Technology foresight : first report. Volume II, Minutes of evidence and appendices / Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Date:
1995
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Technology foresight : first report. Volume II, Minutes of evidence and appendices / Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    38/204 (page 28)
    24 October 1995] [Continued {Chairman Cont] Science Budget which have produced a significant impact in a very short period of time. We would hate to think that there might be any reduction in that, due to the overall involvement of the DTI as a greater budget than that for Science? (Mr Lang) There would be no reduction as a consequence of the changes in the governmental structure. Chairman: I will cling to that straw. Mrs Campbell 32. Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us if the difference between the cost of the Framework Four and Framework Three programme, which I think is around £100 million, is this year going to be borne by the DTI, or will there be an attempt to pass that on to the OST? (Mr Lang) 1 will ask Mr Taylor to deal with this one. (Mr Taylor) 1 think Mrs Campbell is referring to the Euro-PES problems. It is not necessarily the time for me to be too clear about that because we are in the middle of some rather complicated negotiations in preparation for the Budget. The treatment of Euro-PES is immensely complicated and one of the problems faced by spending departments with a European connection, as opposed to some of the spending departments in other Governments in the European Union, because of the accounting treatment. So it is a very delicate issue and negotiations are in full flight. I cannot, therefore, say what exactly will be the outcome of the Budget and how the Euro-PES settlement will actually impinge. 33. But I think that, with respect, Chairman, we are talking, I think the answer that I got reflected some concern about the level of contribution to the European Framework Four programme. But what I am concerned about is how the cost of that will be borne internally by Government and whether it will be borne by the DTI, as it has been done in the past, or whether an attempt will be made yet again to pass it on to another department, and whether the OST might be at a disbenefit from that? (Mr Lang) It will be separately attributable and there is no difficulty that we have in discerning the distinction; OST bears a share and DTI bears a share. (Professor May) In the initial presentation of it, the Treasury has broken it into components. I am told it is the envy of Europe, the ability thus to identify expenditures with such precision. But it has identified a MAFF component, a DTI component, _ this component, that. component and, separately, an OST component. 34. Can we then ask the question as to how that compares with previous years and whether the whole of the cost in previous years was borne by the DTI, as I understand to be the case: last year, for example? (Mr Lang) No, it was not borne by the DTI. The DTI bears by far the largest share, with I think OST coming second and then MAFF and other departments very far behind, but there is a clearly discernible narrative running through the last year and into the present year, and the restructuring of OST within DTI will not undermine that position. Sir Trevor Skeet 35. The English are known for their competence and for having very intricate situations and getting through them. But, you know, what many of us are concerned about is policy, and in policy I have noticed three things: that the expenditure on the research and development of the higher education spending councils has fallen, the expenditure by Government Departments on R&D has fallen, and DTI, as my colleague mentioned a moment ago, has slumped very severely. The figures for 1991 to 1995/96 confirm this and I think you have indicated today that this is going to be the ensuing result until certain matters are cleared up. Can we have your assurance that there will be a change and that a more positive role will be taken? (Mr Lang) Chairman, I have already answered, I think, for DTI and I am not really the appropriate person to answer for other Government Departments, However, Professor May does, of course, in his office as Chief Scientific Adviser, straddle these departments, so I will invite him to comment on Sir Trevor’s remark. (Professor May) With the greatest respect, we are going a bit wide here beyond, but I am very happy so to do. Chairman 36. But we are very generous-spirited. (Professor May) 1am very happy so to do. I would distinguish between what I would call the science base, which would be the OST, Office of Science and Technology spend, primarily the Research Councils, and that fraction for the Higher Education Funding Councils which is attributed under the rubric of research, which in total is about £2.3 billion, something like that. It has 1 or 2 per cent of fluctuation, depending on exactly how you do the calculation, but that funding for the Science Base broadly went up by an overall total of something like 10 per cent in real terms over the last ten years or so and is slated in the published Forward Look to undergo a slight decline. And of those two components, OST has done better than has the research component of HEFCE etc. Then, separately, there is another heading for departmental spend, and that is something which, as you observe, has just gone down in a precipitous fashion, to about 50 per cent of what it was ten years ago in real terms. Some of that, in my opinion, represents, under stringency and cost-cutting, a real loss. However, the greater component of it, I think it is fair to say, are these tactical details, the fast breeder, the Launch Aid complexities, where getting money in counts as a loss in the Science and Technology budget. This departmental R&D spending is a relatively small component anyhow. And then there is the Defence component, which is the trickiest of the lot, in a sense; it is often counted as about £2.5 billion of R&D, but of that only about £0.6 billion—I say “only’—only about £0.6 billion is, in my opinion, real R&D and the rest is undergirding purchasing, and thus changes in