---

9.30 pm

Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride): We have had an interesting and far-reaching debate and it has shown that there can be no question about the importance of public sector research establishments to Britain's science, engineering and technology base.

As hon. Members have stated, the PSREs represent a considerable national resource employing some 30,000 people and constitute a significant proportion of total Government expenditure on the nation's research and development effort.

At a time when the United Kingdom is struggling to maintain its place at the bottom end of the international competitiveness league tables, one would have thought

11 Jun 1996 : Column 207

that, if any effort were to be expended on redefining our national science and technology needs, it would have resulted in the promotion of the PSREs, not their dismemberment. Instead, in recent years, those establishments have been subjected to rationalisation, fragmentation and privatisation. The morale of the people employed in those establishments has been seriously undermined, and a damaging air of uncertainty hangs over each of the establishments affected by the Government's manic and destructive drive towards privatisation.

It is little wonder, therefore, that Britain's science and research community has universally condemned what the Government are doing to the science base of the nation in this as in other sectors. It is also little wonder that our international competitors are rubbing their hands with glee at the chaos that is being created by the Government's approach. They know that, if a nation's scientific and research community is demoralised because of lack of Government support, the capacity of that vital component in achieving truly international competitiveness is seriously handicapped. That is what constant reviews of the public sector research establishments are doing to the United Kingdom. They are disabling us, not helping us.

The Government are clearly unwilling to accept the important role played by the PSREs in the overall fabric of the science and technology structures of the United Kingdom. The June 1994 publication by the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office on multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments stated:

"PSREs exist for two main reasons: to provide support for the policy, statutory and regulatory activities of government departments; and to undertake research aimed more generally at improving wealth creation or enhancing quality of life; thus contributing to the maintenance of a strong science and technology base for the UK."

That is probably the best description of what should be the overriding mission of PSREs. It is a great pity, therefore, that the Government are not prepared to accept the principle contained within that statement and are actively looking for ways to depart from it.

The Government's statement of the specific stages of the prior options process made no mention of those essential functions of the PSREs. Instead, it focused purely on the extent to which they can be shunted out of the public sector. That stark and dogmatic attitude is all too symptomatic of the Government's overall approach to the country's science and research base.

Before I deal in detail with the debate, it is worth placing on record worrying trends in the way in which the Government are undermining other key elements of our national science and research resources. I refer to the university research base, which works closely with public sector research establishments and is also under severe strain from a lack of Government commitment.

I shall refer specifically to the report published last week by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the higher education funding councils on their survey of research equipment in United Kingdom universities. It is a detailed report and alarming in its conclusions. I shall give three extracts from a letter about the report written by Professor Gareth Roberts, chairman of the CVCP, which was sent to the Minister for Science and Technology, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).

The first comment that Professor Roberts makes is:

"The report concludes that there has not been a significant improvement in the UK's academic research equipment since the first survey undertaken by PREST"--

11 Jun 1996 : Column 208

the agency that was used to undertake the study--


"for the ABRC in 1987. Nearly 80 per cent. of departments continue to be unable to perform critical experiments because of a lack of funding for equipment."

Professor Roberts' second point is:

"UK universities rank second among G7 countries in attracting income from industry. However, industry is telling us through this report that the cuts announced last year will put UK universities at an international disadvantage through under-investment."

His third point is:

"There are indications that multinational companies are beginning to switch their university research to other countries as a direct consequence of decay in the academic infrastructure. Firms already make a substantial contribution and stress that this does not absolve the Government of its responsibilities for supporting the infrastructure."

I refer to that letter and the report because of the close working relationship between universities and public sector research establishments. I shall give one example of what I am driving at.

This morning, I met the director of the Institute of Food Research. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke in some detail about the work conducted by that institute. He rightly said that the institute provides much of the research knowledge for the food industry in this country. It works closely with the university of Reading, the university of East Anglia and other universities elsewhere in the country.

The food industry is important to the United Kingdom economy with annual sales of £60 billion--almost 4 per cent. gross domestic product. Of the top 25 food companies in Europe, 15 are located in the United Kingdom. They are located here for a number of reasons--but the publicly available science expertise in food safety ranks high among them. There is a real threat to the delivery of that service to the food industry. Research equipment in universities is in a sorry state, as the CVCP's report shows, and there is the added prospect of an unwanted privatisation being imposed on the Institute of Food Research.

The Food and Drink Federation accurately summed up the situation when it said in a document:

"A strong and relevant science and engineering base is essential to the technical development of the UK food and drink industry and hence to its future competitiveness. A programme of 'public good' research is also essential to continue to build consumer confidence in the food supply chain. The food and drink industry devotes substantial resources to R and B but it is not in the nature of short reaction-time industry to be able to sustain the necessary underpinning programme of long-term, multi-disciplinary basic research."

The detailed document also refers to the technology foresight programme, the research councils and some of the helpful developments that have taken place. It says:

"Consultation within the food and drink industry reveals, however, a serious concern that the outcome of the current prior options reviews may undo that progress."

That is a worrying message from a very important trade association.

What the CVCP report tells us and what the Government are doing through the repeated reviews can be described only as a headlong retreat from publicly funded science, which has already damaged the country and will prove devastating in the long run unless there is a change of direction.

11 Jun 1996 : Column 209

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East(Dr. Strang) graphically highlighted the outrageous approach of the Government to the public sector research establishments. Other Opposition Members have made telling criticisms of the Government, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), for Norwich, South and for that old Labour bastion of Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I hope that, in the time available, the Minister will not duck the issues that they have raised, and he does not usually do that.

My involvement in this issue goes back to 1988 when the Government made their first attempt to privatise the National Engineering Laboratory in my constituency. At that time, more than 650 people were employed there. The laboratory was recognised as a research establishment of international renown. It had

"facilities which are unique in this country and, in some respects, in the world, for large-scale mechanical testing of structures and components, earthquake simulation, and . . . the world's most comprehensive facilities for measuring the flows and pressures of oil, air and water and mixtures of them."--[Official Report, 25 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 1232.]

In case anyone thinks that that is a local Member of Parliament's hyperbole, those were the words used to describe the laboratory by the then Minister responsible for the Government laboratories in the DTI, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), during a debate on 25 May 1989.

I do not have time to go into full and sad history of the privatisation of the laboratory, but what happened provides a salutary lesson for every establishment affected by the prior options review. Although the Government were prepared to recognise the uniqueness of the research work undertaken by this national resource, considerable efforts were made to sell it off to a French-owned company, backed by promises of massive state aid. However, the company pulled out of the deal. Within weeks of that decision, the Government appointed the firm of Touche Ross--at a cost calculated to be in excess of £100,000--to carry out a further evaluation of the laboratory.

Following discussions with the laboratory's private sector customers, the Touche Ross report concluded:

"Much of the work currently carried out is dependent in whole or in part on the Laboratory being seen to be independent. A number of potential buyers might also be seen as competitors to other potential customers. There is a view in some quarters that it would be inappropriate for national standards to be in the hands of a commercial organisation that might be interested in acquiring knowledge of any equipment being calibrated against primary standards."

Those are not the words of old Labour, but of Touche Ross--the Government's consultants on the privatisation of the National Engineering Laboratory.

The Government did not heed that message and announced 200 redundancies. In the run-up to the eventual privatisation of the laboratory, another 200 eminent scientists--some of the best in their field--left the facility. The whole sorry saga led to the resignation of the DTI's chief scientific adviser because of a disagreement with the President of the Board of Trade about the way in which the DTI was forcing privatisation on the laboratory.

The laboratory was eventually sold in August last year to Assessment Services Ltd., a part of the Siemens group of companies. However, "sold" is undoubtedly the wrong

11 Jun 1996 : Column 210

expression, as the Minister for Science and Technology described it as being disposed of for "a negative£1.95 million". What does that mean? In effect, we gave that company £1.95 million of public money to take this national and unique resource off our hands. Similar cash bounties were applied to the disposal of the National Physics Laboratory and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. Clearly, all of us wish the purchasers of those facilities every success in the future--unlike the Government, they have the confidence to invest in the future of those facilities.

A number of points were made in the debate about the disposal of the national public sector research assets. The Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists has described this as the "mad options approach". That is an accurate description of the way in which the Government are handling the issue.

The House must consider what benefits will accrue to the nation from such an approach and in what way it will advance the delivery of the nation's science research and development activity. The scientific community and the industries that are dependent on the services provided by the establishments have a clear answer. They find no benefits flowing from the Government's approach and think that the nation's science and research base will suffer as a consequence.

That view has been expressed right across the scientific community, by directors of national institutes, foreign-based scientists who use the institutes, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Society and a range of other eminent people. Even the Government's supporters in the other place have been known to criticise their actions. Lord Selborne, the Chairman of the Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, has described the prior options review as a "pointless exercise" and said that it was an incompetent way in which to operate.

Unfortunately, we do not have enough time to debate at length many of the points that must be made. It is sad that a debate on a major issue affecting the country's national science and technology base had to be in Opposition time. There are many warning signals about what the Government are doing to that base. I have touched on only some of them. I hope that the Government will allow a detailed debate in their time on this issue and the wider ones around it.

There are too many important matters associated with the matter for it to be ignored, swept away and kept in secret as the Government have done with the prior options review on public sector research establishments. We have to find solutions that can enhance our science and technology base and not undermine it in the way that the Government's approach has.

---