---

Science and Technology

My Lords, my remarks are based on practical experience in business and in introducing technology. It was about 50 years ago when I started work at a textile dying and finishing company and, if noble Lords will excuse the pun, it did not take long to realise that the firm was dying on its feet. It was dying because it took six weeks to process the fabric. Thanks to new and existing technology, we managed to reduce that to 72 hours, by which time people really were beating a path to our door. That became part of what is now known as ““quick response””. Together with computer-aided design and other technologies, quick response has enabled firms such as Topshop and H&M to renew their range every 14 days. These technologies have changed the high street everywhere and provided an enormous benefit to our economy. The contribution of science and technology to all of this was essential, but it was not sufficient. What was required in addition was a change in company culture; a new business model which accommodated new technology. Without that, the new science and technology would have remained on the shelf. It is difficult to make this change. The noble Lord, Lord May, spoke of productivity. Economists have shown that about half the improvements in productivity which usually involve new technologies are secured not by the old firms changing their ways, but by new firms coming into the market with their technology and the old firms going out of business. The difficulties arise because even when the benefits of new technologies are obvious, they are frequently unfashionable. So you have to persuade your customers, the consumers and others in the business chain, that what they are buying is acceptable and can be trusted. There is a lot of doubt and cynicism to be overcome and more fail than succeed. In my experience, you rarely achieve harmony or consensus around new technologies. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, confirmed that. But in practice you have to identify the areas of mutual concern and establish relationships around them. In this way, by anticipating hostility, you can at least raise your company profile, hope to avoid major risks to your finances or reputation and generally create an open culture conducive to innovation. This is the nature of risk. And then you have to sell this risky package to investors under the heading of increasing shareholder value. You have to convince investors, campaign groups, regulators and even your own directors that you are introducing new technologies that meet customer requirements in a manner that beats market expectations. It is not easy. Large firms such as National Grid, Transco and BT have worked out how to deal with these concerns, but what about the small firms which have to introduce new technologies to enter the market? Remember, they are responsible for half the improvements. How can they be helped? One way is through consultancy. I congratulate the DTI on the success of the small firms advisory and mentoring schemes that they have introduced over the years. They have been of enormous value. Another form of self help is to look at the website introduced last year by the RSA through its Forum for Technology, Citizens and the Market. This website describes the problems I have mentioned and says how others have overcome them successfully. Examples of good practice are a definite help and an encouragement. I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating the RSA on its initiative. I must declare an interest as one of the instigators of the project. Of course, in business you often come up against the alternative view. ““Why should we bother with science and technology when we are rapidly becoming a service economy?”” And, ““Everything will soon be made in Asia anyway.””, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned. ““Although we are good at inventing things, we are bad at commercialising them””. I reject that view. In my opening remarks, I explained how science and technology had revolutionised the clothing retail industry—and retail is our biggest service sector. What this means is not that we must change our policy of enterprise and innovation through science and technology; but what globalisation does is to make the policy more urgent. Through science and technology, old industries must reinvent themselves and take advantage of fast-changing, consumer-driven markets, while new industries emerge through the efficient and close interaction between science and business. As far as our being good at science but less good at commercialising the results, I do not know whether that was true or not. What I do know is that, thanks to the work of the Government and in particular my noble friend the Minister, things are now different. My noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya has told us how things have changed. Universities are encouraged to commercialise their discoveries and more and more are doing so with growing success. Another important initiative by the DTI to improve this commercialisation of science is the knowledge transfer networks. This initiative is specifically designed to speed up the flow of information from the laboratory to business and vice versa. Both directions are important. In a specific field of technology or business, this initiative brings together suppliers, customers, universities, research organisations and the finance community. These networks make sure that science does not remain in the laboratory and the laboratory quickly learns the needs of the consumer. I declare an interest as the honorary president of one such network called TechniTex. I have made sure that we also reach out to the service sector. However, these networks are developing further. In his second Reith Lecture in April, the noble Lord, Lord Broers, spoke about the need for teams to produce advances in technologies. He spoke about how innovation draws from several sources and combines many more. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, will be pleased to know that someone was listening and yesterday the first meeting took place of a materials knowledge transfer network which brought together the networks involved in all kinds of advanced composites, materials, plastics and textiles to create what the noble Lord referred to as a matrix of technical creativity. I have every confidence that new products and processes from the materials knowledge transfer network—the flagship network—will flow to the consumer at a speed which will confound the critics and delight the Minister. I hope that it will have his support.