Technology Strategy Board Order 2007

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. We on the Opposition Benches welcome any action to stimulate innovation in business. However, we do have certain questions about this order. First, can the Minister explain what the relationship will be between the Technology Strategy Board and the RDAs, the research councils and the equivalent EU bodies under the Seventh Framework Programme for research? How will he ensure avoidance of duplication? The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government believe that the right way to build on the success of the TSB and to ensure that a programme of technology support continues to be delivered in an efficient and effective way is to create an executive arm’s length body. It portentously states that its objects and approach will, however, be different from research councils created so far under the Science And Technology Act 1965. The first thing it then says, as if this is the most important thing, is that its primary location will be in Swindon. I hope that the Minister can assure your Lordships that this is not just jobs for the boys. The regulatory impact assessment states that the costs of delivery will not exceed current costs of delivery within the DTI and quotes an annual figure of £178 million. I may have missed it, but I cannot see a reference to the initial costs of the merger and the establishment of the Technology Strategy Board. Can the Minister enlighten us? I understand the assertion that the encouragement of experimentation in research can be undesirably frustrated by demands for justification of every cent of expenditure. On the other hand, there is a considerable danger that the remoteness of decision making on spending from the ultimate provider of funds, the hard pressed taxpayer, can lead to insufficiently rigorous justification of such spending decisions. What safeguards are there to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not wasted? Efficiency gains are stated in the regulatory impact assessment as being anticipated, but the basis on which such savings are expected, and the amount, is not given. Can the Minister enlighten us? Under the heading ““Risks””, and as part of the case for change, the RIA states that an advisory TSB does not optimise strategic focus. We have no way of judging the business case, so can the Minister expand on why the proposed structure will optimise strategic focus. The RIA states rather baldly that the creation of the TSB is expected to be positive both in terms of improved communications and joint working. We should hope that that is the case. It then gives a long list of categories of public sector stakeholders, followed by a single category of private sector stakeholder. I hope that that is not a demonstration of the Government’s priorities. The RIA states that the proposal is expected to have a positive effect on small businesses pursuing innovative ideas. However, it gives no explanation of the basis for that statement. It appears to be there simply because of the requirement of the small firms impact test for such a statement. There was a suggestion by the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the other place that small businesses could be overlooked by a grant-awarding body manned exclusively by people with big business experience. I could not see from Hansard that the Minister there had responded to that point. Perhaps the noble Lord can do so. The RIA goes on to state that the Government will monitor the impact of the measures presented. How will the Government do that and, in particular, how will they monitor the performance and success of the TSB itself? The RIA states that the TSB will produce an annual report. That is a step in the right direction and we will want to look closely at it. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that it will be widely available. I look forward to his responses to my points.