---

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Does not my hon. Friend think it ironic that, although they say that they regard the objectivity of scientists as a particularly important issue, the Government, as reported in the New Scientist, are being accused by those very scientists, following the Royal Society meeting, of plugging away at the evidence until they get the answer that they want? The Government are not being objective; they are simply taking an ideological stand.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If I am taking a little time on this matter, it is precisely to spell out that fact. In my opinion, it is incredible that we should have review after review--but what was the outcome?

In one of the first written answers given after the prior options reviews, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in relation to the agriculture and plant sciences institutes:

"Prior options reviews have been completed of the Institute of Arable Crops Research, the Institute of Grassland and Environment Research, the John Innes Centre and the Selsoe Research Institute. I am satisfied that the functions of these Institutes are needed and that they should maintain their separate existence . . . I have concluded that full independence from the public sector, with the greater freedom this will provide the Institutes to direct their own affairs, would be a desirable option which merits further consideration. This will therefore be the subject of further work led by the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency, Sir Peter Levene."--[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 270.]

How on earth can the Government justify that?

We have had review after review, but the threat of privatisation is still hanging over those research establishments. What sort of effect does the Minister think

11 Jun 1996 : Column 178

that has on their morale? Of course, those establishments are not the only ones affected: the Scottish Crop Research Institute and the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute are candidates for privatisation, as are a number of others about which no indication was given, although they could include the Horticultural Research Institute and the Central Science Laboratory. Of course, we know that ADAS is to be privatised.

Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South): My hon. Friend mentioned the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, which controls the Daresbury and the Rutherford and Appleton laboratories. The Daresbury laboratory is in my constituency. It has undergone two reviews, and it has now been determined that it will stay as a non-departmental public body in the public sector, accountable to the Department of Trade and Industry. Most important, Daresbury runs a synchrotron radiation source, which involves premier physics research.

However, Daresbury has to plan now for its replacement. That replacement, which is called Diamond, will cost about £100 million. Rather than continual reviews, we need long-term planning and investment by Government so that the Daresbury laboratory can continue its first-class physics research.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for the representations that he has made on behalf of that laboratory. He rightly points out that long-term investment is needed there.

As I said, Government policy has meant the continued demoralisation of scientists. When I made the case for public science earlier, I said that one of the reasons for these Government research establishments was so that the Government could respond to the unexpected. Let us consider what has happened with BSE in cattle, something that was certainly not expected when it was found in 1985 and identified in 1986.

Every year, in the annual debate on agriculture, I have criticised the Government for their cuts in food and agricultural science. Indeed, Government-funded food and agricultural science has suffered proportionally greater cuts than other research. On 22 May, The Independent wrote:

"The Government's chief scientific adviser yesterday conceded that spending cuts had damaged the Ministry of Agriculture's . . . scientific capacity at the time when public concern had grown over mad cow disease in Britain.


Over the past 10 years, Government spending on research and development across all departments has fallen by £1.6bn in real terms--about a quarter. Maff's spending has been cut slightly more than the average.


Sir Robert May, the chief scientific adviser, said that over the past decade Maff had focused narrowly on research and development which touched its central policy objectives, with the result that it was now less able to respond to new challenges like BSE.


He added: 'I think Maff might now recognise that decreasing veterinary expenditure is something to be reconsidered.'"

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the cuts were severe. The Meat Research Institute at Bristol, which was concerned with meat safety and conditions in abattoirs, was closed during that time.

On 20 March, a date that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will always remember because that was when he and the Secretary of State for Health made their important announcements about a possible link

11 Jun 1996 : Column 179

between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the director of the Institute of Animal Health announced that 60 posts would go. That institute includes the neuropathogenesis unit which employs the Government scientists who are at the forefront of the work being done on BSE and the possibility of a link between it and CJD.

In 1982, the Institute of Animal Health employed 842 people; it now employs 489, more than 40 per cent. of whom have temporary appointments. The institute has sought to protect BSE research, but it has meant cuts in other areas. Of course, this institute is concerned with animal diseases generally and is a centre of excellence.

The Minister will of course tell us that the Government have increased spending on BSE research--I should hope so, as it was identified only in 1986 and has increased significantly. Much of the increased spending has, sadly, been at the expense of expenditure on other Government research. That is the point--we have to have a broad base of scientific capability in the Government so that the Government can respond to the unexpected. We do not know what the next infectious disease or problem will be in our livestock.

Having slashed expenditure and many of the posts at the Institute of Animal Health, that institute is now a candidate for privatisation. It is in the second tranche now being considered under the prior options review. The same is true of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which is also in the forefront of work on BSE.

Does any hon. Member really believe that the British people will thank the Government for privatising BSE research? It is incredible that the Government can even contemplate taking that road.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: I shall give way in a moment.

It is not only the Veterinary Laboratories Agency that is threatened with privatisation, because the third tranche includes the Norwich food research institute, the Rowett Institute, which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned, and the other food research establishment.

I now give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), but this is the last intervention that I shall take.

Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of scientists on short-term contracts. He is now mentioning with absolute horror the fact that some research institutes may go into the private sector. Would his party be prepared to take them back into the public sector? If so, how much would it cost the public purse?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that we shall judge the situation if and when we inherit power. The reality is that the Conservatives have to defend their policy of privatisation, but, in terms of BSE research and long-term basic research, they are attempting to defend the indefensible.

There are three lessons that we can learn already from the BSE experience. First, we need a strong research base, a large basic capability among agricultural scientists within the Government sector. Secondly, there is no place for deregulation of food safety. Thirdly, food safety

11 Jun 1996 : Column 180

regulations have to be enforced. They have to be enforced by public servants, which is why it is tragic that the Government have reorganised, rationalised and demoralised the state veterinary service to the extent that they have. Of course, on top of all that, we know that they are going to press ahead with the privatisation of ADAS.

I would like to refer to a number of the research establishments threatened with privatisation and spell out to the House just how valuable and important their basic, long-term research is and why it should stay in the public sector, but time does not allow me to do that. Government science is of huge importance and the Government research establishments have a crucial role to play.

We are against the growth of short-term contracts and the threat of privatisation--what an appalling way to manage Government science. For three years, those scientists have been under the threat of privatisation and, as I have pointed out, that threat is going to continue for many establishments. We support public science, we support the Government research establishments and we want an end to that uncertainty. That is why I ask hon. Members to vote for our motion tonight.

---