| Higher Education Bill
|
|
Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman over-eggs this issue. He talks about a proliferation of expenditure and of committees. Clause 10 replicates the powers already held by the science research councils, so if there is a proliferation, we have not seen it. Regarding our arts and humanities, the ability to create these kinds of bodies is necessary to keep up with developments. As an example, who would have thought 10 years ago that we would need to have the kind of advisory bodies that we have now on cloning, including its religious aspects, and on the ethical issues of surrogacy? Those are very important issues. The Government need those bodies to advise on priorities, strategies and specific issues.
3.45 pmThe hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell says that we have a track record of spending on all types of advisory bodies, but does not mention that we have a track record of spending on research. The Dearing report of 1997 was scathing about the reduction of our research base over the previous 10 years. The £1.25 billion that is the latest tranche of money under the spending review aimed to rectify that situation. I doubt whether in any of our competitor countries—the US or Column Number: 65 elsewhere—would be arguing about the need to set up advisory bodies. The basic obsession would be ensuring the proper funding for research. We are proud that we put huge investment into research. That money has not been siphoned off into a proliferation of expenditure on advisory bodies.There are a number of important strategic advisory bodies. I have mentioned some in the field of arts and humanities. While I would love to agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I do not think that the British Academy is an advisory body in the context of this debate. However, we do have a number of such bodies. There is the Scottish Science Advisory Committee, which reports specifically to the Scottish Executive. There is the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which reports to both the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations. If anyone, including the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, has felt that they are unnecessary or a waste of expenditure, they have not raised it before. In fact, I think that almost everybody, across all parties in the House of Commons, would think that their work was necessary.
Mr. Thomas: Would the Secretary of State give way? [
The Minister mentioned the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. I believe that that is the body that has lately advised the Government on GM crops. That underlines the importance of the advisory boards and the vital role that they play in public policy making based on good scientific research.
Alan Johnson: I wish that people would get my title right, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the issue. That is an important example of the need to have an advisory body. The research councils would not perform that function, nor should they. In fact, they would benefit from the advisory groups that are set up under the clause. Clause 10 enables the Secretary of State, and each devolved Administration, to establish and appoint members of similar bodies for the arts and humanities, as they do for the other research councils. I hope hon. Members would be satisfied that those powers are necessary.
It would be a failing of considerable magnitude not to allow the Bill unamended, because the basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is misplaced. It is easy, in any environment, to talk about Government spending money on and paying salaries for advisory boards. I understand that that is fair game for all politicians. We must look at the essential element—what that money provides. In this case, there is no evidence of proliferation over the past 40 years with the other research councils. There is evidence that the work that the advisory bodies do is necessary and important. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Column Number: 66
Chris Grayling: I have listened to the Minister's response with interest. I obviously understand the issue that he raised about the number of ethical areas that have arisen in the past 10 years, where Government have sought guidance. The point about the situation is that the Government are delegating responsibility to the councils for the distribution of funding for research, for deciding research priorities and for considering where the gaps are. The additional advisory bodies impose an extra layer in that decision-making process. The Government refers first to an advisory body on, for example, mediaeval history to ask it what should be done, and then offer a mandate to the arts and humanities research council as to what it should do, which then goes through its own process of decision-making. Surely, in a simplified, streamlined system without a proliferation of organisations, issues concerning ethics and changes of knowledge and technology within the different councils could and should be addressed by them in dialogue with the Government. Is it really necessary to have advisory bodies?
That is the nub of the question behind the amendment. It has become all too easy in recent years, when there is a difficult issue to address, for the Government to create an organisation of experts to think about it. Sometimes, there is a strong argument for saying that that process could and should happen within the existing organisational structures so that the additional layers of cost imposed by the creation of a multiplicity of organisations are not incurred.
I do not intend to delay the Committee and there will be plenty of opportunity for a future Conservative Government to address the proliferation of advisers. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Grayling: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in
The amendments would remove subsections (2), (3) and (4), which offer the National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department the power to
and to set up the advisory bodies. The arts and humanities research council is a United Kingdom body set up to further, encourage and develop research throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that, in the context of the words of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) who represents Plaid
Column Number: 67
There is a serious question about the burden placed on the organisation in terms of the political reporting lines that it goes through. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) require it to work not only with the Secretary of State in London to give it a United Kingdom perspective, but with the Assembly in Wales, Ministers in Scotland, the Northern Ireland Office and perhaps subsequently the Assembly. There is a question about the degree to which it is sensible for a single nation—I believe that we are still a single nation—to have such a diverse involvement in the shaping of issues, many of which are not only national but international.
I read out a sample of research projects and many are not about the United Kingdom or Wales, but about Neapolitan literature, aboriginal rights in Siberia, trends in modern culture and literature, and so on. They are not usually specifically Welsh, Scottish or English projects. For example, they may include a project by academic or research students, at universities in Wales and so on, with a particular interest in and doing some work on Norse mythology. Such projects are of international and national importance; they are not projects of Welsh, Scottish, English or Northern Irish importance.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that a recent project at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth—I came across it last Friday night after watching ''The Return of the King''—was a research project on ''The Lord of the Rings''.
Chris Grayling: That gives rise to many questions, including that of where the Lord of the Rings is.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very serious point because that is a cultural phenomenon that goes far beyond Wales and England; it is an international phenomenon. There is therefore a question about the degree to which it is prudent to make the devolved Assemblies a reference point for the AHRC—individual, national focal points within the United Kingdom as opposed to the United Kingdom itself as a national focal point. It will place extra burdens on the organisation, requiring more people to travel to and fro, or to be based in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, dealing with officials in Departments in those countries as well as the Secretary of State and her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills in London. Is that truly prudent? As the AHRC is a United Kingdom body, should it not mean that it is only a United Kingdom body? Its work does not necessarily need the participation of politicians in different parts of the United Kingdom.
I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification about the links he envisages and an explanation of why it is necessary to spread out the political contacts of the organisation to the degree foreseen in the measure.
Column Number: 68
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 10 February 2004 |
