| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
University Research Equipment
10. Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the equipment needs of UK universities for research purposes. [32117]
Mr. Jon Taylor: Research equipment and other needs of the science budget are assessed with advice from the Director General of Research Councils. The research councils are currently administering an equipment fund with the higher education funding councils.
Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister seen the recent survey, commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals with the higher education funding councils of England, Scotland and Wales, which concludes that four out of five university departments are unable to conduct critical experiments due to lack of funding? The survey also points out that the situation has deteriorated since the previous survey in 1987. In view of those facts, will the Minister abandon the folly of cutting university funding by half over the next three years and instead re-inject capital funding, as has been requested by the academic, business and industrial communities?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is selective in his quotation from the report. It also shows that 80 per cent. of universities consider that their equipment is better or at least adequate. That is an important factor. More than 52 per cent. consider that their equipment matches well with that of their international competition. The report is complex, not least because 91 universities responded, not all of which we would regard as being at the forefront of research. The figures must be examined closely.
We recognise, however, that universities have equipment problems which have an effect on research. That is why the Department of Trade and Industry, through the research councils, is administering a joint equipment budget, and why I have asked my officials to discuss with the vice-chancellors ways in which we can solve long-term problems, including a better way to allocate equipment between universities, a second-hand market and attempts to obtain bulk purchases. More details will be revealed when I am satisfied that we have got to the bottom of the problem.
Mr. Ingram:
I do not think that that answer will satisfy anyone who is interested in our science and research base, least of all the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the higher education funding councils. Is the Minister prepared to accept that their assessment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred, points out that there is a crisis in our science base and that cuts in research funding and equipment have seriously damaged our international competitiveness? If he is not prepared to accept that, I accuse him of indifference to what is happening to our
Mr. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman should read the reports with a good deal more consideration. It is a simple fact that 25 of our universities receive 70 per cent. of the total equipment budget. That means that they are the excellent universities in categories 4 and 5 in the research assessment exercise. We are keeping a close check to ensure that our research is up to standard and of the quality required.
There are many complicated factors. If we analyse the reports, we find that about 147 magnetic spectrometers are required by universities throughout the country. There has been no discussion to ascertain whether they are all required, whether there should be bulk purchase, or whatever. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that, in those circumstances, a more rational approach to the long-term problem of funding equipment in our universities is required, which is precisely what I have already worked on with my officials. Indeed, I have talked to Professor Gareth Roberts, the vice-chancellor of Sheffield university.
11. Mr. Rendel:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make the regulations covering pyramid selling more restrictive. [32118]
Mr. John M. Taylor:
The Government fully support the provisions of the Trading Schemes Bill, which has just had its Second Reading in another place. The Bill will extend the application of existing controls on pyramid selling to money circulation schemes. As and when it becomes law, we will introduce revised regulations.
Mr. Rendel:
Does the Minister agree with me in welcoming the proposed changes and agree further that anyone who becomes involved in such a money-changing scheme is ill advised? Does he agree also that the public would be well advised to avoid such schemes like the plague?
Mr. Taylor:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I remind him of what Sir Richard Scott said in the High Court about a recent case, and one that the hon. Gentleman knows about. He said that it was
Mrs. Dunwoody:
The Minister will be aware that in some instances 400 or 500 people at a time are being enticed into crazy schemes that require them to put up large sums with no visible return of any sort. Will he therefore make his views public so that people throughout the country are aware that the schemes are a straightforward scam? As soon as the law becomes operational, I hope that many people will find themselves in the courts.
Mr. Taylor:
I accept the hon. Lady's sentiments entirely. My most immediate opportunity to make my views public is now. I remind the House that, in the past
"highly unsatisfactory, highly suspicious and thoroughly undesirable".
The hon. Gentleman is right to warn his constituents, and I mine.
British Energy
12. Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sale of British Energy. [32119]
Mr. Lang: Good progress continues to me made on the sale of British Energy. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy announced last week, the final date for registration is 24 June and the UK public offer opens on 26 June.
Mr. Smith: The Minister for Industry and Energy recently dismissed the independent report produced by Dr. Sadniki on the liabilities associated with the sale of the nuclear power industry as absolute garbage. As the Minister failed to justify that assertion in yesterday evening's debate, would the President of the Board of Trade attempt to do so today?
Mr. Lang: The report is so full of misconceptions and inaccuracies that it would be impossible to do so in an answer to an oral question. There are a number of misconceptions and the figures do not relate the accurate position. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the prospectus.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the nuclear industry in being able, in effect, to return most of the non-fossil fuel levy to consumers means that people's bills will rapidly become smaller? Is it not a complete con on the public for Opposition Members to suggest that they could raise £3 billion out of utilities such as electricity without once more increasing energy prices?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fall in the levy from 10 to 3.7 per cent. will be worth about £15 to £20 off the average household bill. He is also right to draw attention to the wide difference in approach between the two parties. Our view is that the benefits that come from privatisation should continue to go to the consumer, as they are doing; whereas the Labour party wants to impose windfall taxes, which would penalise consumers, impose a new tax burden and strongly discourage precisely the competitive approach that is so improving the service of utilities in this country.
Manufacturing Output
13. Mr. Olner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the output of manufactured goods in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (i) in 1979 and (ii) at present. [32120]
- The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Since 1979, the share of manufacturing in total output has fallen by a quarter in both the OECD as a whole and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Olner: The Under-Secretary has obviously put the best spin he possibly can on those figures. Will he confirm that, since 1979, 2.76 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry, and during that period this country slipped from 13th to 18th place in the world prosperity league?
Mr. Oppenheim: In the unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman finds himself standing in the position I am in now, I suspect that he would also try to put a good spin on whatever figures are fed to him. I suspected that he might quote the Institute of Management Development report rather than the World Economic Forum report, which showed Britain's position rising from 18th to 15th place. In a totally non-partisan spirit, however, I am happy to stick to the IMD report that he quoted and point out that the countries that it shows have made the most improvement over the past decade are Hong Kong--the free market capital of Asia--and Chile and New Zealand, which perhaps have made even more progress over the past decade than this country in deregulating and opening markets. That is hardly an endorsement of Labour policies, whatever they may be today.
Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the aerostructure industry plays an important part in our manufacturing output? On that basis, does he agree that overseas success is dependent on a strong home base? Will he make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that, when the Nimrod replacement or refurbishment programme is determined, British Aerospace at Prestwick gets a fair look in?
Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is, as ever, a good advocate for his own constituency. He is right to point out that two high-tech industries that have done well in Britain over the past 17 years are pharmaceuticals and aerospace. Close to my own constituency is Rolls-Royce plc, which was almost written off as a basket case in the 1970s but which has since trebled its share of commercial aero-engines and is now a successful, profitable company.
Mr. Hoon: Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding the Government's extravagant claims about the current state of the British economy, the 0.3 per cent. decline in manufacturing output in April compared to March and the fall in manufacturing output in each of the previous two quarters means that the British economy is in recession?
Mr. Oppenheim: No, I do not agree, not surprisingly. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the past quarter, manufacturing in Britain rose at a time when it is stagnant or falling in the rest of Europe. I ask him, because I know that he has an expansive mind, to look at the big picture. During the 1980s and 1990s, Britain's manufacturing productivity growth was the fastest of all the major economies in the world. Our manufacturing output has grown faster than that in all the other major
European Union countries. I also remind him that, when his party was last in power, our manufacturing productivity growth was bottom of the league of major nations and our manufacturing productivity output actually fell.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest contribution that any Government can make to help manufacturing industry is to maintain a stable economic climate and, above all, keep inflation down? The Government have been very successful at that. I really wonder how the Opposition, with their appalling record on inflation, which destroyed jobs in manufacturing industry, have the impertinence even to question this.
Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. Not only was the record of the great macho men of manufacturing on the Opposition Benches one of falling manufacturing output and stagnant bottom-of-the-league manufacturing productivity, but hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing were lost every year under the previous Labour Government. Perhaps that is why the report that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) quoted showed Britain's competitiveness above that of France and Italy, while the World Economic Forum report showed it above that of Germany as well.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |