Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Did the Secretary of State fully disclose to the Civil Service Commission the Labour links of one of the most senior civil service appointments, or the £66,000 donation he received?

[Peter Kyle]

Every donation that was made to this party in opposition has been declared in the appropriate ways. I am proud to be part of a party that raises standards in public life rather than votes to lower them. [Interruption.] I am also proud to be part of a party that comes into government and attracts talent to working for it, whereas when the Conservatives see talent, they libel it.

[Andrew Griffith]

Thanks to Whitehall Watch, we have a copy of the form. It is clear the Secretary of State failed to mention the conflicts of interest, as required by the ministerial code. In the words of the Prime Minister’s favourite pop star, some would say he is “Guilty as Sin”. Will he refer himself to the adviser on standards, or do we have to wait for the Prime Minister to finish organising VIP motorcades and do it for him?

[Peter Kyle]

There we have it—a party that attacks civil servants and the world’s greatest talent gravitating towards this party and this Government, to work for them. When he sees talent in Government, he libels it and saddles the taxpayer with the bill. This Government attract talent and I am proud of that.

Technology in Public Services

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On behalf of those of us on the Conservative Benches, I welcome you to your place.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I congratulate him on a maiden speech that had much in it to commend and congratulate him on his stewardship of what is a fantastic Department. He is fortunate to be supported, as I know from my experience, by a team of outstanding officials. I pay tribute to their deep knowledge and dedication.

Our constituents know that innovation and technology is our future. The Secretary of State’s Department was already at the heart of our mission, supported by a record 29% increase in investment, from 2023 to 2025, to grow the economy and cement Britain’s science and technology superpower status. The former Member for Chippenham, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and I left the Department in good shape, with, at that time, an expected underspend in this year’s budget. It may well be that we were better at fending off the Chancellor than the Secretary of State has been. I note the changes to the machinery of government, which see government digital services and the incubator for AI and other functions move from the Cabinet Office to his Department. Whether or not that is a good idea, time will tell, but what is clear is that it makes it even more important that he and his team now deliver—and where they do so, seriously, they will have our support.

We could not open this parliamentary term on a more important subject. Productivity drains in the public sector take money directly out of taxpayers’ pockets, and that is not fair on hard-working families. We know that the public sector accounts for roughly 20% of our national output, and that is often a source of national pride, but the hard truth is that public service productivity is far lower than that in the private sector. Few Departments —the Secretary of State talked about this—are without opportunities to deliver public services better and at a lower cost to the taxpayer. We can, together, transform NHS productivity, and make use of advanced technology and sensors to better secure our borders or defend our country—even from new domains such as space. We can introduce driverless trains to stop trade unions holding passengers to ransom, support farmers and food producers wishing to wean themselves off migrant labour through agri-tech and robotics, implement better use of tagging and “smart” prisons, and improve case flow in the criminal justice system—and a great deal more.

There are many brilliant officials across the civil service who are helping to foster this tech revolution, but I am afraid that their morale is being undermined by this Government’s early approach to appointments. It is on their behalf that I ask the Secretary of State, “What was it, Secretary of State, about the £66,000-donating, Labour-supporting Emily Middleton that first attracted you enough to make her one of the senior civil servants in your Department?” For the truth is that there are real questions to answer. What exercise did the Secretary of State go through between announcing the new Department on Monday and appointing a new director general later in the very same week to satisfy himself that not one single civil servant across Government was fit to perform that role? Did he disclose the £66,000 donation to the permanent secretary on his appointment? Did he tell the Civil Service Commission about the £66,000 donation and the links to Labour? Was is him or someone in his office who told Emily Middleton to delete her LinkedIn account? Why, given that the ministerial code is clear about the duty of Ministers to

“ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise”,

did he not recuse himself from all decisions and discussions on this matter? If the Secretary of State will not use this opportunity to come clean, to answer all these questions and to publish the relevant correspondence, I really think it is time for Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, to investigate.

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point on a specific issue. This is not a junior appointment, or a private office appointment, or an advice appointment. This is a director general appointment, at the second most senior level of the civil service. I am not aware, and I wonder if my hon. Friend is, of any occasion on which such an appointment has been made in such a way in the past.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend has made an important point, and he is right: this is a director general-level appointment in the civil service, second only to that of the permanent secretary and one of, I believe, only three director general-level appointments in the entirety of the Secretary of State’s Department. This is someone with the power to hire and fire and advance and promote civil servants, and someone—[Interruption.] This is an important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, once the civil service has political—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Will Members make their remarks to the Chamber rather than exchanging them across the Benches?

[Andrew Griffith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make some progress. I understand that colleagues will want to move on to other points, but this is a very important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, it will not be possible to un-bake that cake of an independent civil service. Imagine the ambitious civil servants—the directors, the directors general—who never even had the chance to be considered for this role!

[Max Wilkinson]

Interested as I am in this question of process and the discussions about cronyism, I turned up here to listen to a debate about tech and public services. I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had any opinions on that subject.

[Andrew Griffith]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak about exactly that subject later. However, it is critical and, I think, a point of commonality across the House that we can deliver change only through professional and competent civil servants, and it is important that the morale of the Secretary of State’s Department, like that of every other Whitehall Department, is maintained.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Andrew Griffith]

I have finished making my points on this subject, and I am happy to move on in the interests of the debate.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman has talked about the morale of the civil service. Would he care to tell us how he thinks that was affected by a former Prime Minister’s referring to the civil service as “the blob”, and by Cabinet Ministers walking around their offices leaving passive-aggressive little notes asking, “Where are you?” It is very easy to make the snide comments that the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is not very relevant, is it?

[Andrew Griffith]

I accept that we have strayed some way from the important topic that the Secretary of State came here to talk about tonight. Much as I would enjoy continuing this discussion with the hon. Member, I am happy to move on and address more of the Secretary of State’s points.

It was the last Government who launched a wide-ranging public service productivity review to address these issues, and to understand for the first time how technology can transform our economy. It was the last Government—this was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans)—who decided to harness the potential of artificial intelligence in healthcare with the NHS AI lab and a £3.4 billion investment fund to cut admin and fast-track diagnoses. I was not 100% clear about this, and I do not want to wilfully misinterpret what was said by the Secretary of State, but I hope that the fund continues and we continue to see that opportunity.

The public have benefited directly from the sort of vast improvements that the Secretary of State talked about, thanks to the last Government’s embrace of technology. It now takes less than three weeks to receive a new passport—often much less—thanks to the adoption of cloud-based working practices. As of March this year, 99% of passport applications were processed within the target timeframe, a performance which, sadly, I do not think many other parts of Government achieve.

Some will have concerns about what the implementation of new technologies in the public sector will mean for those who work in it. If we are honest, we must recognise—and the Secretary of State well knows—that the business case for many new technologies has an impact on workers. The Secretary of State must filter out naysayers, even if they happen to be his party’s union paymasters. Whatever those paymasters say, disruptive technology is good for the public and vital to economic growth.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman claims to support UK technology and science, but he is on the record as opposing solar and wind farms. Is he actually a shadow anti-science Secretary?

[Andrew Griffith]

I could not be happier to debate that topic, but I am very conscious of the number of Members who, I was told, are trying to make their maiden speeches, and I think it is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, that every intervention we take at this stage potentially jeopardises their chance of doing so. In short, however, there is a very fine place for solar: it is on the roofs of warehouses, car parks, supermarkets and new homes, where appropriate, but it is not on productive farmland.

In government, we significantly increased spending on public sector research—by 29%, to £20 billion in the current financial year—and our recent manifesto pledged to increase that by a further 10% over the life of this Parliament. May I ask the Secretary of State, and the Minister who will wind up the debate, if they can pledge to match that ambition to a sector that is desperate to see such certainty of funding?

The Secretary of State has my sympathy. I cannot imagine how difficult his phone call with the University of Edinburgh, which had already invested £30 million in the exascale supercomputer, must have been. This was a national facility that would have enabled significant advances in AI, medical research, climate science and clean energy innovation. The investment was fully costed, amounting over many years to what the NHS burns through in three days. There seems to be confusion at the Treasury: just because semiconductors are becoming smaller in size, it does not mean that the Secretary of State’s Department must follow suit.

[Peter Kyle]

The shadow Secretary of State said that the exascale project was fully costed. Could he confirm that it was fully funded too?

[Andrew Griffith]

Yes. The exascale investment was being delivered through UK Research and Innovation, an enterprise that receives nearly £9 billion every single year and that, under our manifesto, would have had a growing level of investment across the entirety of the spending review. There were plans in place to deliver the investment, which is why Edinburgh was so confident that it would be delivered. It was a clear priority in our spending plans and communicated in writing by the Secretary of State’s predecessor to the chief executive of UKRI. Notwithstanding the fact that the Treasury seems to have got his tongue immediately upon taking office, a project that the Treasury never loved seems to have been mysteriously cancelled. The project was being delivered by UKRI, an organisation with significant financial resources that far exceeded the £1.3 billion cost of the supercomputer. It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.

[Dawn Butler]

I wonder how the shadow Secretary of State feels about the Rosalind Franklin Laboratory in Leamington Spa, which received over £1 billion in Government funding. The last Government put it on Rightmove.

[Andrew Griffith]

The last Government did not do that; it was an independent institute that had multiple sources of funding. As the Secretary of State and his Ministers will discover, funding of that nature is competitive funding that is allotted by independent research councils. It would not have been within the gift of me or any other Minister to abrogate that competitive funding process.

Inevitably, there are projects that are funded and projects that are not funded, but the exascale computer was a very clear priority. It sat within the overall financial resources of UKRI and, under our Government, there was an expanding level of resource. People should have absolute confidence that the programme would have continued and been delivered in the context of the much larger amount of money that is spent through the Department, but by the Government as a whole. That was a good decision, and it would have had huge benefits to the UK. The chief executive of UKRI has talked at length about the benefits, and I think the Government are making the wrong decision. I urge the Secretary of State to go back, lock horns with the Treasury and seek to continue the project before it is too late, before contracts are cancelled and before technology is not procured.

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman has said quite clearly that it was announced in the Budget, but it was contingent on a manifesto that had not even been written at the time of the Budget, in order to deliver the money promised in the Budget. He is an accountant by trade. Could he explain to the House why a Chancellor of the Exchequer standing up and making a commitment for which he has not one penny allocated until potentially winning a general election, which has not been called, is irresponsible?

[Andrew Griffith]

The Secretary of State will understand that at any point in time, a Department may go through a triennial spending review, although actually the triennial spending review had not fully happened. Governments also make forward-looking commitments and declarations of intent, and commission work, whether from arm’s length bodies such as UK Research and Investment or from officials in the Department, to deliver their priorities. I do not think that the Secretary of State disputes that this was a clear priority. Looking at the aggregated spend through UKRI and the different funding councils that were going to deliver the supercomputer project, including the Science and Technology Facilities Council, there is no question but that it would have been delivered. It was not contingent on growth; a Government of any persuasion, advised by their independent civil servants, would have delivered the programme through organisations such as UKRI. That is why Edinburgh University was so committed to it. It had been announced by the previous Government, and equipment was being procured.

As we seek to compete with modern states that are busily investing in exactly this sort of facility, it is important to recognise that it is wrong to simply recoil from the project. It is not something that the Treasury ever loved, and the Secretary of State has to push hard, as we did, but it is wrong to allow a step back on that brilliant project, which would unlock so many of the benefits that the Secretary of State talked about this evening. Again, I ask him to lock horns with the Treasury, and use every opportunity to see what can be done to revisit the decision. It is a very important project, and part of an ambition that I think we share for the future of this country.

In conclusion, the first duty of government should be to do no harm, and we cannot afford to get this agenda wrong. We will judge the Government by their actions. Where they are bold in order to deliver better outcomes at a lower cost to the taxpayer, they can count on our full support. We will help this progressive Secretary of State to face down the union luddites in his party. We on the Opposition Benches will support efforts to place the private sector at the heart of reform of the NHS, but the people of the UK cannot afford half-hearted efforts, the Treasury curtailing the departmental budget to pay for public sector pay rises elsewhere, or the abandonment of real ambition that can unlock the potential of technology to benefit this country for years to come.

Intellectual Property Office: Ministerial Priorities 2024-25

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)]

I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for AI and Intellectual Property, Viscount Camrose:

Creativity and innovation fuel investment and growth in the UK economy. The Government aim to strengthen the UK’s place as a global leader in science and technology and are backing the UK’s most exciting technologies and sectors of the future. We are boosting investment in innovation, working together with industry, and providing the right conditions to grow our economy, create high-quality jobs, and benefit society.

The role of intellectual property (IP) remains crucial to achieving our ambition and increasing investment in science and technology. It encourages and incentivises the UK to innovate and gives individuals, businesses, and organisations the confidence to create new ideas, products, and technologies, knowing their IP can be protected. Our society, economy, and environment will benefit from their work and endeavours, and we are backing them to succeed and grow.

We are experiencing a period of rapid technological and scientific change. The pace is accelerating and driving a remarkable new era for the world. That is why we must continue to build on the UK’s strengths in AI, quantum, fintech, life sciences, and clean energy technology because advances in these areas will make a real difference to our economy and public services.

For the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), this backdrop represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Its response and the IP system need to keep pace with the operating environment and the expectations of those protecting their IP and using its services.

We are moving to a world where the operations of firms, and their supply chains are heavily internationalised, and our approach must reflect this. Through effective collaboration, the UK is shaping the IP system internationally and ensuring the UK’s rights granting services remain competitive.

I am pleased to support the IPO’s strategy for the next three years, which sets out its clear mission to help grow the economy by providing an IP system that encourages investment in creativity and innovation. The IPO corporate plan 2024-25 document outlines a clear plan for this financial year. As an executive agency of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the IPO has set priorities which are agreed by Ministers.

I am pleased that today I can inform the House that my priorities for the IPO in 2024-25 are to:

launch the One IPO customer account and new online IP search tool for all patent customers;

achieve an average overall customer satisfaction of 85% or more; and

achieve efficiencies worth at least 3.5% of its core operating costs.

The IPO has strong plans in place, which I am confident will contribute towards economic growth and enable the UK to maximise the opportunities in science, technology, and innovation.

[HCWS444]

Space Industry

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)]

It is a delight to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on initiating this well-attended debate about the all-important UK space industry, as well as on his commitment to and leadership of the all-party parliamentary group. I am myself a former member, and I know how hard-working and formidable his connections are in this domain, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris).

This is a tremendous week for UK space, and I hope all Members will join me in congratulating astronaut Rosemary Coogan on achieving her space wings and graduating from astronaut school on Monday, together with two other British astronauts, John McFall and Meganne Christian. We hope they all have the opportunity in the coming years to leave this orbit behind and fly into space.

It has been enlightening to hear all the important points that hon. Members have raised in today’s debate, including on the way in which space and its attendant industries touch every single part of the United Kingdom. Today’s debate encapsulates the importance of the subject, from Spaceport Cornwall all the way to the opposite tip of these isles in Shetland and Orkney. There could not be any better examples than that.

Space is important to everybody and is an important economic activity. That is why the Government have a clear set of plans, which I can assure everyone that we are delivering upon daily. In 2021, we published the UK’s first ever cross-Government national space strategy. We are now spending approximately £650 million a year on space, which is an uplift of more than 70% on the amount we spent as a nation in 2018-19. I should be clear that this does not include all the space-related investment and spend on projects via Copernicus, UKRI and the Ministry of Defence.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

As the Minister knows, work continues apace at the Sutherland spaceport. It is interesting to note the recent announcement about the amount of investment that Orbex has attracted. Part of this is private money; when the markets speak, we listen. Returning to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), it is about skills. The big challenge for us is how we will get the seedcorn we need to develop these homegrown skills. I suggest to the Minister that the Government should showcase proudly everything they are doing on this front, by holding space industry fairs—

[Jamie Stone]

Could I recommend that consideration is given to this in various parts, such as Caithness in my constituency?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to champion the spaceport in his constituency and to mention the importance of what is called private space, where companies such as Orbex are pioneering new ways of reaching for the stars. A number of hon. Members have also pointed out the significance of space in making an economic contribution and inspiring future generations. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s wonderful suggestion of a space youth fair—let us see what we can do together with the UK Space Agency. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) made exactly the same point about Spaceport Cornwall.

It is often pointed out that the United Kingdom could be more joined up in its space endeavours. The space council, in whichever iteration, brings together other Departments in orbit with the Ministry of Defence so that we can continue to punch above our weight. We have recently opened a joint space command centre for both civilian and military space.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned his hard work before Spaceport Cornwall was even established, which is huge testimony to the work he does for his constituents across north Cornwall. He also mentioned Goonhilly and the very significant space cluster that exists in Cornwall. The Government remain extremely supportive of Spaceport Cornwall and all its endeavours, and the point is very well made about the launch capability of the United Kingdom, which I talk about to both the UK Space Agency and the Ministry of Defence in these uncertain times.

Moving to the other end of these isles, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about Shetland’s spaceport. It does indeed have formidable natural advantages, and so inspired by the opportunity, the Government resolve to do everything they can. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor so significantly put an investment into SaxaVord, subject to reaching acceptable terms. In this very important week for defence spending, I offer this small vignette: the Labour party cut defence and closed RAF Saxa Vord, while this Conservative Government are investing in the future of Shetland. I hope that does not provoke an intervention from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). [Interruption.] It is a fact. Facts sometimes can be provocative, but they are nevertheless facts.

We are bringing together many UK assets in space in the Harwell science and innovation campus space cluster. While it is also a significant contribution to levelling up, we have published not just the space industrial plan but plans for space clusters and space investment funds. I believe that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and myself will both be speaking at the North West Space Cluster in June, which will give us both an opportunity to commit to the future of space in that important region of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest raised a point about Adam Smith, space is at the heart of the comparative advantage and the productivity of this nation.

It is a busy world in space. It is going to be a banner year. We hope to see space launches from European soil from the first time. Just this week, the UK Space Agency announced an £8 million investment in the UK innovation & science seed fund. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest opened the debate, he talked about the importance of getting capital to flow and of the connection with the City of London and finance. I hope that £8 million at the earliest stage—the seed and even the pre-seed stage—of the lifecycle could make a real contribution to growing the space supply chain and skills.

We will be responding to the Regulatory Horizons Council report on space well within the allotted timeframe. Before we break for the summer we will be publishing the space workforce skills plan, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central raised. That is something very close to my heart and, I suspect, to the hearts of other Members. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has left the Chamber, but Northern Ireland, as with all the regions, is an important part of the space sector. Its legacy and history in aerospace engineering is something that I firmly hope we can continue to bring to bear.

Time is running out and there is so much more we could talk about. We are off to the European Space Agency, and our commitment to that body remains as strong as ever.

[Carol Monaghan]

The Minister has not mentioned visa fees for space experts coming here, nor has he mentioned OneWeb.

[Andrew Griffith]

I would be delighted if the hon. Lady wanted to apply for another debate. I can see that there is a significant appetite to discuss some of these issues. The Government are very committed to maximising the economic and strategic advantage of OneWeb. It is a company that is based here. I have visited it just down the road in Shepherd’s Bush—I think it is still called Shepherd’s Bush. The new White City campus is where thousands of satellites, licensed and regulated out of the UK, are being flown as we speak and delivering all sorts of contributions to society. I am very supportive of the hon. Lady’s contribution to science, so I would love to engage further when we have more time. Mrs Murray is looking at me to say, “Hurry up.”

We will continue to work across this House through organisations such as the all-party parliamentary group, with industry, with the supply chain, and with our partners internationally, both through multilateral forums such as the European Space Agency and bilaterally. We will do all that with the objective of ensuring that the United Kingdom remains a strong spacefaring nation, and that the citizens of this country benefit from the prosperity and the inspiration that comes with space.

Space Industrial Plan

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)]

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently passed the one-year milestone since its creation—a year in which we have firmly embedded our mission and delivered against it, driving innovation that will improve public services, create new well-paid jobs, and grow the economy.

The UK is already ranked by the World Bank as the best place to do business among large European nations. Combined with the City of London and the research strengths of our universities, our space sector is poised to support our growth ambitions.

Our commitment to innovation and enterprise, backed by a globally competitive tax regime and smart regulation, uniquely positions us at the forefront of technological advancement and economic growth in space.

For the UK space sector, our “National Space Strategy” encapsulates not just my Department’s mission, but the whole of Government’s ambition to develop one of the world’s most innovative and attractive space economies. As part of that journey, we published “The National Space Strategy in Action” in July 2023, setting out our key next steps on the road to achieving that ambition.

Today we take another a significant step towards unlocking growth and developing resilience in the UK space sector, with the publication of Government’s space industrial plan.

Building on the foundations of our national and defence space strategies, the space industrial plan is a joint civil and defence publication that sets out our new way of working with the commercial space sector, modernising our approach, and giving the sector greater confidence to invest. We set out clear, timed missions and actions deliverable through a shared endeavour with the sector to address the long-term problems facing the nation: improving economic security and opportunity for everyone.

This plan sends a strong demand signal to, and provides clarity for, UK space companies and investors, giving them the confidence to invest long term in the sector. We have been decisive in sequencing the first five national space capability goals where we want the UK to excel, agreed by the National Space Council. These capabilities will support UK Government in fulfilling their commitments and legal obligations, target the specific needs of the citizen, and drive our future ambitions to unlock new markets. These capabilities are underpinned by a set of intervention areas, describing how we will utilise our main Government levers to shape the business environment in pursuit of our ambitions.

We have heard and understood the challenges facing UK space companies, and we want the world’s space entrepreneurs and innovators to come to the UK because it offers the best possible place to make their visions happen.

We are committed to making the UK the most attractive country for space industry investment, driving prosperity and security across the nation.

I will be placing copies of this publication in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will also be made available on gov.uk.

[HCWS315]

Animal Testing

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening today’s important debate. As this is the first time I have spoken since, let me also commend him for his personal bravery when he spoke at the most recent Prime Minister’s questions.

The number of signatories to these petitions—I think almost all hon. Members have mentioned it—indicates the strength of public feeling on this matter. This is not the first time that this issue has been debated, although it is my first time. Although I think none of us would want such a debate to become an annual event, this is absolutely the right forum in which to debate these important matters. I therefore congratulate all those who have contributed and everybody who has signed the petitions.

I completely understand that the use of animals in science, including in toxicity testing, is a sensitive issue. More than that, I believe that everyone here would share my view that the day cannot come quickly enough when we are able to end the practice of animal testing. It is to hasten that moment that, as hon. Members have observed, the UK is one of the world’s leading nations in the development of non-animal methods. The Government are keen to ensure that those are utilised wherever possible, and I heard some frustration or concern from colleagues about the pace of adoption where the scientific methods exist. It is fair to say that most hon. Members accept—I have met charities and organisations working in the sector, including Animal Free Research UK—that we are not quite at that moment when we can fully replace animal testing.

To a degree, we are all in what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) eloquently called that “mess of complexity”, but that does not mean that we are not clear about the direction of travel and the goal that we seek over time. As the Science and Research Minister, I take extremely seriously my responsibility within the multiple Departments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) talked about.

The Government are supporting and accelerating advances in biomedical science and technology to reduce reliance on the use of animals in research. When we hear data points about the percentage of research money that is spent, it is important to remember that not all of that research is clearly labelled as non-animal research. Developments in respect of artificial intelligence, cell cultures, cell research, understanding the function of human organs, and better imaging can all contribute to the advance of non-animal methods that can be put to work in this space. Indeed, we heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle ex vivo analysis upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) about the very successful spin-out from her university, and we are seeing that sort of development elsewhere. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said, the rate of growth has been exponential, and this is an amazing moment in science of all kinds. There have been extraordinary advances in non-invasive techniques, such as medical imaging, sensing and ex vivo analysis, which are revolutionising human healthcare.

Through UK Research and Innovation, the Government are actively supporting and funding the development and dissemination of the three Rs, and I will have more to say about that later. Anyone who was not familiar with the three Rs when they came here today is probably more familiar with them now. They stand, first, for the replacement of the use of animals where it is not necessary for research, which I think is the aim we all share. Then, there is the reduction in the use of animals in the meantime, and the latest figures I have, which are slightly more recent than the ones my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to, show a 10% reduction in the use of animals in research. I do not want to over-weight any particular year’s numbers, and we will have to look through and see the continued reduction we all seek. However, the latest data I have, for 2022, showed a 10% reduction. Finally, in addition to replacement and reduction, there is refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to those animals that are involved. All of that is achieved primarily, but not exclusively, through the approximately £10 million of funding per year that goes to NC3Rs, the national centre for the three Rs. We heard of other examples, including Queen Mary University of London’s centre for animal research, which is also doing great work in this area.

We have also heard that the use of animals in science lies at the intersection of two important public goals. There are the benefits to humans and animals—a lot of the research benefits animals themselves—and to the environment, as we seek to have the very highest standards of environmental protection. But we must also balance that with the UK’s proud commitment to the highest possible levels of animal welfare. That is why, as we heard from a number of Members, the use of animals in testing is strictly limited to specific purposes, including assessing the safety of medicines or chemicals, protecting human health and protecting the environment—a lot of research goes on into compounds to understand their downstream effect on our rivers, lakes, oceans and natural habitats.

We also heard that the use of animals in scientific procedures is permitted only if there is no non-animal alternative available, and I will try to address some of the remarks that have been made specifically about the way in which that legal principle, laid down by Parliament in legislation, is applied in practice and whether it is as effective as my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth would like.

Despite the general legal protections, some animal testing of chemicals is required under UK law to protect the environment, but such testing is permitted only once it is established that no alternative exists, and it is dependent on the chemical and quantity being manufactured.

As I said, we are world-renowned for our leadership in this space, and we should continue to be alive and open to what other countries are doing. The example of Canada was mentioned, and some of the work I have done and the meetings I have had have focused precisely on how we can ensure that the UK remains the best place in the world in terms of the legislative framework and the science and how we can ensure that non-animal technologies and the constant advances in them are reflected in policy, practice, legislation in this place and animal research regulations.

Since it was established, the NC3Rs has invested in total almost £90 million in research and £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions, with that funding mainly focused on approaches for safer assessment of pharmaceuticals. The UKRI Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council—a different body—supports research aimed at developing and applying innovative methods to study human and animal physiology, including in silico approaches, organ on a chip, and organoid and other advanced cell culture systems.

Despite that funding, I believe that more can be done. Ahead of today’s debate, I asked UKRI that we double our investment in research to achieve the three Rs and develop non-animal alternatives. I can announce that, from £10 million this year, that investment will reach £20 million per annum across the system in fiscal year 2024-25, which is a doubling of what is given to research in this space. In addition—I hope this is welcome across the House—I can announce that this summer, following on from work done by my predecessors and across other Departments, the Government will publish a plan to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of technologies and methods to reduce reliance on the use of animals in science. The former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, will recognise some of the impedance on a Minister at the Dispatch Box, but I can see no reason why that plan could not at least consider some of the machinery-of-government changes that he talked about.

[George Eustice]

I think everyone will welcome the significant increase in funding that the Minister has pledged today to support research on non-animal methods, but is his Department at all curious why the number of animals used in experiments has not gone down, despite huge increases in technology in this area? As part of a review of the licensing process for projects, would he consider trying to get us some analysis of whether the decision to grant a licence is objective, or subjective and based on something that some ethical committee claims?

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good set of points, and that is something that we will look at further. I am already in discussion about the efficacy of the licensing regime with the noble Lord Sharpe, who is the Home Office Minister responsible.

[Patricia Gibson]

As the Minister stands here today, how confident is he that the regulatory bodies that monitor these matters are sufficiently well versed and up to date with placement and reduction opportunities to prevent unnecessary testing? Does he have confidence in that system?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Lady asks a very detailed question, and she has made some statements that I would like to verify anyway. I was concerned to hear about dogs being shot or blown up and I would ask her, if she has evidence of that, please to share it with me. That would be a subject of great concern and perhaps bring to life some points in the regulatory system that have not crossed my desk to date. I take that matter very seriously, but it is also important that these debates are led by the facts, and I will let the facts decide the efficacy of the regulatory system.

We will produce the plan together with not only officials but the very widest group of stakeholders. In the coming weeks, a cross-Government group will convene to lead that work, and we will consult stakeholders across the industry, academia, medical research charities and those operating in this space. The commitment is to publish that detailed plan this summer.

Given the support for the petitions and the strong interest in this issue, on which Members of Parliament are regularly petitioned, I can announce today that we will restart the public attitudes to animal research survey, which was unfortunately delayed during the pandemic. It is important to me, and I am sure to the House, that these debates are informed by that survey. It was seen as a very useful tool for those working in this space, and I am keen that it is restarted. The next survey will take place in the coming months and the results will be published this autumn, restarting that chronological series about public attitudes.

We talked about how animals in science are highly regulated, and I hear the concerns about that process. Understandably, as with any regulatory process, different people will have different views about efficacy. There is a three-tier system of licensing, at the establishment, project and individual level. Again, I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth made a very thoughtful contribution; perhaps I will meet him to benefit from some of his insights on that. He talked about the importance of having qualified vets in the process. It is important to say that there are qualified vets, and the Animals in Science Committee oversees that process and advises the Home Office on it.

However, endemic in any regulatory or licensing regime is the danger—I do not say that this is indeed the case— of incumbent thinking. My right hon. Friend talked about there not being enough challenge in the process. One potential way of putting in more challenge—or nudging—is increasing the fees for licences, which the Home Office is going to do shortly. My right hon. Friend talked about a levy. This is not a levy, but by increasing the fees, and therefore the burden, we will perhaps shift some of the presumption away from defaulting to testing with animals.

In addition, the Home Office will review the duration of licences. The current duration is typically five years. We have observed the fast rate of change in technology. The Home Office will review the duration to see whether a shorter licence period would be more appropriate, and whether people coming back more often would put more challenge into the system.

In conclusion, I want to be clear: it is the Government’s position that we want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with non-animal alternatives wherever we can. For now, the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains necessary if we are to protect humans and the wider environment. That is why our current approach is to continue to support and fund the development, dissemination and adoption of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research, and to ensure that the regulatory framework is both robust in law and rigorous in practice. I thank hon. Members for their insightful and thoughtful contributions to today’s debate, and I look forward to working together going forward.

Government Chemist Review 2022

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)]

The 26th annual review of the Government Chemist has been received. The review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses plus those of the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. The review will also be laid before the Scottish Parliament.

The Government Chemist is the referee analyst named in Acts of Parliament. The Government Chemist’s team carry out metrology analysis in legally disputed cases. A range of referee analysis work was carried out during 2022, which included evaluations of kitchen utensils for primary aromatic amines, scrutinising pesticide protection measurements for tea and flaxseed imports, and detection of aflatoxin in in-shell peanuts and curry powder. The Government Chemist continues to work closely with Government Departments, their governance group, devolved Administrations, non-governmental organisations and industry to identify tools, standards and guidance to facilitate effective testing for food fraud and to grow knowledge transfer activities.

[HCWS153]

Engineering Biology

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)]

Since its creation, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has been working to cement the UK as a science superpower by creating the most innovative economy in the world. At the centre of this mission are five critical technologies that will deliver prosperity and security for the UK and deliver benefits to global society: engineering biology, quantum technologies, artificial intelligence, semiconductors and future telecommunications.

We are today publishing the “National Vision for Engineering Biology”, which outlines how engineering, or synthetic, biology will contribute to the UK’s growth, security, resilience and preparedness.

This vision responds to the Government’s recent call for evidence on engineering biology. It reflects what we heard about the UK’s strengths, challenges and opportunities. It defines the Government’s collective ambition for engineering biology, and sets the directions in which Government investment, policy and regulatory reform will deliver through the strands of the science and technology framework.

The Government define engineering biology as the design, scaling and commercialisation of biology-derived products and services that can create whole new categories of product or produce existing products more sustainably. It draws on the tools of synthetic biology to create the next wave of innovation in the bioeconomy. In addition to its economic benefits, engineering biology supports policy objectives across Government, including contributing to improvements in health, food security, environmental protection and the transition to a lower-carbon economy. This is a pivotal moment for engineering biology. Global leading nations are ramping up efforts to grow their sovereign bioeconomy capabilities and capture the economic benefits. The US and China have made ambitious statements of intent, and our international peers are investing significant sums to carve out strategic positions in the emerging global bioeconomy. At the same time, there is increasing recognition that countries need to apply engineering biology predictably, safely and responsibly to capture its full economic and societal potential for their populations. Engineering biology is a dual-use technology, and all Governments will need to adopt sensible, proportionate precautions.

The Government’s vision is for the UK to have a broad, rich engineering biology ecosystem that can safely develop and commercialise the many opportunities to come from the technology and the underlying science. We aim to gain as much economic value, security, resilience and preparedness as possible from our hard-won strengths and ensure that these create real benefits for the public. We will also move further and faster to put the UK right at the very forefront of global efforts to drive responsible and trustworthy innovation across the world. By addressing the social and ethical questions that may be raised by certain applications, we will ensure that we earn the trust of the public and consumers as we unlock the opportunities of this technology. At the same time, there is increasing recognition that countries need to apply engineering biology predictably, safely and responsibly, gripping this technology’s risks in order to capture its full economic and societal potential for their populations.

The Government will focus on six priorities to achieve this vision: world-leading research and development; infrastructure; talent and skills; regulations and standards; adoption by the broader economy; and responsible and trustworthy innovation. For each of these areas, DSIT has already started convening partners across Government and our research funding councils to understand the challenges and opportunities and to identify the support that the Government should provide.

Following publication of this vision, the Government will develop a clear plan of action for delivering the vision. Copies of the “National Vision for Engineering Biology” and the technical annex will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS91]

Draft Design Right, Artist’s Resale Right and Copyright (Amendment) Regulations 2023 Draft Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Andrew Griffith)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Design Right, Artist’s Resale Right and Copyright (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

[Andrew Griffith]

Good morning, Mrs Cummins; it is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship.

Intellectual property underpins our economy: it is the means by which businesses and individuals can commercialise their ideas, turning them into products and artistic impressions. IP drives innovation and investment, which, as set out in the Government’s innovation strategy, is vital to tackling the world’s largest challenges. Industries with an above average use of intellectual property contribute almost a quarter of UK output, 16% of UK employment and over half of goods exports. IP is crucial to support the Government’s long-term vision to cement the UK as a science and technology superpower and a global leader in innovation. Maintaining the current system is crucial to supporting innovation across the economy.

The draft regulations before the Committee use powers contained in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, or REUL, to amend or restate certain provisions in IP legislation. They make modest and targeted changes to the benefit of our IP framework in line with the aims of that Act. I will take each set of draft regulations in turn.

Subject to the Committee’s approval, the Design Right, Artist’s Resale Right and Copyright (Amendment) Regulations 2023 will amend provisions in four pieces of IP legislation, and I will explain more about these. The Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations 1989 provide protection for designs that are semiconductor topographies, implementing international obligations under the World Trade Organisation TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—agreement. Semiconductor topography design right is an IP right intended to protect the design of specific semiconductor products—for example, printed circuit boards—which can be relatively easy to copy.

In the UK, the law treats the protection of topographies of semiconductor products as a form of unregistered design right and extends protection to persons from certain qualifying countries. WTO members that are not EU member states are included as qualifying countries by being listed in the schedule to the regulations. The proposed amendment does not alter the design right but is simply intended to remove the need for further legislation to update the schedule when new countries join the WTO, to save parliamentary time.

The Artist’s Resale Right Regulations 2006 provide the basis for an artist’s resale right in the UK. ARR is a form of IP protection related to copyright. It gives creators of visual art, such as paintings or sculptures, an unwaivable statutory right to receive a royalty when their works are resold in the secondary market. The proposed amendments directly replace references to euros in ARR royalty calculations with pounds sterling and are intended to reduce regulatory burdens and costs for UK businesses. A transitional provision has been included so that this change will apply from 1 April 2024, which will allow industry time to prepare and adapt to the changes, in line with advice from the collective management organisations that administer ARR payment schedules.

The Copyright Tribunal Rules 2010 set out the rules of procedure for the copyright tribunal, which adjudicates on various commercial copyright licensing disputes, particularly concerning the terms of licensing schemes for copyright material. The amendments proposed by this instrument will mean a respondent or intervener in a copyright tribunal case will be required to provide an address for service in the UK rather than one located in the European economic area.

Lastly, the Collective Management of Copyright (EU Directive) Regulations 2016 set minimum standards for the governance, transparency and behaviour of collective management organisations established in the UK. CMOs operate as companies and are therefore subject to domestic company law. The amendments proposed by this instrument will reduce the regulatory burden on those CMOs, which qualifies small companies by exempting them from the requirement to audit the accounting information provided in annual transparency reports. The regulations also redefine other exemptions so that they apply to CMOs that qualify as a micro entity under the Companies Act 2006. That will include the removal of references to euros.

I now turn briefly to the draft Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. It is important to maintain a balanced, consistent and stable IP framework. An essential mechanism that provides this balance in our IP system is called the exhaustion of IP rights. Put simply, IP rights enable their owners to control the first sale of their creation, but our exhaustion of IP rights regime ensures that, once a good is lawfully placed on the market, the rights holder can no longer use their IP rights to control the subsequent distribution or resale of that good.

For example, after someone purchases a book, the copyright owner cannot stop them from selling that book to another person in the same territory. A functioning exhaustion regime is therefore crucial for commerce in our modern economy. The mechanism also underpins the rules on parallel imports, which are the importation of genuine IP-protected physical goods that have already been put on the market in other countries—medicines, for example.

After we left the European Union exhaustion of IP rights regime, the Government created a bespoke, unique, regional exhaustion regime. Under that regime, once a good is lawfully placed on the market in the UK or the European economic area, the relevant IP rights in that good are considered exhausted. The regime was created to provide certainty for businesses and consumers while the Government consulted on what the UK’s future exhaustion regime should be.

Our current exhaustion regime relies on retained EU law, which will no longer exist from 31 December 2023; without replacing that, our exhaustion regime would not operate effectively from the end of this year. That could create uncertainty about the operability of rules for IP-protected goods, which may impact on supply chains and create a chilling effect on commerce and investment in the UK. Our position is that Parliament must act now to ensure that the UK does have a functioning exhaustion regime from the end of this year onwards. These regulations achieve that purpose. Subject to the Committee’s approval, the regulations restate certain retained EU law to ensure the continued operation of that regime, but without making substantial changes to the policy area. That also achieves the aim of the rule by making our exhaustion laws more befitting for the UK statute book and only restate retained EU law that is necessary for the continued operation of the regime.

In terms of the impact of these regulations, consumers and businesses should not see any significant changes to trading practice, because in substance they ensure a continuation of the current regime that has been in place since 2021.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell us how this applies to electronic sales? If I buy a book on a Kindle, it is always very hard for me to pass on to somebody else. Is that a right I do or should have under these regulations?

Secondly, is this regional principle now the Government’s policy? Does the Minister think a Europe-wide territory for exhaustion is the right answer, or are we going to look at this in our trade deals and try to expand that region to, say, the whole of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific travel partnership as well?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will address the first, technical point in my winding up. I was about to come to the fact that the Government have consulted but have not listened to industry’s views about what a go-forward exhaustion regime post our departure from the European Union looks like. The regulations that the Committee is asked to approve today effectively maintain a continuation, to provide that certainty. The Government will respond to that consultation, in due course, to directly address the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. As part of that, there will be consideration of the relative merits of extending that territory to include new territories such as the CPTPP.

I hope that hon. Members on both sides will reflect on the fact that this is a complex area; it is very much determined by an interlocking web of international rules and treaties, and I think that it is right that the House should proceed cautiously, given the importance of IP protection to the UK’s economy. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that we can move forward on that, in collaboration with industry and on a cross-party basis, to provide the opportunities that are there for the UK.

In conclusion, this set of regulations seeks to use powers contained in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to introduce only targeted changes, at this stage. Those changes will ensure that rights holders, businesses and consumers can continue to have certainty and confidence in the UK’s IP framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the hon. Member for Reading East for his comments and for rightly highlighting the importance of intellectual property to the UK economy. I will happily write to him. The Government consulted extensively on the reforms to collective management organisations. This change affects only the smallest CMOs and, as Members would expect, it seeks to get the right balance between protecting rights holders—there is no desire to see a diminution in rights holders’ ability to get the transparency they need and achieve fair recompense—and reducing some of the burdens on the smallest CMOs. The hon. Gentleman knows the seven smallest CMOs affected by this change.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the very important issue of AI training. We will again ensure that rights holders are fully affected. He has spent significant time on that important issue, as has the Department, and I will continue to engage on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley asked about the scope of the regulations and whether they extend to digital content. He used the example of the Kindle. That is not dealt with by these regulations, which are about the protection of IP in a physical form. There are separate regulations and copyright laws that deal with that issue. That illustrates the complexity, and it is right that, rather than move too quickly, we take the time to look at the interlocking tapestry.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

For the sake of clarity, will the Minister inform the Committee what sort of exhaustion regime the Government intend to introduce? When is that likely to happen?

[Andrew Griffith]

As I said in my remarks, the Government are consulting on that, and it is right that we take the time. To be transparent, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific time and date. The issue is complex, and officials are working through when that is, but we have consulted and that regime will come. I hope we all agree that it is more important to be right than to be fast in this domain; that is certainly the strong message that we hear from industry.

In the meantime, the regulations, if the Committee supports them today, will provide valuable certainty to industry. The last thing anyone wants is for us to go into the start of next year with uncertainty. These regulations give us the opportunity to take the time. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations, I will be happy to entertain them. Hon. Members on both sides of the House engage very strongly with the industry, and I hope that when we reach agreement on what the regime looks like, we can do it on as much of a cross-party basis as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.—(Andrew Griffith.)