House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Dec 1990

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I heard only the two winding-up speeches because I was also in Committee from 4.15 pm. I was in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair, and the Select Committee on Members' Interests, of which I am a member. That shows the number of activities that we have to undertake in the House if we are to carry out our job. It also shows that the notion that we can all break off at 5 pm and go home for tea is ludicrous. Today has demonstrated the absurdity of that notion, because we have much to deal with.

There are two paragraphs to the money resolution. In paragraph (a) we are about to authorise the expenditure by the Secretary of State for the formation of a company to carry out the designated activities in the Bill. That seems fair enough, covering as it does the cost of share issues, registration at Companies House, and so on. I suspect that it would involve a relatively small sum of money--but no doubt the Minister will illuminate that aspect when he replies. However, the resolution also authorises the Secretary of State to pay for the operation of any such company, which is rather different. The authority to finance the operation of a company carrying out designated activities could involve a large sum of money. Clause 1(2) of the Bill refers to designated activities as follows :

"The activities that may be designated under subsection (1) above are any activities connected with the development, production or maintenance of nuclear devices or with research into such devices or their effects ; and the premises that may be so designated are those which, when this Act comes into force, form part of the undertaking carried on by the Secretary of State and known as the Atomic Weapons Establishment."

In other words, the operation of that establishment will be authorised by the money resolution. We should like to know what sort of annual sum the Secretary of State has in mind.

If the activities are undertaken by a private company, as presumably will be the case, will that company's returns be included as part of the annual defence estimates? Clearly its work will be connected with the Ministry of Defence, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is part of that establishment. It will be interesting to know whether right hon. and hon. Members will have to look up a private company's annual return to obtain figures of defence expenditure.

Column 247

Will the company be one stage removed from Parliament, or will right hon. and hon. Members, by tabling parliamentary questions, be able to obtain information about it? Or will the Minister say, "That matter is for the company"? That ruse is often used by the Government. Under the resolution, the Secretary of State will be able to form a company, draw moneys to do that, and then finance its whole operation. It is therefore important that we receive from the Minister an assurance that financial or other questions about the company asked in Parliament will be answerable by the Minister, and that he will not shield himself behind the company's separateness. The second paragraph of the resolution gives the Secretary of State responsibility

"for any liabilities (whether of such a company"--

that is, a company formed by the Secretary of State--

"or any other company which is or has been a contractor) which are liabilities arising out of the carrying on of activities so designated".

Under clause 1(2), the Secretary of State is given an open cheque in assuming responsibilities for the company in operation, and for any liabilities arising, and for any other company that is or has been a contractor. That is a wide range of potential liabilities. The trade union brief on the Bill includes details of Government-owned, contractor-operated arrangements in the United States. It states :

"Thus, at the Rocky Flats site near Denver, one of the three main US nuclear weapons facilities, 62 lbs of plutonium have been discovered in the air ducts of the plant, which has had to be shut down. We have provided a detailed dossier of evidence to the Defence Committee on the situation in the United States. At the very least, the Government should conduct a full and open study of the US experience before proceeding further."

I do not accept that Government control over a private contractor is as great as Government control over a directly operated Government Department. Therefore, safety risks could increase. Does the resolution mean that the Secretary of State can assume liability when a company is at fault in what everybody accepts is a potentially extremely hazardous process? That seems to be the implication of the money resolution.

Suppose, in this wonderful world of enterprise culture from which the Minister is attempting to persuade the House that we shall benefit a company--I suspect that this is what the resolution is about--tenders for some work at a reduced cost which it cannot then carry out because it has made a miscalculation, which happens all the time, and it goes into liquidation. Is the Secretary of State guaranteeing to those companies which tender for work that he can bail them out of any designated activity? That is important because it warps the whole tendering procedure. A company will know that it has a guarantee, provided by the Government through the resolution. Safety is an important aspect.

Another point made in the excellent brief provided by a combination of trade unions is that safety is prejudiced where it is divided between contractors and the Ministry of Defence. That is obviously the case because countermanding instructions, different standards and similar sets of circumstances can create the potential for greater hazard. At the end of the day, it looks as though the taxpayer, through the Secretary of State, will be picking up the bill.

Column 248

As it is clear that the designated activities which the money resolution specifically covers are important, it is pretty poor--I doubt whether this was mentioned in the previous debate-- that the wide power of designation accorded to the Secretary of State under clause 1 is given by a negative procedure order. We are talking about an inherently hazardous procedure which produces weapons that can exterminate millions of people and the financing of those designated activities should be by means of an affirmative instrument rather than a negative procedure instrument.

The Minister was once a Whip and he has sat for many hours listening to and taking part in debates about the amount of time allocated to business in the House. That is why I started by talking about those people who think that the House of Commons can shut up and go home for tea at 5 o'clock because it is more comfortable and cosy that way. We do not have enough time to debate all the things that we should in the House. Affirmative resolutions should be the preferred system so that there is a requirement for a resolution of the House before authority is given to the Secretary of State, particularly on an important matter such as this.

Clause 3(2) states :

"The Secretary of State may by order repeal or amend any provision of the Schedule to this Act ; but this power shall not be exercised so as to extend the application of any privilege or immunity which is for the time being provided for by that Schedule."

I welcome that important reservation. Paragraph 9(2) of the schedule states :

"The power of the Secretary of State under section 48(4) of that Act (Crown exemptions) shall include power, exercisable in the interests of the safety of the State, to provide for exemption, in relation to designated premises or activities carried on by a contractor at such premises, from all or any of the relevant statutory provisions within the meaning of Part I of that Act." That refers to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. We are discussing a money resolution that gives the Secretary of State power to meet all the costs of any contracting companies operating under the designation procedure. If the Secretary of State--we should like to know his reasons--removes the relevant section of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act and problems such as explosions or injuries arise, will the increased costs be guaranteed to the companies if they arise out of action under the schedule and come under the category of

"the interests of the safety of the State",

whatever that means?

This is an all-embracing resolution. I shall not quibble with the end of paragraph (b), which deals with

"liabilities to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed in or in connection with the carrying on of such activities."

That is welcome. There is no reason why people should suffer because of the Government's ideological commitment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked about the pensions which the Government will provide. I take it that this part of the financial resolution will cover pensions, but the Minister was evasive about whether new employees would have the same rights. He said that they had the right to enter a pension scheme, but I should like a little more detail.

If we carry out, as I hope we will, the terms of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, clause 6

Column 249

of which obliges us to get rid of nuclear weapons--the change in circumstances in eastern Europe means that the Government can no longer point to the red menace in the east as the reason for purchasing Trident and for the deployment of Polaris, which is not deployed anyway because it is defective--does the last part of the resolution provide for a change from the designated operations and activities listed in the resolution to allow the Secretary of State to start on the momentous expenditure involved in changing from weapons of mass extermination and war to peaceful purposes? If the answer is yes, this will be one of the best financial resolutions that we have ever passed. If not, and if it is only about more warheads and more potential death and destruction, we should have to look at it very critically indeed.

9.33 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : For many years I wondered when I would be othe receiving end of a speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on a money resolution. I have listened to him for many hours late at night wishing that his speeches would come to an end. So tonight is a special occasion and I am delighted to see him in his place.

I felt that the debate on the money resolution went rather wide. We had a wide-ranging debate on Second Reading on the principle of the Bill and on its details. It is important that, in my reply, I am relevant to the money resolution, which refers to the narrow aims of the Bill to transfer the work force at the atomic weapons establishment from the civil service into a separate company, which will be taken over by the contractor, and will then be the employer. The money resolution authorises the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of certain expenses which might be incurred by the Secretary of State, in connection with the introduction of contractor operation at the atomic weapons establishment. Those expenses include the costs involved in forming the company to which I referred, which will act as the employer of all AWE staff, and in operating the company until it is transferred to the ownership of the contractor who will operate the establishment.

I cannot give a precise forecast of the costs at this stage, but I can say with complete confidence that they will be small. The company will have no assets other than its staff and will be similar to the employing companies set up in 1987 at the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth. In that case, the cost of setting up the employing companies was just over £50,000 each. However, almost all of that was subsequently recovered.

The resolution also authorises payment of expenses that might arise if the Secretary of State takes back responsibility for the employing company after it has been transferred to a contractor. There are two situations in which that might arise. First, should the operating contract at AWE change hands at some time in the future, the staff and therefore the employing company would have to be transferred to the new contractor. In that event, it is possible that the company would be taken back by the Secretary of State for a brief period, before being acquired by the new contractor. However, it is unlikely that that would involve significant costs to the Secretary of State.

Column 250

Also, it is conceivable that the Secretary of State might wish to take back control of AWE, and thus of the employing company, in an emergency. The Secretary of State would then be responsible for the liabilities of the company--for example, the salaries of the AWE work force. I must stress that we do not consider it likely that such an eventuality would occur, but it is prudent to make provision just in case.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : What will be the position of the company if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested, the demand for warheads for Trident suddenly ceased? Is there any requirement in the money resolution for compensation to the contractor, or does the contractor stand at risk?

Mr. Carlisle : I was coming to that at the end of my remarks. The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned one or two technical matters about the company. I should like to consider what he said and write to him, as I think that that would be the best way to give him the correct answer, and I should like to do so.

The hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked what we would do if we decided not to have a nuclear deterrent. The Government feel that the best security for our country is to retain a nuclear deterrent. Trident is an important part of that, and the AWE is an essential ingredient of Trident. I had been led to believe--I was surprised by it--by the speech of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that the Opposition also, for some reason, latterly believe in a nuclear deterrent. I know that the hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Denton and Reddish are loyal members of the Labour party. In Committee it would be interesting to know of their views on this matter, because it is one of the aspects that we shall concentrate on. Clearly, if the Opposition have any doubt about the nuclear deterrent, they ought to tell the several thousand employees at AWE that their jobs are truly at risk. In that case, there would be a considerable cost to the nation.

Mr. Cryer : This is why I raised the possibility of using people's skills for peaceful purposes. I believe that the Minister really has a soft spot for the 139 non-nuclear nations that signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Surely the Government cannot deny the possibility that, at some stage in the

not-too-distant future, there may be a need to keep the jobs concerned, because the world rejects the deployment of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I am sure that the Minister has a soft spot for the rules of order governing a money resolution.

Mr. Carlisle : I certainly have--and I also have an extremely strong spot for the continued use of nuclear deterrence in an uncertain world.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Does the Minister accept that normal commercial prudence should take into account the possibility that we shall not need those deterrents? I should have thought that the Minister would welcome such a state of affairs, however it is achieved. He should therefore be able to tell us what would be the cost of changing the contract in regard to the establishment if we no longer needed to make the nuclear warheads. Although the Minister would still want a nuclear deterrent, I suggest

Column 251

that there are other ways of providing it than Trident, which may well prove too costly even for the present Government.

Mr. Carlisle : That, too, is rather outside the scope of the Bill. I can only say that we believe in the nuclear deterrent : we feel that, in an uncertain world, it is a wise defence. It is interesting to note the divergence in defence policy in the Labour party ; we shall have to watch that.

We predict that the sum required to support the Bill will not be large. I therefore urge the House to support the resolution. Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred--

(a) in connection with the formation of any company formed with a view to, or for any purpose of, the carrying on of activities designated under the Act or with the operation of any such company wholly owned by the Secretary of State ; or

(b) in assuming responsibility for any liabilities (whether of such a company or any other company which is or has been a contractor) which are liabilities arising out of the carrying on of activities so designated or liabilities to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed in or in connection with the carrying on of such activities.

Column 252

European Community (Research and Development)

9.42 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth) : I beg to move

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7053/90 relating to a programme for research and technological development in the field of Human Capital and Mobility ; endorses the Government's view that this European Community initiative will present an appropriate means of providing assistance to the mobility of scientists, hence enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness ; and supports the Government's policy of pursuing clear scientific and managerial objectives within the programme to promote effective delivery of the specific training and mobility measures proposed.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this important programme, which has several unusual features. The Government certainly recognise its importance to the scientific community of the United Kingdom, and this is a valuable opportunity for me to inform the House of the progress that is now being made in negotiations in Brussels.

First, let me explain the current state of the programme. I hope that the House will be indulgent if I venture a little into Euro-jargon. The programme known as "human capital and mobility" is a specific programme line in the Community's third framework programme for research and development for 1990 to 1994. Framework programme 3 has been agreed as a rolling programme--that is, overlapping with the one before and, we expect, the one that will follow. It has reduced the 22 programme lines in framework programme 2 to only six. At a cost of 518 million ecu--about £370 million--it is the third largest programme in the third framework.

As the explanatory memorandum explains, the human capital programme is the particular responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, and is of special significance to the five United Kingdom research councils. It follows on from three existing programmes under framework 2--SCIENCE, economic science and large facilities. Let me stress that the science programme is "horizontal"--it provides support for science in all areas of the natural sciences. Once the negotiations are more advanced, we shall be submitting a supplementary explanatory memorandum providing greater detail about the programme, as requested in the 30th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation.

The Commission's original proposal was issued on 28 April 1990. It proposed a programme entirely focused on support for research training, including the funding of 5,000 individual scientists, some through the development of networks of laboratories. I think it fair to say that this proposal caused some surprise and concern. There had been no formal process of consultation with member country representatives and the programme did not obviously continue the work and activities current under the SCIENCE, large facilities and SPES--stimulation programme for economic sciences-- programmes. We were, of course, fully aware of worries about this within the United Kingdom science community. We also knew of preliminary indications of concern on the same score from the European Parliament. In our judgment,

Column 253

those problems were caused in the past by an absence of management committees for the three programmes. I shall return to management in a moment.

The explanatory memorandum to Parliament set out the Government's priorities for the programme in general terms. They were : to secure clear continuation of valued, existing activities ; to achieve separation of the programme into four separate elements ; to ensure visibility and transparency of scientific advice ; and to ensure sound management and evaluation arrangements.

Since then, the thrust of United Kingdom activity--in co-operation with Community partners--has been to advance these priorities for inclusion in the programme.

If I could deal for a moment with procedure, the proposal comprises a brief formal element couched in legal terms with annexes that describe the content, management and funding distribution in more detail. Discussion has been taking place in recent weeks in an ad hoc group of CREST--the Scientific and Technical Research Committee--the senior body of scientific officials from member states, and this is likely to be resumed in January. Its aim has been to develop more widely acceptable proposals for the explanatory annexes. I am happy to be able to tell the House that very substantial progress has been made and that the United Kingdom has played a significant and constructive part, through the presentation of detailed suggestions for modifications to the Commission's original text. I believe that it would be useful to tell the House how the consensus is emerging. First, there is a continuation of existing activities. The revised text, which still exists only as unofficial drafts, makes it clear that the programme should act as a natural continuation of, and extension from, the three programmes that I have mentioned. Of course, this is a new programme, so it will be important to build in a new dimension of coherence and complementarity between the various activities. The programme will therefore specify arrangements to support research training fellowships and maintain the sort of support for networks and twinnings currently achieved under the SCIENCE programme.

A consensus is emerging that there should be four elements, as the United Kingdom has proposed. There are the two that I have just mentioned and support for large facilities--primarily for access by visiting researchers, but with some scope for improving and enhancing facilities--and for a new series of European science conferences. We expect the European science Foundation in Strasbourg to be involved in these.

Achieving those objectives will depend crucially on the scientific advice. Great importance is rightly attached by the United Kingdom scientific community to the proper use of peer review in determining project support. At present, the Commission's advisers are the main source of advice in the three existing programmes under the second framework that I mentioned. However, the recent overall decision on management in Community programmes, called--I ask the House for its tolerance again--the "Comitology" decision, requires all programmes to have management committees, several different varieties of which are available.

That raises the question of how the implementation of this programme should be influenced and guided through advice from individual scientists ; input from member states, including their national science organisations ; and the Commission, whose legal responsibility it is to implement decisions of the Council of Ministers. There has

Column 254

been discussion of this quite recently in Brussels, on the basis of detailed proposals from the United Kingdom. They have yet to be endorsed, but would provide a clear framework within which the role of each of the three sources of advice and influence would be defined.

The United Kingdom and several other member countries are advocating what is known as a type 3 committee, not the type 1 committee that the Commission has advocated in its formal proposal. I could rather quickly get into a thicket of technicalities and the House might not care to follow me too deeply into it, but, briefly, a type 3 committee has a greater capacity to influence the Commission's activities, as opposed to being just advisory.

The United Kingdom has been pressing for explicit reference to the need to define objectives for the programmes that can subsequently be externally evalua-ted. We believe that there is considerable scope for improvement in evaluation, and that view appears to be accepted by the Commission, which has recently been making greater efforts in that direction.

The United Kingdom has clear objectives for this important programme and we have been pursuing them with energy and application. We shall have to wait two or three months for a formal decision in the Council of Ministers. If enacted in the form that we advocate, we believe that United Kingdom scientists will derive substantial benefit from the programme, as indeed they have derived substantial benefit from the three programmes that I mentioned under framework programme 2. This programme is designed to foster and to extend the process of international collaboration in European science. We believe that to be important and, subject to the changes that I have outlined, the programme can be an useful further step in the right direction.

9.50 pm

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South) : I listened with interest to what the Minister said about the programme and to the words that he chose to describe the Government's reaction to the initial proposals.

The Commission's proposal came very much from the personal output of Commissioner Pandolfi, a vice-president of the Commission. As the Minister said, it was issued without prior consultation and apparently without very much discussion in the Commission. The Minister said that the reaction of member Governments was one of surprise and concern.

We must consider what was originally proposed and how much it has changed. The original proposal was, I think, that some 80 per cent. of the 518 million ecu programme would be spent on fellowships, mainly post-doctoral fellowships, and that they would provide some 5, 000 person years. Worked out as a proportionate share of United Kingdom contributions to European Community funding, that is about £11 million per annum from the United Kingdom.

The reaction of Governments was that the proposal was too large for the research training field, that it was too concentrated and that it proposed too big an increase in the number of fellowships. We must bear it in mind that up to 1985 the number of fellowships within European programmes was running below 50, but it increased from 150 in 1987 to 350 in 1988, so there has been a large recent increase, mainly due to the biology programme. The proposal was to increase it to 1,000 per annum.

Column 255

The scaling back in the proposals, which are being circulated informally, means that the fellowship programme will be reduced from 80 to 50 per cent., that research networks and twinning should account for 30 per cent., the use of large facilities for 15 per cent. and European scientific conferences for 5 per cent. That will reduce the number of person years from 1,000 to 600 per year. From the soundings that I have taken, the British feeling is that the research networks should get a larger share than the 30 per cent. proposed. Matters are still not decided and a decision is not expected before April.

To see the background to this feeling, it is useful to look at what happened under the second framework programme in the fellowship programme. That was admirably evaluated by a panel under Heinrich Pfeiffer. It was a model of how to carry out evaluation. I know of no comparable evaluation of a comparable activity of a research council in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom received some 6 per cent. of the fellowships under the second framework programme but hosted some 33 per cent. of fellows. The United Kingdom produces 25 per cent. of the doctorates in the European Community compared with 27 per cent. in Germany and 25 per cent. in France. By comparison with that 25 per cent. of the doctorates produced, we received only 6 per cent. of the post-doctoral fellowships. Germany received 12 per cent., France 20 per cent. and Portugal--which produces only 1 per cent. of the doctorates--received 10 per cent. of the fellowships.

That created the somewhat extraordinary position in which Portugal was getting more fellowships than it had doctors to receive them--fellowships amounted to some 116 per cent. of the doctorates awarded in Portugal. Greece came second, with 46 per cent. followed by Belgium with 12 per cent. and Italy, 9 per cent. ; Spain, 7 per cent. ; the Netherlands, 6 per cent. ; France, 3 per cent. ; Germany, 2 per cent. ; and the United Kingdom only 1 per cent. Only 1 per cent. of British doctorates had the expectation of getting a European Community fellowship.

With the best will in the world, that seems a bit odd. There is clearly an imbalance. Why? Is the United Kingdom a favourite destination because we speak English? Is it because we have a fine scientific tradition upon which scientists in Europe are anxious to draw? It is healthy to look at the reasons given by the fellows for seeking to work in particular countries and laboratories. Only one third of the fellows said that they considered the reputation of the host laboratory as an important consideration and only one fifth felt that the reputation of the supervisor was a consideration. Eighty-four per cent. said that the main reason was their wish to live abroad and to gain international experience. Is the United Kingdom acting as a surrogate America for footloose scientists in Europe who come, perhaps not for the beer, but for something other than scientific enlightenment?

Understandably, the evaluation report urged that there should be a much sharper rationale and objectives, a much clearer idea and style and an appropriate management system. The rationale that the Pfeiffer pannel suggested was a programme that seeks to achieve the movement of outstanding individuals to research institutions of their choice, that being the best way to transfer ideas. But it depends on what one means by "outstanding". I heard one

Column 256

scientist say to another, "Of course, his Nobel prize was only in medicine." Perhaps "outstanding" in the report does not quite mean those standards.

If one looks at the standards of a Medical Research Council post-doctoral fellowship, a Commonwealth fund fellow in the United States or a Harkness fellow, it seems that the standards aimed at in the human capital and mobility programme are somewhat different. We should be clear on that. The aim is not really to cater for the outstanding research scientist who will clearly be a leader in his generation. It is to provide a basic groundwork experience for a substantial proportion of working research scientists. That is a wholly rational objective and it provides a realistic context in which to look at the scheme.

The Pfeiffer panel said that the rationale should be to increase sharply the number of researchers who have been trained in another country. That fits in with the widening of the international background of the good, working, practical research scientist. However, when the panel discusses objectives, the abundance of them suggests that any one of them seems not to be strong enough to justify a programme of such magnitude. The panel speaks of excellence, mobility, diversity, transfer of technology, exchange of methodology, use of large research facilities, multi-disciplinarity, reduction of the brain drain of scientists leaving Europe, integration of the less-favoured regions and the openness to scientists from the European Free Trade Association and from eastern Europe. That is admirable, but the abundance of objectives suggests that there is still a lack of focus and of clear intention. If we recognise that the rationale aims to achieve a widespread international experience as an element in the experience of young scientists, mobility is a sufficient objective.

Where do the proposals leave us in terms of the prospect for the bulk of the programme? We are still talking about a substantial number of scientist years--perhaps not 5,000, but it would be somewhat over 3,000, or 600 per annum. On past figures, the numbers coming to the United Kingdom might be 200 and on the old ratios, the numbers going from the United Kingdom might be 30 to 40. If the United Kingdom came up to the levels of France and of Germany, it might be about 60 to 70. That means that the number of scientists to be received into the United Kingdom is larger than the number of scientists financed at this level by any research council, and the number leaving the United Kingdom would be as large as a big research council. We are not talking about a marginal element in the post-doctoral experience and training of scientists in the United Kingdom. Is that what we want? It may be, but there are some sordid practical points to consider first.

How will the Treasury argue about the additionality of the expenditure? Will the Treasury argue that the number of scientists received in this country should be counted as expenditure from the science budget, or will it count the number of scientists of British origin who are studying abroad as the figure to be notionally charged against the science budget--or neither?

What should our attitude be? Seeing the broad shape of the scheme, should we welcome it as spreading British influence, the British scientific tradition and the British scientific culture, or should we be cautious about losing British know-how and misapplying scarce British resources needed for British science?

Column 257

I come down firmly on the view that we should continue to and be glad to extend the influences of British scientific culture. That is of undoubted benefit to the country in the long run, and to Europe. We must also go on to argue that if imbalance and unevenness are inevitable in the structure of a programme such as this, they must be redressed in some way. The pressures from the Government have been to try to redress them within the human capital and mobility programme ; hence the call for an increase in support for research networks and twinning access to services provided in large research facilities, and for the organisation of European scientific conferences. I do not think that that goes wide enough, because I do not think that the imbalance can be redressed in that way.

If we look at where British scientific and technological interests lie, we can see a pressing need to increase our technological competitiveness. There are substantial areas where we can learn a great deal from other European countries. For example, there is obviously a capability in production engineering in Germany that is not as strongly represented in the United Kingdom. Although Britain produces admirable industrial designers, their use in British industry falls far behind the use of industrial designers in Italian industry. There will be other areas in which we have much to learn from other European countries and the redress of the balances should be sought across the European framework programmes as a whole. If that is the framework of thinking, what about the other heads of expenditure under this line in the framework programme? The scientific networks are undoubtedly important. It is of great value to be able to travel and visit other people working in the same areas. If one compares the freedom with which, let us say, British Aerospace travels to and from Toulouse on the airbus project with the parsimony with which co- operating groups of scientists are able to travel between universities in France and the United Kingdom, one can see that there is a gross inefficiency in the networking of scientists.

To suggest that extra money is needed to staff large facilities implies that something has gone wrong with the budgeting since the facilities were first proposed. The budgeting should have provided for efficient use of the facilities on the scale at which they were being created. It is arguable that international access to those facilities is different from just increasing the purely British access. That should have been covered one way or another and it should not be a permanent feature of a programme such as this. For example, one does not build a school and then institute a separate programme to produce children to fill it. One does not build a power station and then set about finding a market for the power generated. The operating expense of large facilities needs to be planned integrally with the capital cost from the beginning.

The subject of European conferences raises a separate issue. It is admirable that the European Science Foundation should undertake the task of organising them, but, in itself, the foundation deserves consideration and funding on a basis different from merely the organisation of conferences. Conferences may be an important part of communication, but the European Science Foundation, as the meeting place of the science funding bodies of the different European countries, warrants a larger role than merely the organisation of conferences. If it has that larger role, the organisation of conferences is purely incidentalto it.

Column 258

I now come to the management of the programme. Is the practice of choosing institutions and allowing them to choose fellows right, regardless of whether it is supervised by a type 1 committee, for which the Commission argues, or a type 3 committee which, as the Minister explained, gives greater powers to the scientists to influence the Commission. That raises a wider question about methods of evaluation and organisation of national research funding. The Pfeiffer panel is an admirable model of how to go about evaluation. However, if that model were applied to national funding programmes of scientific activities some major issues would be raised. There are certainly grounds for unease in the United Kingdom. For example, the level of grant for doctoral students is appallingly low and there is a lack of career prospects for young scientists once they are trained. There is a lack of follow-up by the research councils of former grant-holders or even principal investigators. There are similar problems in France, such as the rigidity of the CNRS. In Germany, the length of the apprenticeship period is excessive. The apprentice scientist does not get out from under the professor until his mid-thirties. In Italy, the number of jobs which individuals hold is a problem.

I do not in the least wish to tear up the entire structure of European science and start again, but there should be consultation between the authorities in different countries about how they see national patterns evolving in relation to the European pattern. The machinery does not exist within the United Kingdom Government at present to make an appropriate contribution to such dialogue. The Minister who opened the debate is not responsible for the European framework programme. The Minister who is responsible not only is a member of another House but belongs to another Department. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for representing Britain on science programmes in the European Community.

Following an interesting report in The Independent yesterday, we look forward to hearing the result of the Prime Minister's reflections over Christmas on the organisation of the machinery of government in Britain. The article said of the structure within the United Kingdom and Britain :

"science and technology has been crippled in terms of representation in Brussels, compared to the French and the Germans. Both these countries have strong, central ministries for research and technology, headed by forceful politicians who have secured their national advantage in negotiations with the European Commission. In contrast, putting the EC case for British technology has been the responsibility of the junior Minister in the DTI, whereas scientific research which falls within the DES's remit has gone unrepresented." That is not satisfactory management of United Kingdom science. Participation in shaping European science for the future must be a major consideration in the appropriate machinery of Government in Britain. We cannot simply ignore the structures that exist in other European Community member countries.

That is nowhere more starkly borne home than in the programme that we are debating, with a fair degree of information about what is going on ; it costs some £11 million of British public expenditure. Yet tomorrow the Science and Engineering Research Council will make decisions on how to make good the shortfall from the science budget announced by the Government of some £40 million in the next fiscal year. That has been done without

Column 259

any debate in this place or any consideration by Ministers about the specific effects on the SERC of the decisions in the science budget.

British science is in a deeply unhappy state. European programmes cannot possibly make good the troubles that we face, but at least we can give this programme a cautious welcome in the sense that it is a building block in a framework which can be built to the greater advantage of the United Kingdom in a more adequate framework of science policy.

10.14 pm

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : I do not wish to add a great deal to what has been said. I agree with the comments by those on both Front Benches. The Minister managed to open the debate with a clarity which described technology without being too technical and comitology without being comatose. The complexities of the programme are great. Indeed, it is difficult for the House in such a short debate to understand and explore in detail precisely what is being provided for.

I agree with the burden of some comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) about shortcomings in research, particularly blue sky research, in the United Kingdom in recent years. When one talks to university vice-chancellors and principals one hears the complaint year on year that not enough pure research is taking place and that industry is leading the nature of research, which means that research tends to be rather too specific. A consequence is that many university laboratories and engineering houses have become testing shops for products which have already been developed.

It is welcome to see a programme in the European Community which appears to allow for a considerable amount of mainly blue sky research to take place. It is to be hoped that a consequence of the programme will be that original thought, original design and original technique will come within Europe and be developed throughout industry.

I agree with the emphasis of the motion on enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness. I hope that the Government will ensure that this programme does not disappear into the European bureaucracy and that we can evaluate its contribution to science within industry. The programme will be a success if it means that European companies make products and employ people to manufacture products that bring us to the forefront of world science and technology, which will mean that we compete fully with the Japanese and Americans. However, if it merely ensured that scientists had the opportunity to partake in some nice, interesting research that had no ultimate practical applications, it would be a failure. Therefore, I hope that the Government will ensure that, within the Community, this programme is fully monitored so that we may see some real results which will enable us to point to another European success in research and development.

10.18 pm

Next Section

Home Page