Trade, Exports, Innovation and Productivity

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I realise that there is a good argument in favour, but we are conducting a consultation. As the hon. Lady knows, my door is open. I would be more than happy to discuss it with her because I know about the powerful arguments in favour, but there are also strong arguments against it. The consultation might allow us to make some progress.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I must make some more progress on my speech, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman first.

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the Minister. Is she aware that yesterday the Medical Research Council issued a briefing paper about the move from grants to loans? It said that

“the Biomedical Catalyst may not continue”.

[Anna Soubry]

I have not seen that paper and I am not going to pretend that I have. I always view it as important not to comment on things that have not been read or on issues that might have been taken out of context. Perhaps I will drop the hon. Gentleman a letter, when I have had the opportunity to read the paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also delighted to follow the thoughtful speeches of so many Members from all parts of the House. Indeed, it has been a very fine debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) for securing it. Some matters have been quite enjoyable as well as enlightening. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) is not in his place, because I particularly enjoyed the part of his speech when he was berating our Members for harking back as far as the 1960s, and then immediately moved forward to quote Adam Smith from the 18th century. It was a remarkably fine performance.

The hon. Lady for South Cambridgeshire—

[Lucy Frazer]

South East Cambridgeshire.

[Roger Mullin]

Is it close? [Laughter.]

The hon. Lady opened her speech by mentioning the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) who is also not in his place. I was going to compliment him, because what he brought to this debate was a recognition that criticism is not always a negative thing; indeed, it can be helpful. When he said that, I immediately thought of an old teacher of mine, Professor Tom Burns, who, in the 1960s, along with his colleague Graham Stalker, wrote the famous book, “The Management of Innovation”. In it, he pointed to several factors that are essential for the development of innovation, some of which are extraordinarily pertinent to this debate. For example, one was that there are two types of ideas that we need to mobilise—creative ideas and critical analytical ideas. It is the forging together of those two types of ideas that becomes very important. He also said that one of the fundamentals in driving the rise of the industrial revolution was the creation not only of those types of ideas, but of the means of disseminating the ideas. That was fundamental. We saw it in Scotland with the sharing of ideas, flowing as they did from Edinburgh to Glasgow and Glasgow to Edinburgh. It seems a small thing to say in the modern era, but at that time it was fundamental to getting the sharing of ideas going.

To move on from my teachers, a few years ago I attended a fascinating lecture by Professor Tom Stonier. He pointed out that more people worked in pure research in the last 25 years of the 20th century than did so in the entire pre-history of the world. Let us think about that for a moment—there has been huge growth in the number of people undertaking research. If we combine that with the growth in new technology, such as IT and computing power—whereby an Einstein no longer needs to take years to work out his equations by longhand, and ideas can be processed so quickly—we will see that they are fuelling huge growth in innovation throughout the world.

I shall not dwell, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) likes to do, on doom and gloom, but I shall point out some of the challenges we face. On the growth in the rate of research and the ideas coming into our world, the countries that will remain in front will be those that can capture and develop those ideas, put them into play and own them for themselves. That is the key challenge, which is why I am worried about recent trends in the UK.

Some days ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly pointed to a “cocktail of dangers” in the global economy. One of the dangers is that we are not investing enough in the type of research and development and innovation needed to keep us at the forefront. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) pointed out in his fine contribution that this country has a problem of a lack of long-term investment in business. That is true of many sectors, and part of the problem is that, compared with some of our major competitors, we are generating less investment from the business sector than we did in the past.

I am delighted that the Minister for Universities and Science, whom I met in a previous Westminster Hall debate about science, will sum up for the Government this evening. In 2010, the previous Government froze the science budget for five years, which meant a 10% cut in real terms, at a time when it was already at a modest level compared with those of our major G8 comparators. In 2012, UK public investment in science fell to less than 0.5% of GDP. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) pointed out in the debate at which the Minister was present, that is a lower rate than any G8 country has invested in the preceding 20 years. The G8 average is now about 0.8%, compared with the UK’s 0.44%.

If we look at broader measures of research and development, we see that a generation ago the UK was one of the most research-intensive economies in the world—and didn’t we benefit from that? Now, however, as with science, we are one of the least research-intensive economies. My late brother was at one time chair of the OECD committee on science and technology policy, and in recent years, before his sad passing, we would regularly discuss the failure of the UK—and his homeland of Scotland—to keep up. In terms of broad research and development measures, we have slipped from leading the OECD countries in 1979 to trailing behind all our major competitors. The US invests 2.8% of its GDP in all forms of research and development. On average, the OECD and EU countries invest 2.4% of their GDP, but the UK now spends only about 1.7% of its GDP on research and development. That is not going to keep us at the forefront or allow us to face some of the challenges and competition of the future. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire—

[Richard Graham]

Gloucester.

[Roger Mullin]

Apologies again; I am quite happy about apologising to the House.

The hon. Member for Gloucester pointed out several of the challenges that he felt we faced, but I want to suggest several things that could be done, given that he berated us for not coming up with ideas. If he gives me a few moments, I shall suggest a number of points that I would like the Government to address.

I am especially interested in how some of the Government’s decisions on this front do them no good, because this is about not just funding, but strategic choice. When faced with an opportunity to be a world leader in the development of carbon capture, it is just insane to pull the rug on that if the Government are trying to say that we want to ensure that we are at the forefront of such development. Several Members may have received emails from one of my constituents—he emails many people, and he recently wrote to the Prime Minister—about smart meter technology. When I spoke to him, he echoed what others have said about our technological choices, including on smart meters. He wondered why we were not investing in the most up-to-date technologies to ensure that they are the very best to meet the country’s needs, rather than going for what seems to be good enough at the moment.

Recent work, most notably by Dr Stephen Watson of Glasgow University, has pointed out the huge importance of infrastructure spend to the Government’s investment in science, and research and development. Our universities in Scotland punch well above their weight in attracting funds from the research councils, but we do poorly compared with elsewhere in the UK, especially the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London, in attracting UK Government infrastructure spend on research and development, which is fundamental to the future of a healthy research and development community. We need to map out such investment much more, both thematically and territorially, although that has never been done by any Government.

Let me give hon. Members an example of the problem, although I will speak about something that the Government are doing that is good, not bad. I applaud the way in which they have invested large sums to create the Francis Crick Institute, the biomedical research centre in the heart of London that is a consortium of three London universities—Imperial College, University College and King’s College. It is funded by the Medical Research Council and bodies such as the Wellcome Trust. Its initial investment was £650 million and the operating budget is £130 million a year. On one level, this is to be applauded, but is it not strange that Dundee University, in the city of my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee East and for Dundee West (Chris Law), is the world leader in biomedical research, yet is not part of the Crick Institute? Indeed, no one in the north of England is part of the institute. My first suggestion to the Government is that when they consider infrastructure spend for research and development, they would do well to think about the distribution of such investment throughout the whole UK.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but would it make sense and would it produce as much bang for the Government’s buck, if that is not an unparliamentary phrase? Would it not be better to have geographical centres of excellence specialising in various things, rather than dotting institutions around the UK to meet some sort of regional agenda?

[Roger Mullin]

One alternative would be to base the centre in Dundee. That would solve the hon. Gentleman’s problem.

In addition to university research, there is business research. The need to encourage business investment has been mentioned, particularly in manufacturing, where we have fallen behind. I mentioned earlier the UK spend on research and development at 1.7% of GDP. We all know our manufacturing sector faces some real challenges. North Korea’s manufacturing sector is doing pretty well by comparison with many countries in the world. Its GDP spend is 4%. [Hon. Members: “North Korea?”] Sorry, South Korea.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Government are offering many budgets and grants and I will highlight one, which is the agri-tech budget. That is seedcorn money for linking agricultural projects with business. In my constituency, for example, we have a wonderful clothmaker, Fox Brothers, which has received money to do research with the local agricultural college to come up with the right wool on the right sheep to produce beautiful clothes. That will help business, and perhaps the Scottish might learn from it, as I know they also have a lot of sheep.

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the hon. Lady for that.

I am not denying—nobody could accuse me of doing so—that the UK Government have been spending on research and development. My argument is that given the future challenges that we face, we are potentially lagging behind nations that will be our major competitors in the future. I am not denying what the hon. Lady says.

Earlier I gave the Minister an incomplete quote from the Medical Research Council on the problem of moving from grants to loans. The full quote is:

“Converting grants to loans may mean that existing schemes such as the Biomedical Catalyst—which has been well received in the sector, supporting 180 business-led research projects and leveraging over £100 million in private match-funding over the course of three years—may not continue in their existing form.”

We have real challenges that need to be faced.