Science and Technology Framework The Secretary of State for
Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan) The creation
of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology marks a
watershed moment for science, innovation and technology in the UK.
We now have a Government Department that focuses on a single
mission: to make the UK a science and technology superpower.
Science and technology is absolutely critical to the UK’s future
prosperity and security,...Request free
trial
Science and Technology
Framework
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology
()
The creation of the Department for Science, Innovation and
Technology marks a watershed moment for science, innovation and
technology in the UK. We now have a Government Department that
focuses on a single mission: to make the UK a science and
technology superpower. Science and technology is absolutely
critical to the UK’s future prosperity and security, and to the
health and wellbeing of our citizens and our environment. That is
why it is a central pillar of the integrated review. Countries
that embrace science and technology will be prosperous and
secure, home to the innovators and technology companies of the
future. Those that don’t, won’t.
My vision for DSIT starts from an extraordinary position. Last
year, the UK joined only China and the US in having a technology
sector worth over $1 trillion. Despite our relative size, Britain
outperforms our closest competitors and we are a main challenger
nation to the US and China in many areas. We have four of the
world’s top 10 universities. Just eight of our university towns
are home to more unicorns than the whole of France and Germany
combined. However, when other countries are investing further and
faster in science and tech, we must do the same. We have an
incredibly unique and powerful platform from which to grow and
innovate for the benefit of the British people, which is why I
have said I plan to take a ruthlessly outcome-focused approach to
this new Department.
I will ensure that in both the short term and the long term, our
work is based on improving people’s daily lives in ways they can
feel and see around them. The Government’s vision for the future
is an NHS that uses artificial intelligence to find, treat and
reduce illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, so we have
more time with our loved ones. We should have local transport
services that allow us to travel faster, safer and cleaner than
our parents did. The schools of the future should be powered by
the kinds of technology that unlock hidden talents in every
child, no matter where they live. As the “Department for the
Future”, our focus will be on how science, technology and
innovation can ensure the British people live longer, safer,
healthier and happier lives.
Such an important goal requires immediate action, which is why in
my first few weeks as Technology Secretary I have been focused
relentlessly on action and delivery. I see this as a
once-in-a-generation opportunity to send a clear signal around
the world that Britain plans to lead the way in science,
innovation and technology. The key steps we have taken are as
follows.
Yesterday, we published the UK science and technology framework,
which sets out our goals and vision for science and technology in
an enduring framework that will see us through to 2030. It has
been developed in close collaboration with the UK science and
technology sector, and represents a commitment to scaling our
ambitions and delivering the most critical action needed to
secure strategic advantage through science and technology. The
framework is the strategic anchor that Government policy will
deliver against, and to which the Government will hold themselves
accountable. It sets out 10 things that the Government must do to
sustain strategic advantage in science and technology.
First, we must identify the technologies most critical to the
UK’s objectives. Secondly, we must signal the UK’s science and
technology strengths and ambitions both at home and abroad to
attract talent and investment and boost our global influence.
Thirdly, we must boost private and public investment in research
and development for economic growth and better productivity.
Fourthly, we must build on the UK’s already amazing talent and
skills base. Fifthly, we must finance innovative science and
technology companies. Sixthly, we must use Government procurement
to stimulate innovation in key sectors and technologies.
Seventhly, we must take international opportunities to shape the
global science and technology landscape through strategic
international engagement, diplomacy and partnerships.
Eighthly, we must ensure that science and technology objectives
are supported by access to the best physical and digital
infrastructure that will attract talent, investment and
discoveries. Ninthly, we must leverage post-Brexit freedoms to
create world-leading pro-innovation regulation and influence
global technological standards. Tenthly, we must create a
pro-innovation culture throughout the UK’s public sector to
improve the way our public services run.
We have also taken immediate steps. The delivery of this new
framework will begin immediately with an initial raft of projects
worth around £500 million, of which £370 million is new money.
That will ensure that the UK has the skills and infrastructure to
take a global lead in game-changing technologies. That includes
£250 million of investment in three truly transformational
technologies to build on the UK’s leadership in AI, quantum
technologies and engineering biology. That funding will help a
range of industries tackle the biggest global challenges such as
climate change and healthcare and will form part of our
commitment to the five key technologies, which include
semiconductors and future telecommunications.
We have also published Sir Paul Nurse’s “Independent Review of
the UK’s Research, Development and Innovation Organisational
Landscape”, with recommendations to make the most of the UK’s
research organisations, testing different science funding models
to support a range of innovative institutional models, such as
focused research organisations, working with industry and
partners to open up new funding opportunities. Up to £50 million
will spur co-investment in science from the private sector and
philanthropists, to drive the discoveries of the future, subject
to business cases. The Government are already in talks with
Schmidt Futures, a philanthropic initiative by Eric and Wendy
Schmidt, about additional support of up to $20 million as part of
that work.
Some £117 million of existing funding will create hundreds of new
PhDs for AI researchers, and £8 million will help to find the
next generation of AI leaders around the world. A £50 million
uplift to world-class labs funding will help research institutes
and universities to improve facilities, so that UK researchers
have access to the very best labs and equipment that they need to
keep producing that world-class science. A £10 million uplift to
the UK innovation and science seed fund, totalling £50 million,
will boost the UK’s next technology and science start-ups, which
could be the next Apple, Google or Tesla.
We have outlined plans to set up an Exascale supercomputer
facility—the most powerful compute capability, which could solve
problems as complex as nuclear fusion, as well as a programme to
provide dedicated compute capacity for important AI research, as
part of our initial response to the future of compute review,
which was also published yesterday. Some £9 million in Government
funding will support the establishment of a quantum computing
research centre in Daresbury in the north-west.
On next steps, each of the 10 framework strands has a lead
Department tasked with putting in place a clear action plan, to
which they will be accountable during the year. Delivery against
those plans will be overseen by the National Science and
Technology Council, which will hold Departments to account and
drive pace. Alongside the development of those ambitious plans
and the framework, we have also set out our initial work under
each of the 10 priorities, which will include our skills and
talent base.
On priority technologies, we will develop a pro-innovation
approach to regulating AI, which will be detailed in our White
Paper in the coming weeks. On R&D investment, we will respond
to the Tickell review of research bureaucracy, and Sir Paul
Nurse’s review of the research, development and innovation
landscape. We will work with industry and partners to increase
inward investment by the summer recess. On financing innovative
science and technology companies, we will build on the strong
track record of the British Business Bank to strengthen support
for the UK’s science and technology companies.
This ambitious plan will focus on getting actions out the door
now, as well as a plan for the future. This Government are both
reactive and, crucially, proactive when it comes to science and
technology, to ensure that we can be a superpower by 2030.
2.34pm
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place, and I thank her
for the advance notice of her statement.
I welcome the framework. It will take pride of place on my
virtual bookshelf next to the Government’s innovation strategy,
the R&D road map, the science plan, numerous grand
challenges, industrial strategies, sector deals and two UKRI
reorganisations. We have seen nine changes of Science Minister in
five years. Britain is a world-leading science nation, and we
deserve a framework with a longer shelf life than a lettuce,
especially given the shortage of salad items under this
Government.
It is good to see the Government setting out the principles for
identifying the scientific capabilities that we need to protect
and grow, and the outcomes that we wish to see from science, as
well as seeking to increase STEM skills in teaching and support
for start-ups and spin-outs. On the eve of International Women’s
Day, and as a chartered engineer, I enthusiastically welcome the
ambition to diversify the science and technology workforce. Let
us work together to make that ambition a reality.
I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. How do
the five critical technologies in the framework relate to the 17
sensitive areas in the National Security and Investment Act 2021,
and the five key growth industries in the autumn statement? When
will each critical technology have the appropriate regulatory
framework that she talked about? Science-driven industries
critical to our future prosperity, such as space, autonomous
vehicles, batteries and steel, are not even mentioned. Labour has
committed to an industrial strategy council on a statutory
footing. Do Government have an industrial strategy?
The framework rightly says that procurement is key to innovation.
Why, then, have the Government objected to our amendments to the
Procurement Bill to ensure that procurement is not captured by
cronyism? The Government committed to £22 billion of science
funding by 2027. Will the Secretary of State say what the current
funding commitment is now? How much of the £370 million mentioned
in the framework is truly new? If it is new, how is she paying
for it? The Government promised that science spend will double,
but the framework talks of raising science spend outside the
greater south-east by only 40%. That suggests that our regional
centres of innovation will not benefit from this increased
funding. Is that all she has to say about the importance of
regional innovation? What of the clusters that the Science
Minister talks up so much?
Start-ups and scale-ups are key to sustainable green growth, but
the £10 million uplift to the seed fund mentioned here would not
meet the early-stage funding requirements of one future Google.
Will the Government adopt the recommendations of Labour’s
start-up and scale-up review to drive innovative growth across
our country?
The biggest question is what is not in the framework—Horizon
Europe, the world's biggest science programme. Did the Secretary
of State really think that she could get through the statement
without even mentioning it? Thanks to the Tories, our brightest
and best UK scientists are still having to choose between the
funding that they desperately need and the country that they
love. British research and British business are feeling the
chilling impact of not being part of the world’s greatest
scientific collaboration. Can the Secretary of State confirm that
now that the Windsor framework has been agreed, Horizon
association will follow? Specifically, will the Chancellor’s
Budget next week include association funding?
Labour believes that innovation and science are critical to
building strong and self-sufficient national and regional
economies. We see a clear path from investing in scientific
research to the jobs that people can raise a family on. With our
ambitious national missions, Labour would stoke the innovation
engine to drive high-skilled growth, access new and diverse
talent pools and catalyse regions that have been left out of
science investment. I fear that this framework is another wish
list designed to be shelved or scrapped at the earliest
convenience of a Government addicted to sticking-plaster
policies. Only a Labour Government, with our long-term industrial
strategy, will deliver the science sector and the jobs that our
country needs.
I thank the hon. Member for her comments, but in reality it is
this Government who are here today delivering jobs and a better
future for the British public. As I said in my statement, we are
focusing not only on actions today, but on a strategic long-term
approach to ensure that we are a science and technology
superpower by 2030.
The hon. Member said that there are more technologies than the
five that we have identified. Of course there are. The ones we
have identified are the key strategic ones, but there is a great
deal of work that my ministerial team and I are doing. On
funding, we are investing £20 billion by 2024-25, as we have said
on the record. The £370 million that we announced yesterday is a
new spending commitment that we had not previously outlined. On
geographical spread across the nation, we have made a strategic
commitment to ensure that 55% of the spend is outside the
south-east.
The framework that we have set out is just one part of the work
that my Department is doing. Let us not forget that it was
established just four weeks ago. In one month, we have not only
published a comprehensive framework plan, but got on with key
actions to drive the agenda forward. This Government mean
business. We have worked very hard in the past few weeks to talk
collaboratively with industry and with researchers.
I am not going to take the Opposition’s word about what is wrong.
Let us have a look at what experts and people on the ground have
to say. Professor Sir Ian Boyd, president of the Royal Society of
Biology, says:
“Science and technology is already a central plank of modern
life. Putting this centre-stage in government strategy is
essential and welcome.”
Professor Julia Black, president of the British Academy,
says:
“The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s
announcements reaffirm the Government’s ambition to put the UK at
the forefront of global research, development and
innovation”.
I could go on all day long, because our announcement has been
wholeheartedly welcomed.
The hon. Member asked about Horizon. This is an announcement
about our framework—that is what is on the annunciator screen—and
not about Horizon, but I will answer her question anyway. We have
not changed our position on Horizon. For the past two years, we
have tried to associate. It was in the original deal, and we
welcome the comments from the EU. Of course, terms would have to
be favourable for the UK—we have lost two years—and we would have
to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. We cannot wait around
for another two years, because we want to put our researchers
first. That is why we have done the responsible and right thing
and worked up a plan B, which stands ready should we need it, but
our position on Horizon has not changed. We look forward to
continuing our conversations with the EU.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Science and
Technology.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to welcome my right hon. Friend and her
ministerial team to their positions. It has been some years since
a Science Minister stood at the Dispatch Box as a Secretary of
State; I hope that she and her team will have a very successful
tenure. I warmly welcome the priority that the Government are
giving to science and technology at one of the most exciting
times for it since the first industrial revolution. My Committee
looks forward to welcoming her to discuss her work and the
framework.
I have a few specific questions. First, can my right hon. Friend
commit that the £1.65 billion from the science budget that was
returned to the Treasury last week as part of the supplementary
estimates will go back to the science budget and has not been
lost? Secondly, I am interested in what she says about Horizon.
Will she say when the negotiations will begin? She rightly says
that they cannot go on forever, but how long will she allow them
to continue before plan B is enacted? Finally, what mechanisms
are in place to ensure that in areas such as battery technology,
which is a responsibility of her Department, of the Department
for Business and Trade and of the Department for Energy Security
and Net Zero, there is a united and coherent approach across
Government so that investors know what the policy is and who to
deal with?
My ministerial team and I look forward to working with my right
hon. Friend’s Committee. It was good to speak to him yesterday.
As I said then, funding remains available to finalise association
with EU programmes. In the event that we do not associate, UK
researchers and businesses will receive at least as much as they
would have through Horizon over the spending review period.
The Government have stepped in to continue to support the UK’s
world-leading R&D sector. We have extended the Horizon
guarantee until the end of June 2023, as we announced yesterday.
The Government have provided £882 million to date via UKRI
through the guarantee and they will still deliver their
commitment to invest £20 billion per annum in research and
development by 2024-25. That is not impacted by the £1.6 billion
to which my right hon. Friend refers.
On Horizon, as I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne
Central (), we have not changed our position. We continue to
try to associate with Horizon, and we look forward to engaging in
more deep and meaningful conversations with the EU on what is
possible as we work out the potential options. I will keep my
right hon. Friend and this House as informed as possible as plans
develop.
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
I welcome the creation of the new Department and welcome the
Secretary of State to her position. I thank her for advance sight
of her statement.
The framework should be seen very much as a starting point. I
have to say that the Secretary of State’s comments on Horizon
will not give the sector much assurance at the moment. That view
is echoed by the Royal Society, which says:
“The extension of the funding underwrite announced today is a
welcome intervention”
as a safety net,
“but it is yet another sticking plaster, when the ultimate goal
needs to be speedy association”.
Sir Paul Nurse’s review also describes Horizon Europe association
as essential, so we need a timeframe for when a decision on
Horizon will be taken. We have been hearing from the Government
for three years that their intention and hope is that there will
be such an association, but we need a timeframe.
Dr Tim Bradshaw of the Russell Group has said that the £370
million of new funding falls far short of the £1.6 billion that
had been earmarked for research collaborations with the European
Union, so it would be useful to know how the Government can
continue promoting science in the UK when they are driving down
funding in comparison with what was provided before Brexit.
The framework commits to establishing
“competitive advantage in attracting international talent to the
UK”,
but Royal Society analysis has shown that work and study visa
fees are up to six times higher than in comparable science
nations. What plans do the Government have to reduce visa fees in
line with other science nations?
The Secretary of State has chosen future communications as an
area of focus. In 2020, a $500 million stake was invested in
OneWeb to support such communications. Can the Secretary of State
update the House on the progress of the OneWeb investment in
terms of future communications?
Finally, we have been asking about the semiconductor strategy for
many months now. When is it likely to be published?
On Horizon, the hon. Member seems to be rewriting history, which
is slightly disappointing. We have tried for two years to
associate. It was the EU, not this Government, that linked the
issue with the Northern Ireland protocol. We now stand ready to
continue those conversations. The £1.6 billion was earmarked for
Horizon. We were not able to affiliate and associate with
Horizon, which is why the money is no longer available, but we
stand committed in terms of our record investment of £20 billion,
which we have pledged for 2024-25.
On the conversation around attracting talent, we think it is very
important that we are supporting industry and the opportunities
available, so there are jobs in this country for people to come
to and so they will want to forge a life here.
The semiconductor strategy will be out imminently. We have been
doing a great deal of work to ensure that it comes out in exactly
the right place.
(Chatham and Aylesford)
(Con)
The Secretary of State will know that there are acute shortages
of teachers in STEM subjects. She may well also know that we on
the Science and Technology Committee looked into the lack of
diversity in the STEM workforce, but there are only limited
references to that in the framework. Yesterday, the Minister for
Women, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (), set out plans to increase
the number of women working in STEM. The Prime Minister has made
it clear that he wants to see all children studying maths until
the age of 18, and I know that the Education Secretary is
passionate about STEM subjects at school. However, it is not
entirely clear where the Secretary of State’s Department sits in
all this. Will she clarify the position? Which is the lead
Department when it comes to ensuring that we improve STEM uptake
and, indeed, diversification in both schools and workforces?
On the way the framework will operate, in many of the areas,
there will be a lead Department, but we will be working to hold
the Departments to account, while also collaborating with them.
The Department for Education will lead on the education and
skills element, but we will of course work closely with it,
because we have a vested interest in ensuring that the framework
delivers and we can meet that goal of a science and technology
superpower by 2030. However, I want to reassure my hon. Friend
that the examples given in the framework are intended to provide
a flavour of what every Department will be doing; they are not an
exhaustive list. Departments will be coming up with more policies
and ideas over the coming years, but they will all have to be
linked with the framework, because this is a Government who will
be strategic and relentlessly focused.
(Salford and Eccles)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State says that her ambition is to send the
message around the world that the UK is a leader in science and
technology, and I share that ambition, but, sadly, the Sir Paul
Nurse review of research and development—published today—says
that funding provided by the Government is limited, and below
that of other competitive nations. In fact, the UK is 27th out of
36 OECD nations when it comes to Government funding of R&D.
If the Secretary of State is serious about this ambition, as I
truly hope she is—and it would be helpful if she listened to what
I am saying—will she commit today to assuring the House that, by
next year, the UK will be No. 1 among all the OECD nations in
respect of Government funding of R&D?
What I can do is reaffirm the commitment that by 2024-25 we will
have a record level of R&D spending in this country: £20
billion. Rather than simply standing here announcing endless pots
of money, we are being strategic in our spending, and working
with the sector when we come up with our policies and plans.
(South Basildon and East
Thurrock) (Con)
I welcome the statement and wholeheartedly support it, but may I
remind the House that science is a global endeavour? If we are to
deliver on the ambitions set out in the framework, we will need
to work with our partners. May I ask my right hon. Friend to look
at the visa system in particular to ensure that it does not act
as a barrier to attracting world-leading scientists and
technicians to the UK to help us to deliver on those
ambitions?
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the framework is
about our international collaboration with partners. Of course we
need to grow our own talent, a point made earlier by my right
hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (), but we also need to attract
talent, and to ensure that our visa system—as well as many other
factors—enables that to happen. I will continue to work on that
issue across Government.
(Cambridge) (Lab)
Horizon is about collaboration, not just money. May I urge the
Secretary of State to impress that on the Prime Minister? She
will also be aware that confidence in the life sciences sector is
fragile at present, whether it be in relation to R&D tax
credits, the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and
access, or Horizon, and that we have fallen from fourth to 10th
among the best countries in which to conduct late-place clinical
trials. What is she going to do about that?
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and
Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (), has taken the lead on
that, and we are working closely with the Department of Health
and Social Care. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are
challenges that we need to address, and over the coming weeks and
months he will see that this is a Government taking action.
(Wokingham) (Con)
How will the Government respond to America’s Inflation Reduction
Act of 2022, which offers such a wide range of tax breaks,
favourable Government contracts and favourable regulation to
onshore much more science and technology, and threatens to divert
investment from the UK?
It is, of course, important for us to create a favourable
economic climate for business to prosper. As for regulation, it
will be at the heart of our work. We have already commissioned
Sir to publish a report on
the regulation of emerging technology, which will be published
imminently, and we will be doing “deep dives” into how we can get
the regulatory framework right in order to support innovation,
technology and science that is based in the UK.
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State and her team. I hope she will
join me in celebrating the achievements of Oxfordshire’s
researchers, not just at the universities but in the great
science parks: they are, I am sure, four square behind her
visions. One of the big issues that they raise with me is the
“attracting talent” strand, so I am glad she has raised that
subject. Horizon Europe is a big part of it, but it was not just
the money but the ecosystem that was important to those
researchers. However, will the Secretary of State look again at
the visa system, and specifically at the costs? Analysis from the
Royal Society shows that the cost of obtaining a visa for
researchers to come to our country is about six times higher than
the cost among our competitors. Will the Secretary of State speak
to the Home Office about that?
What we really want to do is provide the research community with
complete clarity and the certainty that they have not been able
to have for the last two years while we have waited around trying
to associate with Horizon. As I said at the outset, we want that
process to be relatively swift. As for the question of visas, of
course we want to attract the brightest and the best. Part of
yesterday’s announcement was about how we are going not just to
wait for people to want to come here, but to be proactive and to
utilise our global talent network to go out and find them and to
persuade them of the value of locating and working in the UK.
(North Wiltshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour
to her position. Does she agree that one area of outstanding
science in the United Kingdom is in the Arctic and the Antarctic?
Our polar scientific research is superb, thanks to the National
Environment Research Council, the British Antarctic Survey and
the 78 universities with first-class polar research departments.
I have not had a chance to read her framework paper, but what
more can the Government do within the framework to encourage
polar research, which is so superb in this country but needs more
co-ordination and, of course, always needs more encouragement
from the Government?
I commend my hon. Friend for all the great work that he does and
has done consistently over the years. I know that he held a
meeting here to dive deep into this issue again and to raise its
profile. Of course the work is important geopolitically, but it
is also important to addressing net zero. We work closely with
partners. Our approach is global, not just internal, which is key
to the framework.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
I should declare an interest, in that I have a long-standing
experience and love of the higher education system. I also
co-chair the Higher Education Commission with Lord Norton.
I like a lot of the stuff that the Secretary of State has said
today, particularly what she has said about having a much more
focused Department, but I should warn her that my hon. Friend the
Member for Cambridge () is right: morale is low in
the higher education sector and we need to put that right. We
also need the resources of good management in universities. We
must make them open to dialogue and partnership with local
businesses, small businesses and big businesses. I ask the
Secretary of State please to look closely at that innovation and
enterprise.
This is at the heart of the Nurse review, which talks of the
diversification of the research sector and how we can open up the
opportunities that the hon. Gentleman has described. As a former
higher education Minister, I know only too well the challenges
that universities can face in this regard. My policy is always an
open-door policy, and I work closely and in collaboration with
the universities to break down some of those barriers and create
those opportunities.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement The third
element of her framework plan was growing private and public
investment to boost productivity. Does she agree that what is
crucial is not just the development of new ideas but their
implementation, because that is how productivity will be boosted?
Will she ensure that there is a focus throughout Government on
implementation and scale-ups, given that all Departments can play
a role in the delivery of progress?
My hon. Friend is right. It is not just about the funding; it is
also about the implementation, the focus and a strategic
approach, which is why this Government want to lead from the
front. We need to focus not just on start-ups but on scale-ups,
which is one of the things that has held us back in the UK,
especially in the tech sector. My Department will play a critical
role in supporting the industry to tackle this.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
York has already framed its future economy, whether through Buy
Yorkshire, with 4,000 more jobs for our city and region, through
digital and advanced rail, which is currently providing 5,500
jobs and has the ability to grow, or through the emerging digital
creative sector, which is an exciting innovation across York.
However, the Government have been slow in giving that support and
getting the money out of the door. We are frustrated because we
want to press ahead, so how will the Secretary of State deliver
for our city?
I pledge to meet the hon. Member and listen carefully to the
challenges that she has experienced, so that we can address them
not just in her area but in other areas.
(Boston and Skegness)
(Con)
I welcome the joining together of these strands of Government,
not least because of the broadband programme, and my right hon.
Friend truly has the opportunity to be the Secretary of State for
growth. That is hugely important. Does she agree that it is the
UK’s leading role in the regulatory space that allows us
potentially to be a world leader in the regulation of areas such
as artificial intelligence, where there is not only a vital
national security angle but a vital economic opportunity that we
can seize at this unique moment in that technology’s history?
Exactly. As my hon. Friend points out, this is about regulation
to create innovation, and we need to get those regulatory
frameworks right. We also need to look at the behaviour of the
regulators themselves, at how they interact with one another and
at the burden they place on researchers and businesses alike.
(Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Small and
medium-sized tech companies provide a vital engine of growth in
our economy, particularly in the Thames valley and in towns such
as Reading. Can she say more about what her Department is doing
to support these vital small and medium-sized businesses?
Indeed. When we talk about our science and technology agenda,
this is not just to support big tech; it is to support all
businesses, including those small and medium-sized ones, which we
hope to be able to support to scale up and continue to grow and
create jobs. At the heart of our plans, the hon. Gentleman will
see how we can support them in a range of different ways through
the 10-point plan and by being strategic across Government, from
our approach on skills to our approach on regulation. And let us
not forget that this Department is coming forward with a number
of pieces of legislation, including the Data Protection and
Digital Information Bill, which will help to support businesses
to get rid of some of that unnecessary burden, and the digital
markets Bill, which is focused on freeing up some of those small
businesses and unlocking opportunities for growth.
(Folkestone and Hythe)
(Con)
I welcome the framework and also my right hon. Friend’s
commitment that the Government will soon be publishing the
national semiconductor strategy. Does she agree that this is a
fantastic opportunity to highlight not just the leading role in
the world that British companies play in semiconductor design,
but the attractiveness of the UK for investment in advanced
manufacturing, particularly in compound semiconductors?
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Our work in
semiconductors is important not just for national security but
for economic security, and we have some key strengths when it
comes to research and development for semiconductors, and our
compound semiconductor manufacturing sector. We will continue to
support semiconductors and come forward with that strategy in the
coming days or weeks.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
Research projects at Welsh universities face an immediate cliff
edge with the end of European funds, which will run out at the
end of the month, endangering 60 projects and 1,000 jobs. This
affects the whole of the UK, but there is a specific issue in
Wales due to the concentration of European funding there over the
years. Can I therefore use this statement to ask the Secretary of
State whether she will discuss with the Treasury the need to
announce bridge funding in the Budget next week to protect these
projects while the replacement funding is settled?
I am aware of this issue, as is my ministerial team, and we
pledge to meet the hon. Member to discuss this in detail in the
coming weeks.
(Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that we are technologically and
scientifically ready for the small and medium reactors that we
need to roll out across the United Kingdom. They are world
beaters. Will the Secretary of State include this in all the
principles that she is putting forward today, because it is
absolutely vital? We need the energy and we also need to sell
these reactors, because they are superb.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This highlights how the
Department will be working hand in hand with other Departments.
On this agenda, we will be working closely with the Department
for Energy Security and Net Zero. It is our Department that will
be focusing on innovation and the technologies of tomorrow, but
it is incumbent on us to work with the other Departments to
deliver them in time to be ready for tomorrow.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
The issue with Horizon is that UK-based researchers were able to
take more from the scheme than the UK Government contributed to
it. The Times reports today that the Prime Minister is said to be
sceptical about Horizon:
“He thinks it’s a very expensive way to fund a lot of small
academic collaborations which don’t really change the world.”
Does the Secretary of State recognise that science is an
international endeavour, that incremental developments in science
do change the world and that the UK would be a net beneficiary of
Horizon if only we could associate?
The entire point of our announcement yesterday was that we
believe that science and technology can change the world. We also
believe that they can change people’s lives here in the UK, and
that is why we made our announcement on the actions we are taking
now and on the long-term framework, so that we can be proactive
as well as reactive. As I have said on Horizon, our position has
not changed.
(South Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
As somebody with a maths degree, I am naturally very supportive
and enthusiastic about a Government Department dedicated to
science, and I very much welcome the new framework to proactively
position the UK as the science superpower. I can confirm that my
constituency, where almost every village has a science park, will
do more than almost any other constituency to try to turn that
vision into a reality. We already have a thriving herd of
unicorns, a vibrant community of Nobel prize winners and
laboratories everywhere stacked full of researchers, a lot of
whom were funded by the Horizon programme. I welcome the
Secretary of State’s statement that the Government want to reopen
negotiations on Horizon and that they are open to that. I accept
that she cannot commit to the outcome of negotiations while they
are going on, and it is good that she has a plan B in her back
pocket, but negotiations create uncertainty and I wonder what
reassurance she can give to my formerly Horizon-funded
researchers that they will not lose their funding until we get a
long-term solution.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to provide researchers
and academics with that clarity and certainty. That is exactly
why we yesterday extended the guarantee by another three months
so that they can be confident, as we have talks with the EU, that
there is a system in place.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s creation of this Department and
warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her position as Secretary
of State. I also welcome the £370 million that is being invested.
In drawing up this framework, what lessons have been learned from
the covid-19 pandemic and, in particular, from the success of the
vaccines taskforce under Kate Bingham, whose position was, I
remind the House, shamefully undermined by the Opposition?
We have taken a great deal of learnings from the operation of the
vaccines taskforce, and we have been deploying those learnings,
as we can see from the life sciences missions that we have put
into process. One of the key learnings relates to the work we do
with industry, and also our ability to work much more quickly and
to cut through red tape and regulation. My hon. Friend will see
from my Department a relentless focus on cutting down that
regulation, getting the regulatory framework right and cutting
away some of the unnecessary bureaucracy that is holding back our
nation from excelling even more.
(Bolton West) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s new science and technology framework,
but will my right hon. Friend set out how the life science vision
works within it and also speak of the amazing and rewarding jobs
that will come with it?
The framework that we set up yesterday is the strategic
overarching plan for how we get to be a science and technology
superpower. Of course, we are working on many other strands to
ensure that we can drive forward those policies to achieve those
goals, including the life science vision.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
You have had some good exercise, Mr Fell.
(Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—last but not least.
I warmly welcome this statement, and I welcome the Secretary of
State and her fantastic team to the Front Bench. This statement
is great news for science, and the £370 million deposit towards
turning the UK into a science superpower is welcome. My
constituents will be glad to hear it, as we are trying to get the
Ulverston life sciences cluster off the ground. Will the
Secretary of State agree to meet me and the GSK taskforce to see
how it can best engage with the strategy and take it forward?
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what is
happening in his constituency. I think it will improve his
constituents’ lives with more jobs and better paid jobs, but it
will also improve the lives of all our constituents. This is how
we drive forward our economy, how we grow our economy, how we
create better paid jobs, how we improve our healthcare and how we
tackle climate change. My constituents are asking me for all
those things, and it is this Government who are delivering this
proactive, outcomes-based approach.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for
responding to questions for more than three quarters of an hour.
|
