| Home Page |
Column 163
School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
3.33 pm
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given notice to you and to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It relates to the Government's conduct regarding the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill.
The Second Reading of the Bill took place on 27 November. It went into Standing Committee before Christmas and came out on 5 February--two and a half months ago. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Education and Science told the House :
"The Bill contains the agreed policy of this Government".--[ Official Report, 27 November 1990 ; Vol. 181, c. 743.]
He said that two of the candidates for the Conservative leadership, including the successful candidate who is now the Prime Minister, were committed to the Bill. In Committee, Ministers pressed for an early conclusion of the Committee stage, telling us repeatedly that they had to have the Bill enacted and on the statute book by Easter. Since the Committee stage, however, instead of coming to the House for its Report stage, the Bill has disappeared into the black hole of indecision that now passes for Cabinet government amidst repeated press leaks that, despite the fact that the Bill was referred to as containing the agreed position of the Government and the personal commitment of the Prime Minister, the Government's policy--
Mr. Speaker : Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Straw : I shall come to it in a moment, Mr. Speaker. I raise the point of order to complain about the conduct of Ministers in explaining away the considerable delay of the Bill. The reason is that the Government do not know whether to follow or to change the policy of the Bill. I realise that that is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. The matter for you is whether Ministers have been truthful in the explanations that they have offered to the House on the reasons for the delay.
It is well known that the Government are so short of business that we had an extra week's holiday at Christmas and a further week at Easter. Despite that, the Leader of the House has three times blamed a shortage of parliamentary time for the delay in bringing the Bill to the House, as has the Secretary of State in a letter to me-- [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like this, but it is clear that Ministers, including the Leader of the House, have made statements on the reasons for the Bill's delay that are palpably untrue.
Mr. Speaker : Order. That is a reflection upon Ministers and must be withdrawn.
Mr. Straw : I took advice from the Clerks--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not a Clerk. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw his remark?
I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker--and I also took advice on this from the Clerks--whether it is open to Ministers to
Column 164
make statements to the House that palpably do not fit with the facts. It is known to hon. Members that there is no shortage of parliamentary time, but that is the only explanation that has been offered to the House. In those circumstances, hon. Members may well feel themselves to have been heavily misled by Ministers, and so may you, Mr. Speaker. Do you, Mr. Speaker, regard that conduct by Ministers as acceptable?Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am on my feet.
I think that the whole House enjoyed an extra week's holiday. I do not know why it was given or whether or not there was business to discuss. All that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said has nothing to do with me ; it is a matter of dispute that he has with the Government. It is not an issue of order in the Chamber.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have not your predecessors and you, Mr. Speaker, consistently condemned abuse, whether by Back Benchers or Front Benchers, of the point of order procedure of the House to make purely political points that can properly be made in a censure motion or on a Supply day? Such points of order ought never to be countenanced by a Speaker, whether they come from a Front Bencher or a Back Bencher.
Mr. Speaker : Things of that sort are frequently said in the Chamber. In order to know whether a point of order is bogus or not, I have to hear it. I have already announced that I did not think that the subject was a matter for me.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : Whether or not it was a point of ordeis clearly for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that there will be a statement on the matter tomorrow.
BILLS PRESENTED
Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Amendment)
Mr. Peter Viggers presented a Bill to amend section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 so as to exclude members of the armed forces from relief for students in respect of the community charge : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
Smoke Detectors
Mr. Conal Gregory, supported by Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Douglas French, Dame Janet Fookes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ian McCartney and Mr. Patrick Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the fitting of smoke detectors in new dwellings : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April and to be printed [Bill 131.]
Column 165
Forestry Commission
3.37 pm
Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the Forestry Commission from transferring any land without guaranteeing continuing public access to that land.
The Bill will guarantee the continuation of public accessibility to the land that is sold by the Forestry Commission.
Of the more than 2 million hectares of woodlands and forests in Britain, nearly half are owned by the Forestry Commission. It is my belief that the majority of the public wants the land owned by the nation and managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of the nation to remain accessible so that this generation and future generations can enjoy all the environmental benefits that forests, woodlands and moorlands can offer.
Regrettably, in 1981, the Conservative Government instructed the Forestry Commission to sell off large areas of its woodlands, forests and open lands to the private sector. That was a stupid and irresponsible policy, as the Forestry Commission land belongs to the nation and not to the private sector.
By March 1989, a total of 140,000 hectares had been sold off--an area bigger than the whole of Berkshire or of Fife. In June 1989, the Government announced a continuation of their policy and the commission was instructed to sell off another 100,000 hectares by the year 2000. Yet it was quite clear by 1989 that the warning given by the Ramblers Association about the problems resulting from selling the land was justified and the problems had arrived.
When the Forestry Commission sells land to the private buyer, it does nothing to ensure that the access hitherto enjoyed by the public is protected. By and large, private woodland owners are not keen to give the public the same freedom of access in their woods as the Forestry Commission. There no rational reason for that.
At no time has the commission said that public access is incompatible with efficient management of its woods and forest and the private woodland owners' association, the Timber Growers United Kingdom, appears to agree with that as it said recently : "One of the principal advantages of forestry is that it is a land use where access and recreation can be combined, often with little loss of timber production."
In one respect--fire prevention--the Commission has said that it is a positive benefit to have people walking in its forests, because when there is an outbreak of fire, it is more likely to be spotted, reported and extinguished before any really extensive damage occurs than it would be if it happened in a forest where walking is not allowed.
Nevertheless, private woodland owners are generally not access-friendly. As a result, access to land sold by the Forestry Commission has often been lost. Examples were given in a BBC "Country File" television programme on 10 March 1991 and others were quoted in the Observer.
In June 1989, the Secretary of State for Scotland stated that the Government were concerned and that careful
Column 166
consideration would be given to the problem so that the public could continue to enjoy access. That careful consideration was not speedy. A further statement was not made until 17 months later, in November 1990. The Secretary of State for Scotland stated that the Forestry Commission would offer to enter into legal agreements with local authorities to provide for continuing public access to woodlands after sale. However, those legal agreements are to be subject to guidelines that have yet to be drawn up, and until they appear no agreements safeguarding access can be entered into. It is noteworthy and depressing that a Forestry Commission spokesman was quoted in the Observer as saying that consultation on access agreement guidelines was likely to continue for several months. Meanwhile, land continues to be sold and public access continues to be lost.To make matters even worse, the Forestry Commission is no longer supplying the Ornance Survey with information about its land. That decision, unannounced previously and taken without any consultation with organisations representing map users, was set out in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) from the director general of the Ornance Survey. Its effect is that members of the public will be deprived of an important source of information about where they can freely walk in the countryside. The Government should follow the example set by the United States of America, Denmark and other countries. However, I fear that they will not.
There are two solutions to the problem. First, the sale of forests, woodlands and open land should stop immediately, or the Government should instruct the Forestry Commission to include a clause in the sales agreement that guarantees the right of accessibility to the general public. Secondly, the Government should support this Bill and ensure that parliamentary time is allocated for it to become part of our legislation, thereby giving the public what they desire. Therefore, I challenge the Government to get off their backsides and to do one or the other--to do nothing is criminal.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Michael Welsh, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. George J. Buckley.
Forestry Commission
Mr. Martin Redmond accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the Forestry Commission from transferring any land without guaranteeing continuing public access to that land ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
Column 167
Orders of the Day
British Technology Group Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1
Articles of Association
In preparing the Articles of Association of the successor company, the Secretary of State shall make such arrangements as he deems necessary to preserve the nature of those business activities being undertaken by the Board and Corporation immediately prior to the appointment of the successor company.'.-- [Sir Gerard Vaughan.] Brought up, and read the First time.
3.45 pm
Sir Gerard Vaughan (Reading, East) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss : New clause 5-- Independence of the successor company --
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the successor company shall take such steps as are necessary to preserve the independence of the British Technology Group to enable it to maintain and extend its services in the field of technology transfer.'.
Amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, after section 2', insert and subsection (1A) below'.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert-- (1A) The Secretary of State shall not be empowered to vest the property, rights and liabilities as set out in subsection (1) above unless he publishes plans showing how the independence, impartiality and integrity of the successor company will be guaranteed.'. Dr. Lewis Moonie (Kirkcaldy) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am disappointed to note that new clause 3 and amendment No. 4 have not been selected, given that they are the official Opposition's principal amendments to the Bill. I understand that that is because of a technicality in the drafting. May I have an assurance from you, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the reasonably wide-ranging nature of the new clauses and amendments that have been selected, we shall be able to cover in that debate the matters of principle that we had intended to cover in our new clause and amendment?
Mr. Speaker : I went carefully into the question of the selection of the amendments. I cannot select defective amendments. Matters of principle, but not the new clause and amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, may be debated with the group.
Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear clearly, but am I right in thinking that matters of principle may be raised? I understand that the selection of new clauses and amendments is entirely a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, but would it be in order for me to speak to new clause 2 although it has not been selected? I wish to deal with a matter of detail, not simply a matter of principle.
Mr. Speaker : The right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give reasons for my decisions, but perhaps I could hint to him that that matter was fully debated in Committee.
Column 168
Sir Gerard Vaughan : I believe that the purpose of new clause 1 is absolutely clear. We wish to safeguard the future in this country of a very special organisation. We wish to ensure that the British Technology Group becomes an independent corporate body with the vitality and freedom to carry out an extremely important role in academic research, inventiveness and commercial activity. Despite all the Minister's excellent work on the Bill to date, we do not think that he has so far given adequate safeguards to ensure that. I am sure that we would all agree that the new BTG should be able to draw sufficient sums of money--at times quite large sums of money--to enable it to carry out its future role. At the same time, it must not be put at risk of being taken over by a huge industrial corporation or concern, which would almost certainly be from overseas, and which would have the sole object of taking over the 8,000 patents and future patents that BTG holds and of using them for its own commercial advantage. We must be sure that BTG could not be asset-stripped.
We are particularly concerned to protect the intellectual property and inventiveness of the universities. We want to see inventions marketed adequately, but we want them to be safeguarded. The intellectual property of the universities belongs in the first instance, of course, to the universities themselves. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the only way to secure such safeguards is to form a consortium in which the universities have a proper stake. The universities should also play a role on the management board of any future company.
I also suggest that the Government should hold a stake in any future organisation for at least the first few years to ensure that some undesirable organisation does not take advantage of it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) will seek to say something about the university aspect.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that his first priority will be, not to extract as much money as possible on behalf of the Treasury, but to ensure that the future British Technology Group operates in the way that we have suggested. I am sure that the Minister's intentions are good, but statements of good intention are not really sufficient in this matter. He should not try to keep all his options open but should tell us clearly what he has in mind. The wording of our new clause may not be perfect--the wording of amendments tabled by Back-Bench Members is rarely perfect--but if there are small faults in it I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the good intentions behind it and will undertake to table an amendment with improved wording, if he thinks it necessary to do so, when the Bill goes to another place.
We regard the Bill as extremely important for the future of our scientific and technological progress in Britain. The British Technology Group has played an important role already as a public body. We believe that it will gain enormously from being in the private sector, but it will do so only if there are proper safeguards for its future.
Mr. Rees : I and some of my colleagues on both sides of the House tabled an amendment which refers to articles of association. You, Mr. Speaker, were right in saying that we have already dealt with one aspect of the matter in Committee, but in Committee we were referring to members of the board of directors of the new company. I declare an interest as a member of the courts of London
Column 169
university and of the London School of Economics. Some of us felt that if we failed in the matter of individual members of the board the Government should have regard to the interests of the university in drawing up the articles of association of the successor company. We do not argue that directors should necessarily be appointed to the companies in the way that we suggested in Committee, but the interests of the universities should be taken into account. While I accept your decision, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that we shall not be able to vote on our amendment, I should like to deal with the interests of the universities.This is not simply another privatisation Bill. It is privatisation of a particular form of the British Technology Group which, from the day it was set up under a different name in 1947-48, was a concept different from other nationalisation measures of the time. It is important for the House to take into account the nature of articles of association which lay down the objectives of a company. I have looked at the articles of association of my college, the London School of Economics, and of others, and the objectives of the company should take into account the interests of the universities, not those of the individuals who are appointed to the company.
All the briefing that we have had, which I shall not repeat because it was dealt with in Committee, shows that the BTG's intellectual property enanated from the universities and the research councils, as is mentioned in new clause 2, which says :
"The Secretary of State shall have regard to the interests of the universities and the Research Councils and shall consult with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Research Councils".
That is vital.
The Secretary of State must take into account the fact that the universities account for the largest single source of the BTG's intellectual property--about 60 per cent. if one takes into account the teaching hospitals. The research council institutes and the research associations account for 25 per cent. and the rest comes largely from Government laboratories. The BTG depends for its success on the high quality research and inventiveness of our universities. Therefore, the interests of those institutions should be taken into account when drawing up the articles of association. That argument has been made in a different context many times, so I shall not argue the case again.
The Minister met representatives of the Committee of
Vice-Chancellors and Principals yesterday in a different context. He knows the worth of the arguments that are put forward by people in that group, the nature of the BTG, and that it is important that the intellectual property should be safeguarded so that it can be used properly in future by the successor company. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance about the nature of the articles of association and that he will safeguard the intellectual property of the universities.
We know about the problems that have long faced universities about the nature of fundamental research and applied research and as a result of a shortage of money. Earning money through the BTG has enabled them to have more students, particularly in the natural sciences, and so on.
Sir Gerard Vaughan : The right hon. Gentleman talks about safeguarding the interests of universities. Does he agree that they should have an active role in any future
Column 170
body? It is not enough simply to have people who think the way that they do ; the universities should play a part in the management of a future body.Mr. Rees : I was trying to observe Mr. Speaker's ruling and not put forward a more detailed argument. The short answer is that I agree fully. What matters is that the interests of the universities and research councils should be taken into account. It is up to the Government to determine the appropriate way of doing so.
We argued this case twice in Committee. At the end of the day I think that all members on both sides of the Committee understood that the privatisation of the BTG is different from other privatisations and that wherever the successor company gets its capital from, whatever the problems about pensions and asset stripping, it is vital that our universities, which lead the world in so many ways, should still be able to work in the new successor company for their own ends and for those of the country. That can be done only if the articles of association are drawn up in such a way that the interests of the universities are taken into account ; and there are various means by which that could be done.
Although the new clause that I tabled has not been selected for consideration, I hope that the Minister will take it into account. 4 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet (Bedfordshire, North) : I support the new clause. It is important to take into account the assets that are at risk. The BTG represents a core team of specialists in technological transfer and patent protection. Some 8,200 patents have been granted and 500 licensing agreements reached. These bring in royalties--the bulk of the BTG income-- of £29.5 million.
Although it is important to take into account the relationship between the BTG and the universities, it is also important to consider what the BTG represents. It has a staff of 188 and it employs six solicitors, 18 patent agents with trainees, 15 financial managers, plus six on the venture capital side and 60 specialists in technology transfer who work in the operating division. I would challenge anyone to say that there is any other group in the United Kingdom with such a team of experts as that in the BTG, which has operated for so many years. It would be disgraceful if those people were abandoned in the future, particularly if that were as a result of asset stripping.
The BTG has agreements with 50 universities, 17 polytechnics and eight medical schools. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has already mentioned that the universities are by far the biggest source of the BTG's intellectual property--they account for more than 50 per cent. of it, if the contribution from the teaching hospitals is included. Another 25 per cent. of that intellectual property comes from the research councils. Given that contribution, it is only right that the House should hold out for special consideration for the universities, polytechnics and medical schools. My hon. Friend the Minister has a tricky course to follow, but I hope that he will take into account that special consideration and protect it.
I have outlined the assets that are at stake, but it is important to consider it from a different angle--the risk to which those assets will be exposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) has already mentioned asset stripping, but the elimination of our
Column 171
competitive technologies would be equally disastrous. Some 70 per cent. of the licensed income of the BTG comes from abroad and it will be especially vulnerable to foreign takeover. Given that 40 per cent. of its income comes from the United States, and knowing how grasping that country is and how covetous it is of the BTG since the American equivalent is much smaller, I dare say that the United States will want to take it over at the first opportunity. We must do something to protect the BTG from that.We must also prevent sector domination by a limited number of shareholders. Shares can be allocated to any one shareholder, but they must be strictly limited by number.
It is important to appreciate the earnings to BTG from its various intellectual property. Antibiotics provide £150 million for the BTG, magnetic resonance imaging £18 million and cholesterol measurement equipment another £6 million--a sizeable proportion of the total income of the BTG. One can imagine that a pharmaceutical company would say, "It is ripe for takeover and if we had it, we could strip out any of the assets that we didn't require and put them into the relevant side of the company".
Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) : Does my hon. Friend agree that what we want is not a friendly assessment of our case from the Minister, but an undertaking that when the Bill leaves Parliament it will contain provisions to protect the company? Is not that what my hon. Friend is saying that the Minister should do today?
Sir Trevor Skeet : I have not yet heard what the Minister has to say, but I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. This is the Report stage and the Bill will soon be passed. I want the Bill to contain a clause to ensure that there is a reference to the articles of association, which will enable the Minister to say that there will be a ruling on anyone who sets up an independent company hereafter so that we shall have some control over it.
I espouse my hon. Friend's arguments, but I go further. The pharmaceutical industry--Du Pont, Bayer in Germany, Smithkline Beecham, perhaps, in the United Kingdom, Glaxo and others would like to take over the company. The BTG has 8,000 patents in 1,500 different sectors of technology, and they would all be extremely useful. Therefore, we must examine the issue carefully.
I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I wish to make one further important point about similar organisations and technology transfers. I mentioned the American Research Corporation. In the United Kingdom, we have 3i Research Exploitation Limited, which is smaller than the BTG but which is important because its parent company is a substantial size. It is possible that, in the future, that little organisation, backed up by a powerful parent company, may wish to take over the BTG. I am for competition, so I would not like to see the company taken over. Therfore, I suggest that we should be very cautious.
The BTG's chief executive, Ian Harvey, said :
"BTG's royalty revenues are greater than the total royalties earned by the entire US university and government research systems combined."
The BTG is a plum to be picked unless we do something to safeguard it.
Column 172
I know that the Minister is listening intently. He must say that he will safeguard the company once it is released from his control. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said on Second Reading that he could give safeguards through the golden share for two or three years, but a provision should be written into the articles of association to give further coverage in future and to ensure that the technology in which the United Kingdom has secured an advanced position is safeguarded for the next decade.Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : I wish to speak especially to the new clause and the amendments tabled in my name, but I should like first to comment on new clause 1 and on the contributions made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet).
I support the proposition that there should be as much effort, thought and consideration as possible before a decision is made on principle by the Government to include academic and university interests in the future structure, as they have requested and as they are keen to ensure. I have read the contributions made by the Minister in Committee. Although I was not a member of that Committee, I have followed the Bill with considerable interest and, so far, the Minister has kept his cards close to his chest-- not a single card has been revealed.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : Perhaps he does not have any.
Mr. Hughes : It is not for me to say whether he has any, but he will certainly have to play some cards if he wants to get the Bill through the House. He will have to open the Bill up to amendment either here or in the other place because eminent Members on both sides of both Houses will join in voicing substantial and significant concern.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North described the BTG as a plum ripe for the picking. The BTG is our scientific and technological family silver, albeit recently acquired family silver--a collection built up over the past 40 years and, in particular, the past 10 years. The Minister knows that in the past six years the BTG has been pre-eminently successful. As the hon. Member of Parliament in whose constituency the BTG's headquarters are located, I feel somewhat defensive. I am concerned that we should not, as a result of our negligence, allow the assets to be pinched. There can be no excuse for that because we have all been alerted to the importance of the assets that we have in our possession.
Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West) : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like most of us, would not mind selling an asset--even the family silver--if, in doing so, he could turn the result into an appreciating asset. I imagine that the BTG feels exactly the same.
Mr. Hughes : There is all the difference in the world between changing the management structure of the BTG for a good management reason and protecting rightful interests, and incorporating it, without individual justification, in the Government's general privatisation programme without affording it the protection that all hon. Members seek for it. I have talked to the chief executive of the BTG and have no doubt that the management are impressive in terms of both expertise and vision. I do not share the view that we want a BTG
Column 173
protected from any foreign interest. The chief executive confirmed what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North said about foreign interest and revenue-earning--particularly from the United States and, increasingly, from Japan and so on. I know, too, that that source of funding will be increasingly important in future. But there is all the difference in the world between accepting that and allowing the BTG to be successful in the world market, and taking up the anchor and allowing the BTG to be bought out by whoever comes along, thus ensuring that a potentially great asset for British technology is no longer available to us or in any way under our control. The Minister must come clean about that this afternoon.Sir Trevor Skeet : Let us forget technology for one moment. The company is attractive from another angle. Its gross profits rose from £3.5 million in 1987 to £9.5 million in 1990. Its income rose from £17 million in 1987 to £29.5 million in 1990. The company is a catch by any standards, quite apart from its technological importance.
Mr. Hughes : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The BTG is not only important as a scientific and technological resource and because it is so valuable--as the hon. Gentleman said, its earnings last year were more than £29 million--but because it is one of the mechanisms by which Britain will succeed. It is a reserve of academic and scientific skill, expertise and cross-fertilisation between subjects which will allow us to do well in the world. It is a service mechanism for British inventions and allows us to convert those inventions into the best-developed and most saleable products while safeguarding the interests of our continuing public scientific and technological base. To get rid of the BTG or not to protect its future would be to allow all Britain's intellectual and academic experts to do their job with no guarantee that any of their work would be used in the interests of their national economy and scientific base. That would be folly indeed. I cannot think of anything more foolish, given how dependent we will be on such expertise in the future for our international economic success. If we throw away something that we do so well, we shall throw away a potential cornerstone of our achievement in the next century. 4.15 pm
As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North rightly reminded us, we are discussing a thriving, successful and visionary business in which several hundred committed people representing several disciplines are working together to ensure that its future is secure. That is one of its unique aspects, as is the support that it has been given by the academic community, to which it represents a bridge between pure, "blue sky" research and the commercial world. It has been a flagship for our inventors and their inventions--and if flagships are sunk on a regular basis, not much of a navy will be left.
The BTG has pulled itself out of the doldrums. It has done very well over recent years and it deserves support. I ask the Government to respond to our concern and to accept that they should not be given a blank cheque and told to do what they will with it. I shall press the Minister especially hard on new clause 5, which--along with new clause 1--he will probably find easier to accept than amendment No. 6.
New clause 5 seeks to impose on the Secretary of State the duty of ensuring
| Next Section
| Home Page |