PRESS RELEASE
There has been a general lowering of the
innovation-exploitation barrier in the 1990s, according to the
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Its report published
today (Friday) highlights important remaining obstacles to development
and issues of concern, while warning that many support schemes
have not realised their full potential. But it concludes that
there has been an overall improvement in the innovation culture
in the United Kingdom since the subject was last examined by the
Committee in 1991.
"We were greatly encouraged by the
amount of evidence on the impact of a change of attitude towards
risk-taking", Baroness Hogg, Chairman of the Sub-Committee
which produced the report, said launching the report. "Research
partnerships between industry and universities are increasing
and business incubation is under way in many universities, enabling
bright people to exploit their ideas. However, there is no room
for complacency; it is not all good news. We have still further
to go before we can match the powerful working relationships seen
in the United States".
The Select Committee took evidence on the
availability of seed capital, the efficacy of government measures,
the state of the science base and the role of clusters, science
parks and incubators in promoting the exploitation of innovative
ideas. An important theme of the report is the need for more rigorous
evaluation of systems intended to support innovation, in order
to ensure their objectives are met.
A number of outstanding concerns were identified
by the Committee:
- A "funding gap" continues to
be faced by certain start-up businesses, because of the disincentive
effect of the relatively high cost of carrying out "due diligence"
for small investments. The contribution made by "Business
Angels" needed to be further examined, in the new light of
new data from the Enterprise Investment Scheme, in order to identify
ways of expanding their role.
- Some measures taken to create the right
business climate were insufficiently well-known by potential users.
In particular, future Foresight reports should be made more
accessible to small businesses.
- Some, notably Venture Capital Trusts,
were in danger of become perverted from their original purpose
of encouraging high-risk investments in young companies. The
Government should re-examine the scheme, and if changes are needed
to ensure these trusts do not become risk-averse, these should
be made promptly.
- More rigorous appraisal was needed of
the contribution made by a number of widely differing schemes
used to overcome the innovation barrier, such as Science Parks
and Incubators. The Government should undertake a study of
Science Parks to determine the elements critical to success.
- Longer-term basic research in universities
remains of crucial importance, and must not be squeezed out by
short-term work. Funding Councils should monitor the overall
balance of effort.
- A number of witnesses raised concerns
about the standard of equipment in universities, arguing that
this might lead industry to seek research partners elsewhere.
The Funding Councils should ensure that a higher proportion
of funds be channelled into creating centres of excellence, which
should be accessible to researchers of high calibre irrespective
of their university.
- Certain lines of research fall across
or between sectors on which Foresight is focused. A clear policy
of seeking out "misfit" lines of research, and evaluating
them separately if necessary, should be established.
- Management skills in high-tech start-ups
continued to be patchy. Business schools should play a greater
role in the promotion of education for innovation.
The enquiry was stimulated by a call in
the Bank of England's recent report on the "Financing of
Technology-Based Small Firms" for wider debate, and on issues
relating to the provisions of seed capital the Committee endorsed
many of the Bank's recommendations.
This enquiry follows an earlier investigation
by the Select Committee into Innovation in Manufacturing Industry
in 1991. This later enquiry was however more narrowly focused,
dealing primarily with the interface between universities and
new businesses.
Notes for Editors:
1. The enquiry was conducted by Science and
Technology Sub-Committee II, whose members were Viscount Caldecote,
Lord Cuckney, Lord Currie of Marylebone, Lord Dainton, Lord Dixon-Smith,
Lord Flowers, Baroness Hogg (Chairman), Lord Hollick (until
22 January 1997), Lord Kirkwood, Lord Redesdale, Lord Tombs
and Lord Winston.
2. The Committee issued its call for evidence
in November 1996. It held its first public meeting on Thursday
5 December and has had a total of 9 meetings.
3. Appendices to the report include a list
of witnesses who gave evidence to the enquiry and the Committee's
call for evidence.
4. All the evidence will be printed as a
separate volume to the report in due course, HL Paper 62-I,
Session 1996-97.
ENQUIRIES AND INTERVIEWS WITH THE CHAIRMAN
Don Rolt, Clerk to Sub-Committee II, Science
and Technology Committee, House of Lords, LONDON SW1A 0PW (tel:
0171-219 6083; fax: 0171-219 6715)
ADVANCE COPIES
Dominic O'Shea (tel: 0171-219 3346)
PUBLICATION DETAILS
House of Lords Select Committee on Science
and Technology, 3rd Report, Session 1996-97, The Innovation-Exploitation
Barrier, HL Paper 62, ISBN 0 10 406297 5, The Stationery
Office Limited, £7.80.
Available from:
The Stationery Office Publications Centre, PO Box 276, London
SW8 5DT; telephone orders 0171-873 9090; general enquiries 0171-873
0011; fax orders 0171-873 8200
Internet address:
The report (but not the evidence) will also be published on the
Internet, at: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldsctech.htm
