The
Chairman: Order. My expertise is handling monkey business
in Committee.
Mr.
Ellwood: At which, of course, you are equally able,
Mr. OHara.
I agree with the tacit
endorsement to the orders given by my hon. Friend the Member for
Wealden. Our concern is that we are seeing a demise in manufacturing
industry in the United Kingdom, and that we have plummeted in the
league for competitiveness and economic growth. It is therefore good to
see an order that reduces the number of bodies rather than one that
creates a new one.
Bearing that in mind, I shall
start with the Technology Strategy Board. The Minister said that the
chairman of the new board will be Graham Spittle. When is he likely to
start work, and what will his salary be? Will he be expected to
distance himself from his other interests? What influence will the
Department have in the selection of the other board members? My hon.
Friend mentioned the political connections that can sometimes mar a
boards judgment. Will the members of the board have to retire
or otherwise exempt themselves from their other connections, so that
they do not have undue influence, given the competitive nature of the
large sums involved?
It is good that the research
council will see the merging of three organisations, but I do not
recall the Minister explaining the composition of the board. It may be
too early for such details to be available, but I hope that he can give
us an indication of the chairmans salary and the cost of
running the boards. Both boards will be looking after large sums of
money, and we need to understand how Parliament will scrutinise their
work. The Minister
touched on the role of the regional development agencies in working
with the new Technology Strategy Board. I have yet to be convinced of
the value of the development agencies. For me, the
jury is still out as to their usefulness. Bournemouth is covered by the
South West of England Regional Development Agency. Many businesses do
not understand what it is supposed to do nor what its benefits are. I
hope that the Minister will expand on how the RDAs are meant to work
with the new organisations.
In general, I support the move,
particularly because it will reduce the number of
bodies.
5.3
pm Mark
Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): The
proposals are excellent; they are very much in line with the
Governments support for science and technology, to which some
Opposition Members have referred.
I congratulate the Minister on
his new responsibilities. Will he explain how the work of the new board
and the council will benefit academic institutions and others involved
in research and technological development in all parts of the United
Kingdom? It is not simply a question of allocating resources on a
regional or national basis just for the sake of it. He will agree, I am
sure, that the boards must take account of the interests of the entire
UK. I should be grateful if he could expand on that point.
The proposals illustrate the
benefit to the entire country of the constitutional arrangements that
bring Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England together. It
emphasises once again the advantages to the entire UK that are to be
gained from the progressive policies being pursued by the Government.
5.4
pm Mr.
Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD): First,
Mr. OHara, I welcome you to the Chair. I apologise
profusely for my late arrival. I blame the Government entirely for
that: the train did not arrive on time.
I welcome the Minister to his
new responsibilities. It is a delight to face him in Committee, and I
wish him well. I shall not add to what was said by my hon. Friend the
Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, but I am delighted that the
Minister with responsibility for these issues is now in the Commons. I
know from our exchanges with his predecessor that the Select Committee
on Science and Technology enjoyed a warm and productive relationship
with his Department. I
do not want to repeat a great deal of what my hon. Friend said, because
I think that the Committee would become extremely irritated with
that.
Mr.
Willis: The hon. Gentleman asks for more, but we shall try
to rein ourselves in. I
welcome both these proposals, as they are eminently sensible. I shall
deal first with the establishment of the Technology Strategy Board. It
must be right, if we are spending some £3.4 billion in relation
to basic science, that we then move on and ensure that we get the
greatest return on that investment, and the greatest return is to
ensure that we have good transational research and good knowledge
transfer. The Technology Strategy Board has a good leader in Graham
Spittle; he will lead the new board well. Obviously, in years to come,
the proof will be in the pudding in terms of whether that change has
made a significant
difference. With regard
to the Science and Technology Facilities Council, or the STFC as it
will become known, the proposal to bring together the PPARC, the CCLRC
and aspects of the EPSRC makes eminent sense. I was pleased that the
Minister rejected the proposals by the EPSRC to have the small
grant-making body moved from the PPARC to the EPSRC, because that
genuinely would be a mistake. Once we start to divide, in our minds,
the large facilities from the small-scale research, we are missing a
trick. It is important that we maintain the position. In particular, it
was important to see nuclear physics and the Rutherford and Daresbury
centres moved into the mainstream in terms of physics and particle
physics. It is good to see that
develop. May I ask a
specific question about the budget? It is clear, when looking at the
explanatory notes, that the three aspects of the CCLRC, PPARC and EPSRC
are aggregated to form the new budget, but I was somewhat surprised
that we are not making any administrative savings as a result of
putting those three organisations together. Although an explanatory
note says that there will be more back-office staff, perhaps the
Minister will explain why we are not making significant administrative
savings as a result of putting those three parts of the organisation
together so that we can release more funds for basic or transational
research.
Dr.
Harris: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene on
my hon. Friend to ask himit is really a way of asking an extra
questionwhether he shares my concern, which has been raised by
some, that the CCLRC enters next year in deficit. The concern is about
what the impact will be on the overall budget, the grant-giving budget,
rather than necessarily the administrative
budget
The
Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman intervening on his
hon. Friend? He is addressing the
Minister.
Dr.
Harris: No, I am asking my hon. Friend whether he agrees
with meI was looking to you, Mr.
OHarathat it would be a concern if the new body was
handicapped by a deficit carried in when it started, because of the
likely deficit that I hear arises in the CCLRC
budget.
Mr.
Willis: I am sure that the Minister heard my hon.
Friends comments and will respond in due course, but my hon.
Friend knows that we await the new comprehensive spending review. I
hope that the setting up of the new body will be the subject of a
generous settlement in that review. Indeed, I am sure that the Minister
will confirm in his closing remarks that that is the
case. The other budget
issue that is of concern is what will happen to the large facilities
that are in the pipeline. The Minister announced a number of major
developments that will take place over coming years,
which have been agreed by the various research councils. I am
particularly interested in what will happen to the National Institute
for Medical Research. The budget for that has been agreed. I gather
that the Treasury is checking out the figures, but will the Minister
assure the Committee that those major proposals will, subject to the
normal scrutiny, go ahead and that there will not be a period in which
everything goes back to the drawing board? I might be looking for
problems that do not exist, but it would be good if he could reaffirm
that point. The
resources of the smaller facilities, such as the Merlin radio
telescope, are tiny as compared with those of some of the major
facilities, which the new STFC will look after. However, will the
Minister assure the Committee that those important parts of the
astronomy community will be protected? How do we propose to protect
them against the huge calls on budget from the larger facilities? Also
on budgets, does the Minister anticipate any changes in our
subscriptions to the major facilities, particularly to the European
Space Agency, from the space budget? Are any of those proposals up for
grabs again and will any be re-examined? If they are, we need to know
as soon as possible, so that those communities can get on with their
work. Overall, the
proposals are superb. They make good sense and the science community is
solidly behind them. I wish the Minister and the new facilities
well. 5.11
pm
Malcolm
Wicks: Although this has been a relatively short debate,
it has been a useful one. I thank those who made generous remarks about
my appointment. Lord Sainsbury was a fine and distinguished Minister
for Science and Innovation, and I rather hope that in future the only
difference between him and me will not simply be the fact that I sat in
the House of Commons. I look forward to discussing the issues with
colleagues in different arenas.
As is usual on such occasions, I
hope that hon. Members will recognise that I may respond in writing to
some of the points that were raised. The Liberal Democrat spokesman,
the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, raised a number of
particularly thoughtful issues, on which I should like to reflect,
rather than trying to respond to now, off the cuff. After his
expression of thanks, the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for
Wealden, continued somewhat mischievously with his concern that even
members of the Labour party might sit on the board. The right people
will be on the board and, strangely enough, they sometimes come from
different parties. There will be people of experience and expertise.
Some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, such as climate
change, will no doubt be of great importance tothe board. It
is important that some of the boards major priorities should
reflect the concerns of the Government and Parliament, while retaining
its independence as a research council.
A number of issues were raised
about costs. As has been noted, the merger costs of the STFC are
believed to be in the region of £500,000. There will be some
savings for the TSB, because the location, in Swindon, will mean that
the back-up facilities of all the research
councils will come into play. If I can say anything more about costs in
writing, I shall. We are moving from an advisory board, which already
exists, to a board with an executive function. Clearly the costs of
those different approaches will be reflected in the overall costs. I am
also advised that for the STFC there will be no increase in the number
of council members, which has an implication for cost. Indeed, there
will be only six members, rather than around 10 members in each of the
other councils. Part
of the funding for the Energy Technologies Institute is likely to be
channelled through the new Technology Strategy Board, which confirms my
earlier remarks about the importance of that area of
policy. I am sorry if I
do not get some of the answers in the right order, but the Liberal
Democrat spokesman asked a number of questions. In general, we are all
committed to technology transfer and innovation. Although that is a
challenge for a number of different bodies and parts of government, one
of the major vehicles in achieving it in future will be through the new
Technology Strategy Board, and that is in line with our concern about
innovation. Funds will be allocated to the board in the normal way,
depending on the comprehensive spending review. We hope that adequate
funding will be provided, given the priority that we give to the
matter. As I have said, one of the differences is the move from an
advisory body to an executive body.
On the matter of the board being
business led, the new chairman has a distinguished record in business
through IBM, and many other members of the board will reflect that
business background. A number of colleagues asked about conflicts of
interest, which are an issue in all walks of life from Parliament to
bodies such as those that we are establishing. Safeguards are in place
for people to declare their interests as are procedures whereby people
can absent themselves from making any decisions that might reflect
their business interests. I would be loth to see people having to give
up their business interests, because their business expertise is
important.
Mr.
Ellwood: These questions are not flippant; I appreciate
the fact that the Minister is answering them. Let us take the example
of the decisions that have been made about the Olympic games and the
building of the various structures, which are happening in parallel
with the creation of these bodies. A lot of questions have been raised
both in the media and in the House about how the agreements and
sign-ups have been done. The concern is to ensure that we do not end up
going down that path in any way.
Malcolm
Wicks: The Office of the Commissioner for Public
Appointments has clear rules about such matters, given the importance
of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises. In terms of
declarations of interest, in the United Kingdom, we have probably one
of the highest records of standards in that, but it is always important
that we are probed on such issues so that any new board, such as that
proposed, has the highest standards.
Mr.
Jones: Does my hon. Friend also agree that it was a Labour
Government who brought in the high standards that give transparency to
such appointments, and that that was not given by the last Conservative
Government?
Malcolm
Wicks: My hon. Friend presses me hard on that issue, and
the answer to that question is yes.
Dr.
Harris: Before the Minister moves on from the subject of
the body being business focused, as I sense that he was about to, I
understand what he said about the body being business led because the
chairman is a business man. However, given that he has described the
board as business led, will he reassure us that the business-oriented
people on the board will not say Our decisions must be business
led, against the view of scientists and others on the board?
Will he reassure us that the intention is not that, but rather that
personnel on the board will have business
experience?
Malcolm
Wicks: It is important that the board should reflect a
wide variety of concerns. Essentially, we are concerned that the
science that we undertake in Britainwhich is first
classshould be properly transferred to the benefit of the whole
economy and the whole society. I am approaching this task in a general
way, and not in what the hon. Gentleman might regard as a narrow
commercial manner. I am happy to enter into correspondence with him on
the matter, preferably at a later
date.
Dr.
Harris: I am hoping to save the Minister from having to
send correspondence on the issue. He described the body as business
led, and an alternative would have been science led. Unless it is
dually led, it cannot be both. The concernand the
talkhas been that it will be led by commercial interests, and
that if there is a tough decision to be made, the board will come down
on what business wants rather than what the science says. It would be
helpful if he could clarify that point now because otherwise he may
leave the impression, certainly with me, that business will always win
those arguments on the board.
|