Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Mowat (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 November 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Science Research.


Science Research

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The key term is multidisciplinary. Those companies interact with each other, and the pure science laboratory, which was there in the first place, has been the driver. I want to contrast the multidisciplinary model of the Daresbury campus with some of the ideas that have come out of the Hauser review. That is more about excellence, with the Government picking areas in which they want to invest and going for it. I am not against that, but there are two models to determine how we invest in science and applied science. One is what could be called, ““Let's pick a winner and go for it,”” and the other is, ““Let 1,000 flowers bloom. Let's try lots of things. Some of them will be brilliant and some of them won't.”” My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out that silicon valley was created by Government procurement, but I do not think that that is true. I think that it was created by innovation, entrepreneurship, encouragement and the linkage of money to brilliant technologists. I do not wish to overrun my time, but I have two minutes left and a couple of concerns to raise, to which I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's response. I welcome the local enterprise partnerships as a way forward. There is a risk, however, that they will be quite fragmented in a way that the regional development agencies were not and other things are not. I recently had a ridiculous conversation with a colleague who said to me, ““Which LEP is Daresbury going to be in?”” That is not the right way for us to think about how we do all this, and if we let that mindset grow, it will be quite a dangerous. I mentioned the Hauser review and technology and innovation centres. It is not clear to me how they will interact with what we call regional growth hubs—or at least there is a lot of language in this area that seems to be quite loose—so I would welcome input on that. With regard to the success of Daresbury, I have a bit of concern about the way in which the Science and Technology Facilities Council funding goes between Daresbury and Harwell. I am not an expert in how that works, but I think that nearly all the members of the board of the STFC are Harwell-based, not Daresbury-based. We must be careful that we do not have a south-centric civil service and a south-centric triangle driving science in a way that we do not want. You will be pleased to hear that I shall stop speaking shortly, Mrs Brooke. I just want to reiterate that this has been a good and positive debate, principally because it has not been party political. We have much more in common with one another—especially those of us who went to Imperial college—than party politics allows, and it is extremely important to us all and to our children that we get this right.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
518 c127-8WH 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Capital investment Engineering Medicine Universities Technology Research Science Research and development tax credit Mathematics Research councils STEM subjects
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk