| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Prior Options Review
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.14 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East): I beg to move,
- That this House believes that Government support for science and technology is vital to the United Kingdom's future; recognises the crucial long-term contribution which the public sector research establishments make to the economy and to extending the boundaries of knowledge; regrets the rationalisation and fragmentation of these establishments in recent years and opposes the dogma-driven privatisation objectives of the Prior Options Review.
Perhaps I should preface my remarks by making a statement that I think would command general support in the House: that science is good for us. There is general support for the view that we should invest as much as we can reasonably afford in science, engineering and technology and in research and development. Of course, when I say "science" I refer not only to the public sector but to the private sector. Indeed, in "forward look" 1996 the Government's chief scientific adviser reminds us that there is still concern about the level of investment in research and development by some private industry sectors. He points out that there was an increase in real terms last year; indeed, there has been an increase three years in a row. I take it as common ground across the House that we want to encourage more investment by business in science, engineering and technology.
This debate is about public science. I want to set out the case for the Government research establishments and public science. There are at least four reasons why public science is important. First, it is in the long-term interests of our people that we carry out long-term basic research. It extends the boundaries of our knowledge, but sometimes--and this is often wholly unpredicted--it leads to unexpected practical applications and to the development of new products for the benefit of business. By its very nature, basic long-term research is very costly. It is especially suited to the public sector.
Secondly, the Government need as broad a science base as we can afford to provide advice to various Departments on the development and implementation of policy, but also to ensure that we are able to respond to unpredictable national emergencies, such as a new infectious disease in the human population or in our livestock or crops--for example BSE, which may have human implications, or another oil spill disaster like those off the west coast of Wales and off Shetland. We need that broad scientific base to make it easier for the Government to respond intelligently to a national emergency.
Thirdly, we need Government research establishments to provide advice to industry and business. When I talk to business representatives, I am impressed by how highly
they speak of independent Government research, which is how they see it. That is how farmers, business menand industry generally see Government research establishments. They think of them as being independent, in a way that they do not think of research or science in the private sector. So those research establishments are a valuable resource for advice and information, and often for collaboration, with private business.
Fourthly, those establishments also provide highly skilled scientists, technicians and engineers for our industry. If one talks to people in business, one will again find that they regard that matter as very important. A tremendous level of expertise and experience is built up in those establishments, and those highly trained people are free to move on at will into business and industry.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon):
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I think that he is making a very important case very well. He will know that we have our share of marine laboratories in my constituency in the form of the Rowett Research Institute and, in Aberdeen, the Macaulay Institute. On the basis of what he has just said, does he agree that Government require independent advice that is not and cannot be commercially compromised, and that industry requires independent advice that is not politically motivated? In those circumstances--for public policy purposes--those institutes must be publicly funded and independent. Does he believe that the scientific advice on which the Government depend in the BSE crisis would be credible if it depended on institutions that required commercial contracts for their bread and butter?
Dr. Strang:
Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his support. I pay tribute to the Rowett Research Institute, which is an excellent institution with a tremendous history and a tremendous record in research. I have frequently had the pleasure and privilege over the years of talking to scientists from the Rowett.
Those are four reasons--among others; I shall confine myself to four--why I believe that public science, and particularly Government research establishments, are a vital national resource that we should support and encourage.
Mr. Paul Marland (West Gloucestershire):
I was rather alarmed by what the hon. Gentleman said about scientists in the private sector. The natural conclusion of his allegations against scientists in the private sector is that they are bent and that the only scientists who tell the truth are those funded by the Government.
Mr. Marland:
It is absolutely true. The hon. Gentleman said that we want straight and untainted scientific advice, and that that could not be obtained other than from a Government-funded source.
Dr. Strang:
The hon. Gentleman does himself an injustice. I do not think that any other hon. Member believes that I intended to malign or criticise scientists in the private sector. If scientists work for a fertiliser company and go to farms to give farmers advice, especially about fertiliser application levels, it would be regarded as less independent than advice from an independent,
Right after the 1992 general election, for the first time in almost 30 years, the Government appointed a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for science--the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who was the predecessor of the current Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As the current Agriculture Minister may know, his father was--almost 30 years before--the Cabinet Minister responsible for science.
In 1993, the then Minister with responsibility for science produced an important White Paper entitled "Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology." I do not propose to quote from that document, but it argued that many services and functions in Government research establishments should be provided by private industry. That has been the starting point for this dreadful saga.
A back-up paper was published along with that White Paper, which was entitled "Review of allocation, management and use of Government expenditure on science and technology". I shall quote from four successive paragraphs in it because they illustrate how determined the Government were to push on with privatisation. The first paragraph states:
Following that study, the Government produced the "Multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments". Even while it was being produced, they announced that some establishments would be privatised, one of which was the National Engineering Laboratory--which will be dealt with in closing by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), because he has a particular interest and is particularly knowledgable in it. The Scrutiny Committee recommended that the Building Research Establishment and the Agriculture Development Advisory Service be considered as likely candidates for privatisation.
As many hon. Members will be aware, that report did not receive a very good response from the scientific community. It certainly did not receive plaudits from our Select Committees. In the first paragraph of its conclusions, the Select Committee on Science and Technology quoted the Institute of Biology as stating:
In case any hon. Member is under any illusions, I shall quote one prior options review guideline. It states:
"The first option for consideration is the scope for privatisation."
The next paragraph states:
"In some cases, getting the GRE's"--
the Government research establishments--
"into shape for privatisation will take time, nevertheless, we believe it should be seriously considered as the first option."
The next paragraph states:
"The impetus required to achieve widespread GRE privatisation will not occur so long as there are no incentives for establishments or their personnel to market themselves more widely and aim their work towards commercial applications."
The fourth paragraph states:
"We believe that the flexibility of the GREs and their progress towards privatisation would be assisted by the introduction of term contracts for new recruits."
That, sadly, gave impetus to the growth of short-term contracts in Government research establishments, which is something that we deeply regret.
"The [Scrutiny Report] refers to 'substantial rationalisation of civil research establishments over the last ten years or so,' and certainly research institutes have been subjected to frequent
11 Jun 1996 : Column 177structural changes, many of them reversing the main thrust of the previous one. Whether this can be regarded as 'rational' or not it has reduced research capacity and demoralised scientists."
The Science and Technology Committee in the other place stated in its summary of conclusions:
"We are concerned that the Scrutiny team were from the outset restricted by their terms of reference, which placed a higher priority on privatisation than on any other model or reorganisation which could be achieved . . .
What was the Government's response to all that? It was to embark on a further attempt at privatisation and to announce that the prior options review would be extended to cover all those Government research establishments.
"We do not believe that sufficient attention has been paid to the question of the effectiveness of public sector science in the pursuit of wealth creation and quality of life as laid down by the White Paper".
"In considering appropriateness, the presumption is to privatise; in other words, there is a need to turn the question around, so that it represents a judgment as to the appropriateness of keeping the body in the public sector. It is not just a question of the private sector, nor is the issue purely one of saving money."
Of course the question is not one of saving money, because, as we have found out, implementing those privatisations very often costs the Exchequer substantial sums of money.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |