House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Jun 1993

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington) : I have listened to all the speeches in the debate so far and found them interesting and, on the whole, rather constructive. However, I am sorry to have to say that the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) was unnecessarily and unjustifiably sour in its terms. It took insufficient account of the fact that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy launched this exercise one year ago, he made it clear that it would be principally concerned with the machinery of science policy and the way in which those matters were approached and co-ordinated within Whitehall, and would not focus principally on resources, for the good and practical reason that, however powerful he may be, it is not within his gift to deliver great pots of money extra to the considerable sums already put into civilian science. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), using a positively missionary approach, was excellent and will repay close reading, not least because it demonstrated the way in which at least some opinion among those on the Labour Benches--if not that of the hon. Member for Cambridge--has shifted over the past 10 to 15 years under the influence of the hammer of Thatcherism acting on the anvil of new market and global realities. That is the world in which the scientific and technological community has now to operate. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I noticed that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) was agreeing strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet when he made a pointed comment, with which I also agree, about the Department of Health being in the ludicrous position of both sponsor and regulator of the pharmaceutical industry. Given that this is one of the few shining examples in the private sector of an industry that has done consistently well, without many handouts from the taxpayer, it is important that the Government should play their part by improving the bureaucratic arrangements. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of that.

The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) made a serious point about the insufficiency of people with a good grounding in mathematics and a good mathematical turn of mind, not only in the House but, more broadly, in the communities on which we depend for wealth creation. I draw to the attention of the House the work of Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit, which recently published a report, at the Government's behest, that contained some tragic and frightening figures. One in five of the large representative sample were, at 21 years of age, effectively innumerate and one in seven were effectively illiterate--excluding those with dyslexia and mental disabilities. We must address that problem in our schools and in the national cirriculum more urgently than we are.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who has had to leave, spoke of cultural and attitudinal problems. He was right, for those matters are well documented back to the time of Prince Albert, who held well-developed views on them.

As a social scientist rather than a pure scientist, I believe that the essence of the problem is that British scientists are invariably held in respect, even in awe, by the non-scientific community. The difficulty has been and

Column 1152

remains at the technical and technician level. Schools and further education institutions must do more to capture the imagination of a wide raft of young people and not just the most academically talented.

I apologise for diverging in that way, because I know that it is uncharacteristic these days to indulge in debate in the House, but I wanted to pick up on points that particularly struck me.

The White Paper is an excellent contribution to the progress that urgently needs to be made. It clearly recognises the vital importance of preserving and enhancing our science base, particularly via higher education institutions--which have an enormous contribution to make--and research centres, which are often in the private sector. It must be acknowledged, however, that we in the United Kingdom cannot do everything here. We must not fall for the fallacies that everything must be invented here, or that everything must be done in this country. We must set priorities and ask who are the right people to take difficult priority decisions.

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench share the view that such decisions should not principally be taken by Ministers and civil servants.

That is largely because they do not have an adequate training and background, but also because they tend to be dazzled by the men in white coats. This country's scientific history in the post-war period shows the way in which nuclear boffins, for example, dazzled successive science and technology, education and industry Ministers over the years, because those Ministers did not start on anything like even terms with their advisers. That is a serious psychological point.

I welcome the concept of pluralism and diversity in decision making, because big mistakes are less likely to occur with a pluralistic approach. I welcomed the announcment made by my right hon. Friend some time ago of the decision to maintain the dual support system, which is important for institutional autonomy. That is the most important decision in the White Paper contributing to the maintenance and improvement of our science base.

Several references have been made to resources, including by the hon. Member for Cambridge. I put a more positive gloss than the hon. Lady on paragraph 1.17 of the White Paper :

"The Government will continue to allocate public resources to science and engineering on the scale necessary to finance the policies in this White Paper."

Although that statement is clear, I know that Opposition Members are cynical. I take the statement to mean that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, with the full backing of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will make every effort to ensure this policy is carried through.

Dr. Bray : How can the Government possibly continue to do something that they have not been doing?

Mr. Forman : The hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap of being a little too sour and pessimistic. The scientific community may not have received all the public resources that it would like recently, but let me say in the presence of my right hon. Friend--and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and

Column 1153

Science whom I welcome to his new post-- that I believe that the scientific and technological community has firm champions. I know that they will do their level best.

Basic science, as I understand it, is nearly always a voyage of discovery with many blind alleys : that is the nature of the beast. We must protect the work of bright researchers who are not project-funded by research councils. A good example of what can be derived from the "blue skies" approach is the valuable work on genetic fingerprinting that Alec Jeffreys and his team have done at Leicester university ; another is the basic research into ceramics that has been done abroad, leading to many of the significant breakthroughs in super-conductivity that were made a few years ago in Switzerland. I hope that the Government will continue to support such aspects of the science base and the "blue skies" approach. British industry and commerce must learn to apply the scientific and technological skills that we develop to existing products and processes, as well as to new frontier products and processes. Perhaps the most telling example can be found in the motor vehicle industry : much was learnt in the 1980s-- largely as a result of Japanese influence, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). There has also been a dramatic turnaround in our woollen textile industry, largely owing to the application of the most appropriate and advanced technology to existing processes to make them more cost effective and more attractive to the market. We also need to achieve a better balance between what is loosely called a big science--for instance, par and the number of small projects that are particularly useful to the advance of the whole. Science in this country has been dogged by two problems, both cuckoos in the nest. Nuclear power has tended to edge out a good deal of hard science, and subscriptions to international bodies have taken too large a share of the resources available at any one time. Paragraph 1.16 of the White Paper is right to talk of breaking down the barriers between all those involved in the broad scientific community. That naturally includes private companies, research laboratories and industry generally. I am delighted to read of the encouragement of networking between bodies, both public and private. That must be right ; we must share best practice as far as possible. I am particularly attached to the idea of teaching companies--which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone)--and case awards for young scholars. Much good work is going on. I recently paid a fascinating visit to the university of Brighton, to which my hon. Friend referred--the university, that is, not the fascinating visit. I was told that the university now has eight research degrees financed in that way, and that there are practical as well as theoretical benefits. An example given to me by Professor David Watson is the new control system for hardboard mills, which is making a significant contribution to the success of the industry. I welcome the way in which paragraph 1.18 flags the Government's determination to develop more taught

Column 1154

courses for science graduates. I believe that MSc training for postgraduate scientists and engineers is the way forward. That is the approach adopted by many of our competitors, notably the United States and Germany ; I think that it is pedagogically right, and that it brings us more into line with current best practice

internationally.

Some of those studying for a MSc will go on to the PhD stage--fewer than before, but that is not necessarily a bad thing--with a more appropriate grounding and a broader basis. I hope that they will go on with the benefit of better and closer academic supervision than is sometimes the case with PhDs.

There is one aspect of the White Paper about which I have doubts and concerns--the decision not to create a humanities research council, which perhaps includes the realm of the Economic and Social Research Council, on which I briefly served a few years ago. That decision leaves the sponsorship, regulation and funding of research in that area largely with our old friend the British Academy. I am not sure that this was a wise decision and I invite my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to find an opportunity later to consider it again.

The British Academy does not have a glorious record in the realm of research and it has the conflicting roles of both learned society and funding council, which sit rather uneasily in one slightly amateur body. I have particular concerns about its record on studentships and on post- doctoral fellowships. I hope that the decision can be reconsidered.

As my right hon. Friend will know, there is a great need for more money for library facilities and for sabbaticals for research in the humanities. Now that, in a sense, my right hon. Friend's Department has a greater interest than it had formerly in such matters, because of his supervision of the research councils, I hope that the matter will be reconsidered. It is a great pity that the recommendations made by Sir Brian Follett were not pursued--a view that is also held by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

I do not want to end on a negative or sour note, having criticised others for showing a touch of sourness. In general, the White Paper is a sensible and responsive document which has done a great deal to meet the most important needs of our scientific, technological and engineering community. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who played a considerable part in the document, on their work and on the spirit in which they approached it. I want Ministers to know that many Conservative Members will support them strongly when they do battle, as they will have to, for the interests of the scientific and technological community.

1.22 pm

Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen) : I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate the Chancellor on the White Paper, which has stimulated much interest among the scientific community--well over 100 submissions were made--and in the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

I detected in the Chancellor's speech this morning and in earlier contributions the fact that he has been cautious in his handling of this massive subject. Perhaps he was a little too deferential to the abilities of the scientists

Column 1155

involved. As a result, the White Paper is perhaps a little too complacent. I note that about 12 of the Select Committee's 31 recommendations have been accepted. The others were not accepted or were pigeon-holed.

The White Paper is a rather modest reform document. I strongly welcome the "Forward Look", which involves other Departments, and the Technology Foresight programme, which is extremely important. Last Monday, speaking to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, the Chancellor spoke of visiting top laboratories in this country, looking at the visitors' list and finding that the person above him always seemed to be from Japan. We need to return the compliment, and the same goes for Germany and the United States. The Technology Foresight programme will help to keep abreast of where we need to invest in the future.

We accept the winding up of the research councils, although we want greater openness. The advice of learned bodies to the OST should be published. The Science and Engineering Research Council was too large and had to be restructured. I especially welcome the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council and echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) about how chemistry will fit into the new pattern. I am also worried about the Particle Physics and Astromony Research Council because it deals with pure science and there is a danger that, being packaged as such, it may be vulnerable to possible cuts or a squeeze in research funding. I welcome the Council for Science and Technology. It may have leading scientists and industrialists as members, but I echo the view expressed by the Select Committee : we want women to be on the council and the interests of the environment and the consumer to be represented. We welcome the fact that dual funding is to continue. I have reservations about the switch from PhD to MSc, but, if the budget is limited, I accept that perhaps the bias should be towards the MSc. However, I can accept cuts in PhDs only if the total budget is safeguarded and is used to produce more MSc qualifications. I notice that the White Paper's response to Faraday centres is tame. I wish that it had expressed greater enthusiasm. During our visit to Germany, members of the Select Committee visited the Fraunhofer and Steinbeis institutes. This country needs to develop a broader infrastructure, something between universities and industry, or a middle tier fed by universities and polytechnics and drawn from by industry.

I agree with earlier remarks about the public understanding of science and overspecialisation in schools. All pupils should be required to take mathematics and science to the age of 18. Science has a rather negative image, which I can well understand, having done research in chemistry. Unfortunately, in the minds of young people science can be associated with nuclear problems and pollution and, in general, the image of the scientist is negative. Environmental research will help to refresh that image, but it is sad that the closure of the Warren Spring laboratory sends a negative signal to young people who may be thinking of embarking on a scientific career.

The White Paper is especially disappointing in respect of the Chancellor's scant influence on other Departments, such as the Ministries of Defence and of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Departments of Health and of Trade and Industry. He will have very little influence on the research budget of those Departments but they will

Column 1156

take part in the "Forward Look", which is a positive step. I also welcome the transfer of administration of the LINK scheme, but, as £6 billion of Government money is going into science research, it is sad that the OST will control less than a quarter of it and will not have a great deal of influence over the remaining three quarters. On defence, I agree with the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), in particular, and with the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). For decades, our economy has been overtaxed by our high defence budget. We need to trim it in line with other European members of NATO. As the peace dividend now allows us to cut our budget and the R and D component of it, it is important that the funding is retained in total in the science base.

I again echo the comments by the hon. Member for Pudsey : the safeguarding of that £2.6 billion might be the subject of a future Select Committee inquiry. I understand that that figure is destined to be cut by £1 billion by the end of the decade. But that billion pounds' worth of research is very much needed by Britain and the country's manufacturing industry. Much more thought needs to be given to the question of how the able scientists involved in defence research and development can be redeployed and their skills harnessed for our manufacturing industry.

I shall comment briefly on industrial research and development, which is one of the great problems in terms of the competitiveness of British industry. We have heard comments today about the Department of Trade and Industry scoreboard and how poorly we come out of it. But that is ignored by the White Paper. Tax incentives, which are part of Labour party policy and have been urged on the Government by the Lords Select Committee, are necessary to boost industrial investment in research and development.

When statistics are cited to the Minister about Britain's investment in research and development, he says that we are about the middle of the pack and that our investment is about the average worldwide level. That is simply not true. This country devotes about 2.2 per cent. of its GDP to defence, civil, industrial and Government research and development. For most of our competitor

countries--including Germany, Japan and the United States--the figure is 2.8 per cent. In civil research and development, we are about 1 per cent. of GDP behind those countries.

Another £6 billion a year should be spent on research and development. If, at some stage, we want long-term industrial success and a growth strategy, we must find those resources so that research in this country can back up the great skills of scientists in our universities.

1.32 pm

Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne) : I join other hon. Members in welcoming both the debate and the White Paper and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on securing the debate in the first place. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on exchanging the heat and smoke of the Maastricht battle for possibly the more quiet and cerebral atmosphere of his new Department. I wish him well in his new post.

The White Paper is good news because it clearly recognises the importance of scientific and technological innovation and the successful exploitation of such innovation to the benefit of our nation's prosperity and position in the world. There are various ways of measuring

Column 1157

scientific output, and we have heard most of them referred to during the debate. The number of scientific papers published and cited by others in Britain in the period 1981 to 1990 was second only to the number of those published in the United States. That serves to underline the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House--we are not short of new ideas but we often fall down on their implementation and fail to profit fully from them.

I particularly welcome the idea of Technology Foresight. The Government have examined carefully the experience of some of our major competitors, such as Germany, the United States and Japan, and have concluded that one of the best ways of realising our objectives is through the introduction and the application of Technology Foresight--a system which will not only provide early notice of the key emerging technologies but will help to forge a new working partnership between the bench scientist and working industrialists. A key element of success is frequent, productive and informal contacts between scientists and firms. We should be in the business of breaking down artificial barriers to that process. I commend the idea of an annual "Forward Look" prepared by the Office of Science and Technology which will provide a long-term assessment of the portfolio of publicly funded work and other important aspects of science and technology.

The proposed Council for Science and Technology, which will take the place of the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, will be given the main responsibility of advising Ministers on the key science and technology issues facing this country and on the balance and direction of Government- funded science and technology. Rightly, the White Paper places great emphasis on wealth creation. I entirely endorse a sentence from the CBI's brief on today's debate which states :

"The country cannot afford to develop elegant science and technology entirely for its own sake."

That is a very perceptive view of which full account is taken in the White Paper.

It is essential that we consider the implementation of the new ideas of our scientists in industry and commerce and ensure that this country is the prime beneficiary of those new ideas. It is noteworthy that university income from industry grew substantially through the 1980s from £27 million in 1982-83 to £114 million in 1990-91. The number of university-based science parks grew from two to about 40 over a similar period. Like other hon. Members, I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to maintain the dual-funding system of support for research in our universities.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House and those who drafted the White Paper recognise that we have a deep-seated cultural problem with science and technology. I speak from the substantial background of my indifferent science O-levels. In retrospect, it strikes me as quite bizarre that, when moving to the third form at my grammar school, I was forced to choose between ancient Greek, German and biology and make a rather crucial career decision as to how I was to proceed to A-levels and beyond-- [Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to think that I took the wrong career path, but that is a matter for them.

We now have imaginative proposals, not to encourage science and technology just as a dry, academic set of

Column 1158

subjects divorced from reality, but to stress the importance of wealth creation. That is an important theme in the White Paper. I recently had the pleasure of visiting in my constituency Cavendish school, Bishop Bell school, the sixth form college and Eastbourne college of arts and technology. I was immeasurably impressed by the imaginative and fresh way in which science and technology subjects are now being taught in all those institutions. That freshness and imagination are amply repaid by the enthusiasm and achievement of the students involved.

The Government's education and training reforms across the board are addressing some of the deep-rooted problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) dwelt on the important question of national vocational qualifications. Despite other controversies, which may not be of concern to this debate, I am sure that the introduction of the national curriculum will, over several years, focus people's attention on the necessary issues set out in the White Paper under the heading of science and technology.

Although I cannot dwell on the matter in detail, I am delighted to commend the various education-related issues and ideas set out in the White Paper. Education is the basis for developing science in this country. It is interesting to note that, in 1990, more than 1 million people were employed in science and engineering occupations in the United Kingdom. The number of people employed in those occupations has grown sharply, with an increase of more than 50 per cent. between 1971 and 1990. Just over a quarter of all degrees and equivalent qualifications that were awarded in 1990-91 were in the natural sciences, mathematics and engineering. Again, I have no time to dwell in detail on this point, but the proposals to encourage and improve PhD courses have been touched on by various colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). That is an excellent part of the White Paper.

In Eastbourne, we have a number of high-tech companies. Indeed, in Sussex there is talk of developing an academic corridor. I have a dream that one day Eastbourne will have its very own science park. We have had silicon valley and we have had silicon glen, why not silicon beach? We are fortunate enough to have the northern European headquarters of Rhone- Poulenc Rouen, one of the great pharmaceutical companies and a great example of British inventiveness. It is also, incidentally, the largest private employer in my constituency. Another leading high-tech company is Edwards High Vacuum, which has been in Eastbourne for many years and has a state-of-the-art factory which I visited again only the other week. That company exports vacuum equipment world wide and competes even with the Japanese on at least equal terms. Also, a company called Computing Devices is at the leading edge of surveillance and computing equipment. It played a significant role in the Gulf war, particularly in providing equipment for our Tornado aircraft. That company has a tremendous and impressive commitment to research and development.

Government policy on science and technology matters to those and other enterprises in Eastbourne and throughout the country. It matters to those who work in those companies, and it matters for the economic future and the educational sector of our country. In short, it matters for all of us.

Column 1159

1.41 pm

Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Hon. Members have welcomed some aspects of the White Paper and the strategy in it, but I sense a deep unease on both sides of the House about whether that strategy will live up to, or be able to face up to, the challenges that the White Paper set itself in its initial consultation. We should recognise the needs of industry in terms of the science base, but I am deeply concerned that if our inadequately funded base is not to be improved and our budget is not to be increased, something will give, and that will be basic research, only a small proportion--about 20 per cent.--of the research councils' funding. In the long term, that would be very damaging.

My contribution to science and to our knowledge of intracellular communications was most marked in two aspects of my work as a scientist. One was when I got completely the opposite result to that which I expected and the other was when I discovered that, although a particular cellular component was being increasingly synthesised--the rate of synthesis was increasing--there was a net reduction in the content of that chemical. That demonstrates that one cannot predict the outcome of scientific research. It is important that we maintain an element of basic research. We have a good record in that direction, and it would be a great pity if, as a result of the strategy, it was undermined.

The emphasis in the White Paper on the privatisation of Government research laboratories and the needs of industry will undermine the long-term view. There is already criticism of short-termism in Government research laboratories. I do not see how privatisation will help to deal with that problem.

I shall focus most of my speech on the career prospects of research scientists, especially in our universities and research institutes. The White Paper rightly talks about problems in that area and mentions the fact that there has been a massive increase in the number of scientists on short -term contracts--the number has increased from 8,000 in 1980 to 16,500 in 1990.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I am not sure whether the White Paper addresses the problem. It suggests that something should be done about the continuation of funding--building up contingency funding in universities--and the need to address the level of research studentships, which varies tremendously. For example, the Science and Engineering Research Council pays something like £5,000 a year to one of its postgraduate students. The level is slightly higher for the Medical Research Council. Cancer charities and others have recognised the importance of paying researchers a resonable rate for the important work that they do. They are paid about double what the research councils pay. In our universities, people who are undertaking different aspects of similar work in the same laboratory can receive completely different levels of remuneration which are not related to performance. That problem has not been addressed. Until it is, there will continue to be concern about the attractiveness of a science career to our young people.

I completely disagree with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he says that there is no shortage of good-quality young people going into research. If he talks to people in our universities and research institutes, they will tell him that the best graduates are leaving science.

Column 1160

That was highlighted in a recent editorial in Nature , which referred to the large number of young scientists leaving the field. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, I have a base in science and my partner is a scientist. If I were advising my children about a career, I would emphasise the importance of taking up a career that they will enjoy. However, if I were interested in financial rewards, I would say that they only need to compare our level of income--I am not especially complaining--with that of our friends who have gone into law, accounting or local government to see the difference. As a councillor, I saw the level of salaries for people working in different areas and compared them with the pay of my former colleagues in the universities. They do not compare well. In our universities, lecturers with a number of years of research under their belts are being paid less than the salary of a police sergeant. Over the past 10 years or so, the relative pay of scientists has reduced remarkably--something like 20 per cent.--in comparison with other groups. It is not surprising, therefore, that our culture does not recognise the importance of science. That can be contrasted with our competitors.

When the Select Committee was in Germany, we were all struck by the fact that science was given much greater status and many of the people whom we met from science and other industries--for example, banking, the public sector and accounting--were scientifically trained. It is not true to say that we have an abundance of well-trained scientists--we do not. That is an area on which the White Paper sadly falls down.

A report published today by the Association of University Teachers and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education estimates that in five years' time more than 50 per cent. of our university teachers and researchers will be over the age of 50. It highlights the real problem in attracting the most able young people into science and our universities.

Another deep-seated problem that the White Paper failed to address is the failure of British industry to innovate. It is all very well to say that the science base must take to heart the needs of industry, but all the evidence given to me and my colleagues on the Science and Technology Select Committee points to the failure of British industry to take advantage of innovative science projects. That failure must be addressed, rather than expecting the industrial and business sectors to take some of the responsibilities currently held by the Government, for example, for the payment of research studentships. The Government must address the failure of British industry to meet its own responsibilities.

If our industry invested at the level of that of our competitors, an additional £6 billion would be devoted to R and D. The failure to address that issue of investment is a fundamental flaw in the White Paper.

The simple message is that our research and technology base needs more cash from the Government and from industry. The future of our science base should be dictated by long-term rather than short-term considerations. When the Select Committee visited Germany, we were told that, in times of recession, industry realises that it must increase its investment in R and D. The approach taken by our industry, however, is to do the opposite.

We must take a decision on which of two routes we want to follow. Do we want to be a successful economy based on a well-trained work force and a technologically

Column 1161

highly developed industry or do we want to be a low-wage, low-tech, third-world economy? I believe that it is clear from the White Paper that the Chancellor of the Duchy wants to point us towards the first route. He should contemplate the reality, however, and decide whether the Government are taking the country down the route of our successful competitors or that followed by low-wage, low-tech economies.

1.52 pm

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point) The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) called for more cash and criticised the White Paper. In response, I shall put two hypotheses to the House. First, the key to success in science engineering and technology is cultural, not cash based, and, secondly, the White Paper contains much to welcome.

It is important to establish a philosophical foundation on which to build and I trust that it will command the support of the House and the nation. Our economy depends for its success on a significant, vibrant and wealth- creating manufacturing sector. Without the hard backbone of that sector, the softer service sectors could not thrive. That manufcturing sector relies on the science base.

We need to improve the status of engineers, technologists and scientists to attract the best brains to those disciplines and to improve the public understanding and appreciation of the importance of science. We need to sharpen up our act and translate fundamental research into saleable products and processes. The sale of such items to foreign companies, against international competition, would sustain and create jobs, wealth and influence for our people. The White Paper was long awaited and digested with relish by the key players--industry, academia, the professional institutions and the fair-minded majority of the House. I shall adduce a sample of the evidence to support that conclusion for each of those key player groups.

As we have heard, the chemical and pharmaceutical industry is one of the most vigorous and international, and is an important sector of our economy. Last year, it generated a £3.4 billion trading surplus for this country. In welcoming the White Paper, the Chemical Industries Association said :

"At the heart of the white paper are two concepts that are welcomed and shared by the chemical industry :

The importance of science and technology for improving our quality of life through economic success and wealth creation.

The role of partnership between and within government departments and the academic and business communities."

Both of those concepts are culturally and organisationally based rather than cash-based concepts.

I do not have much time, so to illustrate academia's response I shall merely mention that the Select Committee on Education, of which I am a member, visited De Montford university two weeks ago and discussed the White Paper. The university was fulsome in its welcome of the White Paper and strenuously promoted the need for more near-market research and to improve the status of engineering and engineers. I do not have time to give more detail today.

Column 1162

To illustrate the response given by professional institutions, I shall quote the largest--the Institution of Electrical Engineers which, with its memorandum of understanding with the IMechE, can rightly claim to represent 200,000 professional engineers throughout the world. My choice of example pains me as I am a mechanical engineer, but the comments of the electrical engineering industry are important and, as one would expect, well structured and coherent. The profession's formal response to the White Paper states :

"The White Paper is welcome because it ;

--sets out a clear policy for engineering and science which addresses the UK's needs

--commits the Government to develop engineering and science in the UK and recognises the need for urgent action

--recognises the importance of engineering (and science) to wealth creation

--accepts the need for the Government involvement at all stages of the innovatory process (applied as well as basic/strategic research) --develops the role of Government in identifying and promoting important and valuable technologies through :

Technology Transfer

Technology Foresight"

I believe that both sides of the House will welcome those initiatives.

The response also states that the White Paper

"creates the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council with its specific commitment to

--response to the needs of users

--support basic, strategic and applied research"--

the word "applied" is in bold to make it stand out--

"--develop training related to industrial competitiveness". My final example of the welcome given to the White Paper is from the House. For proof of evidence I need look no further than the Secretary of State's statement on the White Paper on 26 May. Some 18 Back Benchers were called to comment on the statement--sadly, I was not one of them. Six e Opposition Members and three were Conservatives, so we cannot read anything into that. Excluding the noncommittal Members, the statistics show that it can be argued that 80 per cent. welcomed, in part, the White Paper, and only 20 per cent. rejected it. Sadly, I cannot add any confidence levels to that statistical analysis as a scientist. I thank all hon. Members for their positive attitude and I hope that we can put aside petty party political point scoring and genuinely seek to move forward together for the sake of science and the nation.

Much of the evidence that I have adduced supports the hypothesis that culture counts more than cash, and adds to the evidence given by the Secretary of State today to demonstrate the wide welcome that the White Paper has received.

I should like to make three key points, giving the facts on our research and development funding record, reinforcing the pivotal position of near- market research and presenting the case for improving the status of the engineer and the scientist. Over the decade 1981-91, United Kingdom research and development expenditure on industry rose by 74 per cent. in chemicals ; remained constant for electronics ; fell by 17 per cent. in aerospace, for reasons that we all understand ; and increased by 65 per cent. in our new and vibrant motor vehicle industry. The aggregate increase was 7 per cent. in real terms for all

Column 1163

manufacturing. Those figures speak for themselves. The world is moving ever faster forward and we must continue to increase our spending in real terms on our science base.

My second point is the need to promote near-market research. I shall be brief because last year I spoke at length on that issue and my speech is recorded in the Official Report of 15 December 1992, columns 137-41. The nation does not take maximum advantage of its excellent science base which too often seems to benefit the economies of our international competitors rather than our own. That is a component of the British disease.

The phenomenon is clearly illustrated by the comparison between the United Kingdom and Japan. In this century, Britain has won 61 Nobel prizes and registered 50,000 patents. Japan has won only four Nobel prizes but has registered seven times that number of patents--350,000. That is a consequence of our neglect of near-market research. No one body is to blame and even the City bears a share of the responsibility for that.

It has been pointed out that applied research receives only one tenth of the funding received by basic research. Consultations on the White Paper show that industrialists do not want us altogether to abandon good basic research. There must be a proper and more even balance between basic and applied research.

My third key point is about the need to improve the status of the engineer and the scientist. A national framework of objectives is required to promote engineering and science and make them more desirable. I have advocated the use of differential student grants, a redistribution from the soft arts to the hard sciences--from wealth absorption to wealth creation. That would attract more of the best students to engineering and away from professions such as the law. Perhaps that is a dangerous example in this place and I shall need to watch my back and my front.

I am bewildered by the fact that eminent scientists, engineers and professional managers who have achieved doctorates and often two other degrees as well are refused their correct title of doctor by no less an institution than the Financial Times. That can only be part of the British disease because it would not happen in Germany. I respectfully ask the Financial Times to rethink its editorial policy as part of a campaign to change the anti-science and anti-engineering culture of this country.

The Government should look again at the Finniston report, which contained excellent aims and, like the White Paper, often hit the target splendidly. These issues are cultural rather than cash based. That is because in essence, the problem is about attitude, perception and tradition. Time prevents me from adducing all the evidence in support of my hypotheses. However, I have given enough evidence to confirm that the two hypotheses can be sustained, that success in science, engineering and technology is more a function of culture than of cash and that the White Paper is a most welcome initiative. 2.4 pm

Next Section

Home Page