Government Science Laboratories: Review (Hansard, 12 April 1994)

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, following the White Paper Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology, which foreshadowed that efficiency scrutiny, the terms of reference were announced on 2nd February and the bodies to be covered by the scrutiny team on 3rd March.

§ Baroness White
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Has she read the special press release on this matter issued by the Royal Society? It states: The current way that the scrutiny exercise is being conducted does not give us confidence that it can provide a secure basis for decision-making". Is the noble Baroness aware of the emergency meeting for senior officers of our own parliamentary and scientific committee as they were going into Recess, to discuss with Sir Peter Levene and the Government Efficiency Unit their deep concerns as to the haste with which this scrutiny exercise has been conducted, the failure to consult any senior scientist and that the 90 working days which are to be allowed for public comment after the report is received —I understand that that is likely to be early in May—will bring us well into the Summer Recess? There is considerable anxiety in the scientific world as to the way in which the scrutiny is being conducted and how it will affect the work of thousands of our best scientists in government employ.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am aware of the press release to which the noble Baroness referred. I agree that it is a demanding timetable but we believe that it is achievable. I do not accept the other points made by the noble Baroness. It is an open exercise well foreshadowed in the White Paper and the terms of reference and the bodies that were to be subject to the review were subsequently announced.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor cannot in any way be accused of lack of openness. On 16th June 1387 1993 my right honourable friend informed Parliament that the scrutiny would be undertaken by the Efficiency Unit in conjunction with government departments. He gave quite clearly and openly the methods that should be used, and that also was made public. There is a feed-in from all the institutions and the scientists within them. The Chief Scientist, Professor William Stewart, will have an input into the exercise. Members from the Royal. Society have been to see Professor Stewart and corresponded with my right honourable friend, and their concerns will be taken into account. Finally, on each occasion my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated that it would be normal practice for the Efficiency Unit reports to be published.

§ Lord Morris of Castle Morris
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the magazine New Scientist when it makes the point that the public may not like the idea of a laboratory owned by the cattle industry advising Ministers on whether or not British beef is safe to eat after BSE? Can she assure the House that it will be impossible for such a situation to arise?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I do not always agree with the magazine New Scientist. However, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is an important one. This is an efficiency exercise and will not do anything to inhibit the mission of each of the bodies. If their mission is that they be required to give advice to any Whitehall department, then nothing in the efficiency reviews should inhibit their ability to do that.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, is it not time that the Government thought again about whether efficiency is in fact efficient?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, extremely large sums of money are being spent on this aspect of research. It is important that the maximum possible efficiency is squeezed out of the system in order to ensure that the resources available go towards making sure that we have better science.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is anxiety that a reduction in the budget could result in the loss of several hundred skilled jobs? That would be a considerable loss to the country, to commerce generally and to the academic field. Can the Minister say whether there is any justification for that anxiety?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am not in a position to pre-empt the outcome of the scrutiny team's work and the reports that will flow from it. However, the whole exercise is about making sure that every pound spent through these bodies or any subsequent bodies that arise from the scrutiny reports is spent to good effect. It is about extracting as much value as possible for the money that is spent.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the idea of an Efficiency Unit in this Government is rather laughable? Is she further aware that 30,000 scientists are involved in the institutions which are being investigated by the 1388 Efficiency Unit? Is it the case that the team has told unions that because of the timetable there is no time to consult the unions at local level? What does that mean?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I totally refute the first comments of the noble Lord. Each of the establishments, the people within them and indeed the trade unions within them will have an input into the whole exercise.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, perhaps the, noble Baroness will kindly answer my last question. Have the unions been told that there will be no consultation at local level with trade unions because of the haste with which the exercise is being conducted?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, what is appropriate at local level is that local people within the establishments have a proper input. At local level some of the members. of staff of the establishments will be trade union members. As always, input from trade unions will take place at national level.