do so, it is to be welcomed.
It would be helpful if the
Minister could spell out what the green paper proposes to do to ensure
that our research is the best in the world. Indeed, it would be
constructive if he could explain how the Government can square their
commitment to the ERA with the recent cuts in the science budget, which
have been so opposed by those in the science sector and in our
universities. Overall, UK research and development expenditure came in
at only 1.84 per cent. of GDP in 2005, as the Minister said. That
contrasts dramatically with the figure in Japan, where it was 3.1 per
cent., and the States, where it was 2.7 per cent. That needs to be
addressed through a change in the investment culture and through
Government action. The Government have committed themselves to
increasing expenditure to 3 per cent. of GDP, but at current rates of
growth, according to Treasury figures, the UK is unlikely to be able to
increase expenditure to more than 2.5 per cent. by 2014. What,
therefore, are the Government doing to raise our game?
The Minister raised some
interesting points about definitions. Does he agree that some of the
debates about the ERA will be meaningless unless there is a Europe-wide
definition of what we mean by research and development? Will he give us
an assurance that the Government response to the green paper will focus
on how we achieve a common definition of such concepts?
We face formidable
competition in research and development, but the Minister was slightly
complacent in his attitude towards China and India. One city in
China—Dalian—has a population of 200,000 university
students, of whom 100,000 study science, technology, engineering or
mathematics. Every other student studies English, Japanese and IT,
along with whatever degree subjects they have chosen. That is why the
city is becoming a magnet for international investment, and one leading
US software company is about to make a $5 billion investment
there.
If we wish to
compete with such countries, we must show that we are every bit as
good. That is why it is a matter of such concern that some of our
science departments have closed. The figures are masked by the growth
of psychology, sociology and biology, but the underlying figures for
pure STEM science subjects paint a disappointing and worrying
picture.
As I said,
we have been successful in attracting international students, so
perhaps the Minister can say a little about what will happen in the
light of the proposed changes to immigration procedures, which are
linked to the issues before us, although slightly at a tangent. There
is concern that the tier 5 proposals introduced by the Home Office will
make it difficult to attract the sort of students whom we will need if
we are to play a full part in future developments.
Research conducted for the
Centre for Business Research shows that companies that seek financial
support for innovation from Government sources are 70 per cent. more
likely to be successful in the UK than in the US. However, the
recipients of such assistance in the US receive five times more
financial support than their UK counterparts. That shows that the UK
financial support is spread much more thinly. It would be useful to
know the Government’s thinking on how they intend to address
that in relation to their response to the green
paper.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Esher and Walton has been doing outstanding work in
examining how we can use Government purchasing power to pull through
research. I hope that the Minister will also comment on the
contribution that that can make to taking science through from the
scientific, academic stage into the
marketplace.
We are
also concerned about the regional research variations within the United
Kingdom. The position could become more fragmented as a result of the
proposals before us. One concern that we have had about regional
development agencies is that they are all competing against one
another. They all want to be a centre for biopharma. Even though there
are only three centres for biopharma in the whole of the United States,
several of those bodies want to be centres of global excellence in the
United Kingdom. They want to be centres for technological expertise as
well. Are we not in danger of having too disparate an approach within
the UK? If one translates that to the European
level, we might find it harder still to compete with centralised
direction in other European countries, as proposed by the
ERA.
As I said, we are
generally supportive of the measures before us. Attempts to secure
greater European integration and co-operation on these levels must be
productive, but we are concerned that some of the policies that have
been pursued in this country will make it more difficult to maintain
the scientific excellence in this
country.
5.31
pm
Dr.
Harris:
May I, too, welcome the way in which the Minister
has responded to the debate and the fact that we have a Minister in the
House of Commons with whom to debate? I pay tribute to the way he has
got stuck into a portfolio where he is filling big boots, as I think he
would agree. When one’s predecessor is in post for many years,
it takes some time to get up to speed, but the Minister always gives
considered replies and is always willing to write to us if he cannot
answer questions there and then, which is a very sensible
approach.
The
document is interesting, and it is hugely beneficial to be able to
examine proposals for the European research area and, indeed, the
discussions on it. I wish to raise a number of points, some of which I
prefaced in questions. I should also like to comment on the
contribution that we have just heard. The issues that I shall raise
relate to the mobility of researchers and the prospects for core
science careers in this country, given the increase in mobility implied
by a European research area and the pressure on both academics and
researchers to go abroad and experience different research climates,
which comes from people who serve on appointment panels and who welcome
that experience for those who can obtain it. There is a question about
pay and working conditions in that
area.
I
should also like to raise questions about the need for wider access to
the fruits of public investment—I am referring to access to
research findings. We also need to deal with the question of how we
lever up the amount of funding that we spend. The hon. Member for
Wealden mentioned funding cuts in this country. I have to say that that
was a little unfair, because no one can doubt that spending on science
has increased enormously in real terms since 1997. Obviously, that is
compared with the very low base that was inherited, which is a
reflection on the previous Government. However, although I have been,
as the Minister will recognise, very critical of the breach of the
science ring fence in respect of last year’s science funding, it
was less than 1 per cent. of the total amount for the research councils
and therefore must not blind us to the fact that British science has
enjoyed a significant increase in resources. The breach of the ring
fence is a problem of principle—it was worrying and I think that
it was the wrong decision—but it is not necessarily right to
read across from that breach to wider issues about funding. Obviously,
we all hope that the ERA will inspire the Government to continue to be
generous in respect of
science.
I disagree
with the hon. Member for Wealden about the competition that we face
from other countries in churning out science graduates. I do not think
that the
Minister was being complacent when he said that we must not get frozen
in the headlights of the fact that bigger countries have bigger cohorts
of graduates. There is nothing that we can do about that, because we do
not have that level of population. Sooner or later one has to
say—I thought that the hon. Member for Wealden was going to make
this point—that if science careers in Europe, and particularly
in this country, are publicly funded, the Government surely have an
interest in students being pulled into science, technology, engineering
and mathematics courses and not media
studies.
I would be
interested to know whether the Conservative party is minded to
recognise that we do not have a market in which whatever students want
to study goes, and that we need more STEM people. As the people who pay
for the vast majority of higher education, we are entitled to dictate
that we would rather see universities fund those courses. We recognise
that that is an issue, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Esher and
Walton and his group are doing some excellent thinking and will have
things to say on the matter, when they publish. In the meantime, there
is no doubt that Conservative Front Benchers will have to stay on the
fence, and I can understand that. My view is that to a certain extent
the piper should call the tune, and we need to recognise
that.
On
the mobility of researchers, when I mentioned working conditions in my
earlier question to the Minister, I was not talking about shiny new
labs, although there is still a question about facilities. Although I
recognise the significant investment in infrastructure in budget lines
that I voted for and the tax consequences that go with that, plenty of
buildings and equipment still need upgrading. Like the authors of the
green paper and the Commission, I was talking more about the terms and
conditions of scientific
researchers.
Unlike
bankers and business people who move around in the pursuit of a
professional career, research scientists are relatively badly paid. The
market can get away with that because research scientists are inspired
to do their research. Therefore, uniquely among professionals moving
for their careers, they face real issues about how to survive,
particularly in countries where they do not have such good access to
social security benefits and help with child care as they would in
their own countries. That has rightly been pointed out in relation to
the ERA. Will the Minister acknowledge that there is work for us to do
on how to tackle that
problem?
There is
still a gross mismatch between men and women in entry into research,
let alone retention. Women face the problems of being less mobile at
any given age, having greater debt because of the flawed policy of
imposing debt on graduates, which is particularly true of those who
work in the public sector in less well-paid jobs in which there is no
golden hello to pay off their debt, and having to deal with the worry
that a publication gap will threaten their research and career
credentials when they take time out for children. Will the Minister
accept that those are real issues? His predecessor set up some working
groups on them, but we have not seen the results yet. If UK research
money is put in a European pot, and other European countries are better
able to equip their postgraduate and career
researchers to take advantage of the ability to be mobile, our citizens
will lose out in the chase for that
funding.
Another
matter that I would like the Minister at least to recognise is the need
for level playing fields. As he has said, research grants are rightly
allocated on the basis of peer review, and we will have to take our
chance. Yes, we have a good record, and yes, we may therefore in theory
have more to lose than many other countries from the pooling of
resources, but we should be confident enough to say that we will get
our fair share, and perhaps more, on the basis of quality. Commonly
agreed standards of appraisal of research applications will be
necessary, so that approaches that do not suit us and are inappropriate
do not take hold in a perhaps well-meaning attempt to ensure that the
fruits of the funding are allocated geographically or politically.
Science must work on the basis of quality—I know that the
Minister shares my view and am merely keen to know that he is in a
position to look into that matter and ensure that there is no movement
from the highest form of quality assurance in applications and
publication.
I think
that the Minister misunderstood an earlier remark that I made, so I
want to make it clear that changing the publication model from reader
pays to author pays will make no difference to the need for proper peer
review and quality assurance before publication. Whether the stream
comes from authors, and therefore from research funders, or from
readers, libraries and subscribers, the articles still have to pass
muster.
Many people
who support the ability of European and British citizens to have free
access to the products of publicly funded research resent the idea that
that approach will be weaker on quality assurance—it need not
be, and should not be. I repeat the point that we should be courageous
about recognising that British publishers are leaders in being able to
adjust to a new
model.
I asked the
Minister about the realism of the EU targets for research and
development expenditure, because we are nowhere near achieving the 3
per cent. target. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green asked
where we stood. To save the Minister a letter, I should point out that
the figures are on page 62 of the bundle. The latest figures show that
we rank ninth out of the 15 old EU
countries.
Dr.
Vis:
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I should point out that
the relevant figures are also on page 76 of the Commission’s
document.
Dr.
Harris:
I am in the position of a man with two watches; I
do not know which table is correct. The only table that I can see is
the one on page 62 of the bundle—page 35 of the discussion
document on the green paper. It shows that the UK ranks ninth out of
the 15 older EU countries and, not surprisingly, ninth out of all 27
countries. As has been remarked, we are some way behind our own rather
lower target of 2.5 per
cent.
Our
major competitors in terms of size, such as Germany and France, are
significantly ahead of us. Rather than just looking at how we capture
research
and development in the creative industries, we must ask what we can do
to lever up investment and what sort of culture of long-termism we can
create to lever up investment in research and development both in this
country and in Europe. We are falling behind and staying behind other
global blocs, and the move towards a European research area is a
symptom of increasing worry about how we are going to compete with
those economies and areas of the world that are investing
more.
Even the most
ardent anti-European must see the benefit of European co-operation in
research. Knowledge is already out there, and therefore it is clearly
essential that we co-operate with our closest neighbours, as the
Minister has said, to create the critical mass needed to maximise the
benefit that comes from our talent and to ensure that large-scale plant
is not left idle. This should not be a question that divides
pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans.
I invite the Minister to
recognise that the Select Committee on Science and Technology, upon
which I sit, is currently conducting an inquiry into the international
policies of research councils. One of the issues that will and has been
raised in that inquiry is the way in which our research councils engage
with our European neighbours and how ready we are to work in a European
research
area.
This
proposal offers real opportunities. The green paper asks the right sort
of questions, although there are only hints about where the Commission
wants policy to go. I hope that the Government will respond positively
and wholeheartedly, because such European money is likely to be spent
much better than, for example, some of the money that is spent on
agriculture, because the quality assurance is embedded in the way in
which science works globally as well as on this continent and in this
country. We can be optimistic—unusually, perhaps—about
this initiative.
5.45
pm
Mr.
Taylor:
I cannot resist saying a few words, given that the
Minister, who has handled everything charmingly during this sitting, is
my real successor in the House of Commons, leaving aside a few months
of confusion in 1997 when the Labour Government came to power. I
welcome him to his ministerial duties, and I acknowledge that he has
much more money to spend than I had when I was Minister with
responsibility for science and technology. I am delighted for science
and for the UK that he has the role. The Conservative party’s
science and technology committee certainly does not challenge the
amount involved, although we are considering more innovative ways of
spending it. More of that anon, however, because it is not relevant to
this afternoon.
The
document is timely, because global competition is increasing rapidly.
America has recently increased the amount of money that is spent on
research and development, and it is both a friendly country and a great
competitor. One problem in this country is that under our procurement
rules, when we look for value for money, we tend to leave the
intellectual property in the country from which we purchase. My hon.
Friend the Member for Wealden said that I am analysing smart public
procurement, and one reason why I am doing so is to find out whether we
can think more
innovatively about the way in which the Government purchase things in
order to pull through innovation and invention from our businesses and
universities. The report has been published, and I do not need to
mention it any further. However, it is important if we are serious
about pulling through innovation in the UK and in Europe as a
whole.
I touched on
my second point earlier. Many people underestimate just how
international business is in this country. Often, the decision-making
process about where to place research and development, whether in
Europe or elsewhere, is global. I have mentioned Rolls-Royce, and so
did the Minister, but it has 26 centres of excellence throughout the
world, and it will put in money wherever it thinks the excellence of
the research that it receives makes it
worthwhile.
The chief
executive of Novartis, which has considerable interests in this
country, came to see me a few weeks ago, and when I asked him why he
had just put £100 million of research money into Shanghai, he
said, “To capture the next generation of Chinese researchers,
which gives Novartis many more opportunities than putting the
equivalent amount of money into the
UK.”
On a
European-wide basis, we must play to centres of excellence, if we are
to retain what we have in comparative terms—not that there will
be any sudden exit of current investment, but the next phase may well
not go to the traditional areas of research. There are many schemes in
which European-wide collaboration is vital. Correct me if I am wrong,
but I think that the seventh framework programme, which is about to be
launched, is worth about €52 billion, which is a considerable
sum of money. If that is true, we, as a nation, our universities and
our businesses must collaborate with the framework programme and
strengthen Europe without worrying too much about where the
intellectual property is shared, because it would be shared if the UK
were to participate
anyway.
Research that
leads to discovery and publication is not the end of the process. The
difficulty that we must address in continental Europe and in Britain is
that in many cases discovery then enables further research.
Multidisciplinary work is increasingly important, and research from one
discipline may require exposure to other disciplines in order to
discover the ultimate applications. For example, only when chemical
profiling of DNA was possible did we take advantage of Crick and
Watson’s discovery of the 1950s. Those things are important
drivers, so we should not think in a totally insular
manner.
There are also
issues to do with large facilities. I am thrilled that the diamond
synchrotron, which is nearly finished, is based in Oxford. Anyone who
goes to see the building would be hugely impressed. We also share in
facilities elsewhere in Europe, not least CERN. One question for the
Minister is how does the UK hold up in the European context? We have
universities that are beacons of excellence now, but will they be so in
the future? How many should we have? Should UK funding help reinforce
beacons and centres of excellence, or should it be thinly spread among
the 130 universities that I believe we now have in this country? These
are key questions in a globally competitive era,
and they do not often feature in the UK debate, in which we talk in a
rather self-satisfied way about the fact that we have many universities
and about excellence. International comparisons matter as well as what
happens in the UK.
In
all those areas, science, technology, engineering and mathematics are
key both in Europe and the UK. We have to act radically to encourage
those things. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden that
some universities have closed their science departments and too many
schools teach combined science. That is not the way forward, if we are
serious about the level of excellence that we want for the next
generation of children—we would be denying them opportunities
that they should not be denied. That might be going slightly off the
subject.
Europe must
be seen in terms of a research area, but I believe that we should also
think competitively from the UK point of view. I am both a pro-European
and a staunch supporter of British science. We have to inspire through
collaborative work, but we should be the centre excellence. If the
Minister will guarantee not only the continuation of money, but that it
is better spent, he will deliver something for the next Conservative
Government to get their teeth
into.
5.52
pm
Malcolm
Wicks:
Which is not necessarily my objective. It was good
to hear a staunch European express his concern about a new office to be
known as “UKIPO”. It sounds like an Italian version of
UKIP, but such a thing is by definition
unlikely.
We
have had a wide-ranging debate but I shall be old-fashioned and stick
to the subject. However, I enjoyed the debate, and the matters that we
have discussed are interrelated. I had the opportunity to make an
introductory statement and of answering some questions, so I shall not
delay the Committee, not least because I have been advised that there
might be business of a psephological nature to be done elsewhere. As I
noted in my introductory statement, the Government will submit a formal
response to the issues raised in the green paper. The points raised by
hon. Members will, of course, be of great value in helping us to
formulate our response. As I indicated, I shall not touch on the whole
range of issues that have been
raised.
The hon.
Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has helped me out. I was not being
complacent about China. I said, as he did, that we should not be
frightened about numbers and that we should focus on the quality of our
output.
I agree that
Government procurement should be a major stimulus to innovation, and
both the Government and Opposition are working to see how we can bring
that about. The Government spend something like £125
billion on goods and services from paper clips to aircraft carriers to
the NHS, so there is great capacity for
innovation.
I talked
about the Government’s neutral position on open access and
publications. On reflection, it might have been more helpful had I
talked about the need for a level playing field. Research funding
authorities should have the discretion to provide funds, if the author
prefers an open-access route. The Government aim to facilitate a level
playing field to enable the
market to develop without putting any institutional barriers in the way
of any particular publishing model.
In
our response to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, we made
it clear that the Government are happy for publishers to develop a
number of business models, including subscriber pays, open-access and
hybrid approaches. We believe that those options will encourage
competition and innovation in publishing models and will retain freedom
of choice for authors, which is in the long-term interests of a
sustainable scientific publications market. I am pleased to have had
the opportunity to say that about our
approach.
I listened
with great care to what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon
said about mobility. I fully understand the point, but I am not
convinced that it is specific to scientists, as opposed to other groups
of key workers. I share his concern that we must not erect new barriers
to women in science, because there are enough barriers already. It
concerns me that there are sometimes no women in the room when I meet a
group of scientists or people in related professions, such as
technologists and business people. As someone with a
social policy background, I find that strange. I am talking to the
men—very distinguished men, of course—here. It is a
problem that we have to crack and not to exacerbate in Europe,
especially given that, broadly speaking, our girls are doing rather
better than the boys in many school subjects.
We have had a useful,
stimulating debate. I was grateful for the kind obituary
notice—sorry, good wishes—from the hon. Member for
Wealden. We have enjoyed our debates over the months and I am sure that
we will continue them, one way or another, in the
future.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
this Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 8322/07,
Commission Green Paper, The European Research Area: New Perspectives;
encourages UK stakeholders to participate in the consultation process
which the Commission has inaugurated; and agrees that the issues
identified in the document are of vital importance to ensuring the
effective development of the European Research
Area.
Committee
rose at three minutes to Six
o’clock.
