HC Deb 18 December 1958 vol 597 cc1329-45

12.39 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Wiley (Sunderland, North)

I am greatly obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting the subject of Government aid to science as one of the matters to be discussed today. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is equally obliged. It is unfortunate that Parliament does not have more opportunities to discuss a matter which is of vital concern to us all.

I am raising this matter today especially because, a few weeks ago, when I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about the resources devoted to scientific research for civil purposes, he gave a very complacent reply. He quoted figures which, on the face of them, appeared to be not unfavourable, but he made no allowance for the falling value of the £, and did not reply to my further question about the figures for the quinquennium. I hope that he can provide some encouraging information about that this afternoon.

I am sure that my view, that we are not devoting sufficient resources to scientific research, is generally shared. This is certainly the view of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and I would call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to its conclusion, which is contained in its last Report. It says: We gravely doubt the adequacy of these resources for all that we are charged to do, embracing as it does not only the undertaking and support of both pure and applied research to meet the needs of industry and the civil needs of Government, but also the provision of grants for training scientists and technologists and for helping British academic research maintain its world position. In those industries that do not benefit directly from research done primarily for defence purposes the value of production approaches £10,000 million a year. By contrast, the Department receives less than £10 million a year for all its activities. This is a view which is echoed in the last Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy.

Again, I call the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to what it says: The resources devoted to civil research and development have been, and still are, far too small for a country whose competitive position in world trade is dependent upon the economic development of new products and new processes and where the achievement of a rising standard of living must depend mainly upon our success in increasing the productivity of the labour force. I hope that the Home Secretary, at any rate, has read that paragraph of the Report. if we are to increase our standard of living we have got to devote far more resources to scientific research. This is not only a question of finance, but also one of the recognition and public esteem which we afford to science generally.

We often turn to the Soviet Union, but by way of change I turn to the United States. I think that the National Science Board of the United States has a position entirely different from that of D.S.I.R. or any comparable body in this country. I would call in aid the statement recently made by the chairman of the Board when he said that the Board was permeated by devotion to the belief that the furtherance of science enriches the intellectual and spiritual life of the people of our country, broadens and deepens the quality of our culture and ennobles our national ideals. I think that we in this country have to try to take a similar approach to science. Science will certainly affect not only the way in which we live, but also the way in which we think. We should take a bolder approach to science—as the Americans are trying to do.

To return to this country. Without entering into the arguments as to how much the resources should come from within the different sectors of industry itself and how much they should be State-aided, and without necessarily entirely accepting the American concept, even if we look forward with more materialistic purposes, I think that it is quite clear that what we need is a more wholehearted support for fundamental and basic research. It is here, I think, that we have a good deal of cause for concern.

To avoid generalities I will particularise for a moment by calling in aid a fairly recent article in Nature about matters which come, I think, within the province of the Parliamentary Secretary. It says: How far successive British post-war Governments have been from such an approach can be demonstrated by referring to their treatment of Recommendations of the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy regarding the National Lending and Reference Libraries for Science and Technology, the shelving of the whole project for a Science Centre, and the futilities which in the name of economy have recently interrupted work on the Isaac Newton Telescope and the appointment of an administrator with no scientific, technological or legal training in the comptrollership of the Patent Office. Even the admitted shortage of scientists and technologists has not brought the Government to appreciate what is wrong, or to take the steps that would avoid the present wastage of man-power and lead to greater efficiency, and real and not imaginary economies. I am quoting Nature with a clear conscience, because these are all matters which I have raised in the House at Question Time and upon which I feel that I have had unsatisfactory Answers from the Parliamentary Secretary.

This is a matter which is even more important today because we have this lack of appreciation of the importance of scientific research against the changing pattern and scope of defence expenditure. It so happens that defence in itself as an objective provides an impetus. We have had a good deal of scientific research which has been invaluable to civil research in the guise of defence expenditure. In fact, I believe that if we take the whole £300 million which is expended annually on research only £68 million has, in fact, been provided by private industry. Therefore, now is the time to concentrate on the importance of scientific research. This is a much wider subject than mere aeronautical research, a matter which will be discussed later today.

First, as I say, I think that we have to face the problem of the lessening of an impetus which has been a real driving power behind scientific research in the last few years. We have also to pay attention to the fact that thousands of scientists and many more assistants will be thrown out of the work which they are at present carrying on. This will provide a problem for all those interested in research. It will also, incidentally, create a misleading impression.

There has been a good deal of concentration on the problem of the shortage of scientific manpower, and the release of some of these scientists engaged in defence research may, unfortunately, detract from the attention that we have to give to the question of getting a greater scientific manpower. But there are other problems which arise from these redundancies. The first is that it is very important to keep many of these people together in the teams in which they have been working. Scientific research nowadays is very much a team effort. We do not want disintegration where it can be avoided.

We can still ill afford—I know that scientific research is an extraordinary difficult problem, and I would not generalise about it—to evade main priorities. We have to see that as we are short of scientific manpower we make the best use of such talents as we have available. There is a very real risk, if some of these scientists become redundant on defence work, that they might not be employed in the most profitable work elsewhere.

This is a matter in which the Government ought to assist, but I would emphasise the three major propositions which I am putting to the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is that the Government, I believe, must be mainly responsible for fundamental and basic research, and that this is a matter of wider importance than merely scientific research. Anyone who listened to Professor Lovell's Reith Lectures would realise that this is something fundamental to our way of living in society. The second is that, even apart from fundamental and basic research, a good deal of scientific research has, probably, to be Government-aided in one form or another. We certainly cannot afford to neglect requisite research because of the failure of civil industry to devote sufficient resources to it.

The third problem that remains is that we have, by one means or another, to persuade industry to devote more resources to research. This is not a reflection on all sectors of industry, but it is a reflection on many of its sectors. I would accept the figure frequently given of I per cent. of turnover of the manufacturing industry as the figure which ought to be spent by it on research. If this is a requisite target, there is some responsiblity on the Government for seeing that we reach that target, because this is a vital matter to the future progress of Britain. We cannot afford to go on making unfavourable comparisons between ourselves and the Soviet Union or the United States, which, on a comparable basis spend twice as much as we do on research.

I was very pleased to see that the Minister of Supply made a statement yes-day which I thought was very constructive, and is probably a very profitable path to follow. As I understand, he was recognising that many of the research facilities in Government hands might not be fully employed for defence, and he is seeking to find what use we can make of these facilities for private industry. I welcome that sort of approach, which would meet some of the objectives which I have mentioned.

Finally, I should like to say a word or two about the D.S.I.R. I do so humbly, because I am not an expert in these matters. I put forward the suggestion, with no reflection on Sir Harry Jephcott, that we ought possibly now to consider the appointment of a full-time chairman for the D.S.I.R. I feel that we should try, in the light of what I have said, to increase the status and authority of the D.S.I.R. It seems to me, and I say this with a good deal of circumspection, that the D.S.I.R. has lost ground over the past few months.

D.S.I.R. may be affected by the general Governmental objective to secure economy, and no one would complain about that in itself, but D.S.I.R. ought not to be distracted from the major driving purpose of ensuring greater resources for scientific research. I have no objection to the proposition that facilities should be available within private industry wherever possible, but I do not want Government aid for research to be hampered by such an objective, because it is dangerous.

Some of the steps which have really been taken, such as the Pest Infection Laboratory being transferred to A.R.C. and the Forestry Products Research Laboratory being transferred to the Timber Development Association, are steps which may have been taken on grounds which I cannot criticise, but they leave some doubt and they have not been dealt with very satisfactorily; and that brings me to the question of the N.P.L. Microbiology Group. This has had a good deal of publicity recently and I cannot speak on the merits of it, because I am not expert on these matters, and, therefore, it would be very wrong to express any view about it.

However, one can certainly criticise the way in which it has been done, because there has been no consultation with the head of the group, and no consultation, as far as I know, with the important people in the field of economic micrology. This may detract from the driving power and feeling of purpose which ought to be behind this research. I cannot express any views upon the merits of the steps taken, but I can say, and, I think, speak for all interested generally, that they are somewhat disturbed by the way in which it has been done. I hope that the Lord President of the Council is aware of this.

May I conclude by saying that I should have thought that his was an admirable appointment. Whatever we may say in criticism of the Lord President of the Council, he has an admirable vigour and vitality, though I think that it is sometimes misapplied in the political field. Quite frankly, I would say that I was one of those who very much welcomed his appointment as Minister of Education. I thought that his lively and original mind might have contributed much in that sphere. He has a fine opportunity here, and I should like the Lord President to devote far more of his talents, and ability, drive and vigour to ensuring that sufficient attention is paid to scientific research.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort (Clitheroe)

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), because I should like to echo his praise of the present occupant of the office of Lord President of the Council. He is a worthy successor to those remarkable Lords President we have had since the end of the war, whom, I think, have had added to the prestige and drive which has undoubtedly developed in this country in scientific fields.

I should like to make two comments on the hon. Gentleman's speech, which, if we had more time, might lead to a wider and profitable discussion. We are all agreed about some Government responsibility for fundamental research, but surely it is only in a limited field that that is true, because the right place for fundamental research, I should have thought, is in the universities. Where the Government have to come in is where enormously expensive equipment is needed, as for example, in fields like nuclear physics, in which, perhaps, we have overcome the problem at the present time, aerodynamics, and in telecommunications. In these fields, there is a genuine place for the Government, and we have to give a good deal more thought to how best a Government can help.

The other point concerns the recent difficulties of the problem of defence expenditure and the research which has arisen from it, the problem of redundancy which may occur as defence expenditures are reduced, and what will happen to the teams of scientists who have been working on research arising from defence projects. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned priorities in research, which, I agree, is a very sensitive subject, and I should, therefore, like to address a few remarks to this last point of priorities.

I think that, with the four research councils, we have a mechanism which, in part, has been working well for determining research priorities and sets a pattern which could be more widely applied than it has been so far. There are two older bodies, the Medical Research Council and the D.S.I.R., and the more recent ones, one going back to about twenty-five years ago and the other a post-war development, the Agricultural Research Council and the Nature Conservancy. They discussed their duties very interestingly in the University Grants Committee's Report for 1952–57. They provide alternative sources of funds to the universities so that those who have lines of research which they wish to pursue have other sources of money than the universities or charitable foundations to whom they can apply. If the most obvious sources will not take an interest and give grants.

The research councils have done a splendid job in stimulating lines of research which, for the reason I mentioned just now, may have been neglected for a time. The outstanding position which this country has gained in the fields of biophysics and in virology, and the Nobel Prize winners who have benefited from research council grants is a credit to the work which has been done by the research councils in spotting these fields of research needing money even before it was clear to the universities.

The other thing the research councils have been able to do is to deal directly with university departments engaged in research. One of the problems always presented to the University Grants Committee is that it had to give money for the whole university, leaving the university to sort out which departments should have the money. The research councils have been able to give help to the individual departments and individual workers and so have taken off the shoulders of the University Grants Committee the invidious job of choosing between different departments and research workers.

The sums of money which the research councils disbursed is about £10 million a year, or one-third less than the universities are spending on research work. So they are undoubtedly playing an important part, confirmed in financial terms, in the development of fundamental research in universities and institutions outside universities. The need for them has been proved by their past success in stimulating work in directions which might have been otherwise neglected, and by the amount of money which they are disbursing and which are of the same order as those spent by the universities themselves.

I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary on the general policy of the Government towards science. We want to maintain, in speeding up research and giving it greater prestige, a policy of diversity. We cannot tolerate anywhere in the intellectual life of this country that we should look just to one centre for getting the money for going ahead with ideas. I hope that we may hear from the Government that they not only recognise the importance of the research councils, but regard them as a symbol of the need for diversity, which is essential if we are to continue increasing the standard and the rate of scientific research here.

1.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls)

I know it would be my noble Friend's wish that my first words should be to accept with thanks the kindly comments that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made about the personal qualities of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council. They were supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). For my own part, as the hon. Gentleman forecast, I can only say that I am grateful for having this opportunity to tell the House rather more about the Government's support for science than it is possible to do during the normal Question hour, contentious and keen though the hon. Member for Sunderland, North is during Question Time.

In the short time that I have at my disposal I shall, for the most part, confine my remarks to the Government's support for civil science. It is worthwhile to underline the fact that a good proportion of the great expenditure on the promotion of science for defence purposes produces many results which have important applications in civil industry. Not only in defence have we those byproducts. The Government funds made available to the Atomic Energy Authority on such a generous scale have secured for this country a leading position, if not the leading position, in the development of nuclear science for peaceful purposes. We have these things in our mind, but I do not want to dwell upon them in my short time today.

I would leave the House in no doubt that, in the development of civil science, this nation certainly has a success story to tell. It is a good thing to underline it, because one sometimes feels that some of our fellow-countrymen have a tinge of doubt whether we as a nation have recognised the importance of full scientific development as compared with some of the other great nations. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North did that to some extent today. I do not think that there need be any doubt at all on this score.

After all, it is results that count. Over a fairly broad front we can produce a really impressive list of results. For example there is our pure and applied scientific research on the atom. We can point to the brilliant work of our chemists which has brought three Nobel prizes to this country in the last three years, to Sir Alexander Todd. Sir Cyril Hinshelwood and Dr. Sanger. Then there is the development of the electronic computer, which may well revolutionise our way of life in the years immediately ahead. Nor must we forget, on the other side—this is a topic which I know interests the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—the benefit accruing now, and that will continue to accrue over the centuries, from the new knowledge obtained for the chemical control of agricultural weeds. These are dramatic results which often hit the headlines and I have underlined them again, but we have to remember that they are only a small part of the total achievement which flows from our general scientific research.

It is well to remind the House that since the war the general pattern of Government support for civil science has been directed through four main channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe referred to them and it is well to repeat them again. First, there is the research undertaken in the Government's own research institutions, grouped under the four research councils, the D.S.I.R., the Agricultural Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Nature Conservancy. Second, are Government grants to 49 research associations and similar bodies. Third, is the Government support for basic research through the universities, both through the University Grants Committee and by the direct grants administered by the research councils.

Mr. Willey

This was the point made by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). I was dealing with Government support for scientific research, including the research by the universities.

Mr. Nicholls

I had rather taken that point into account. I knew what the hon. Gentleman meant.

The fourth channel is that the Government keeps under review the country's needs for scientific manpower and plans for the expansion of scientific and technical education at all levels. This last channel is designed to ensure an adequate supply of suitably trained scientists and engineers for the great scientific developments in the future. This is very important, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is very high on the list of priorities.

I will deal with the individual research councils. Over the last twenty years—this is part of the success story—there has been very considerable growth in expenditure and staff. Since 1951, the expenditure has doubled, having risen from £10 million to £20 million. If we break those figures down over the last two years we can see the improvement. The increase in the D.S.I.R. has been 23 per cent., in the Medical Research Council, 34 per cent., in the Agricultural Research Council 20 per cent., and in the Nature Conservancy 25 per cent. These figures give a clear indication of the rate of expansion, quite apart from the monetary value to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred.

The House will remember that it was decided, some years ago., to adopt the experiment of financing the D.S.I.R. on a five-year basis. This is the point on which the hon. Member asked me a question. I can make an announcement upon it for which he has been probing over the last few weeks. The Government have decided to repeat for a further five years this experiment, which was designed to provide a basis for long-term planning of research. It will be repeated because it has proved to be successful so far. As before, the financial provisions of the new five-year plan are subject to the necessary funds being voted annually by Parliament, and must be subject to review either in the event of a marked change in the economic situation or of major changes in costs. That must be on the record.

In the first quinquennium which ends on 31st March next, the total amount spent by the Department over the five-year period is likely to be approximately £36 million. For the next quinquennial period a considerable expansion of the Department's activities is proposed, and the total of approximately £61 million is envisaged. Expansion will continue at a steady rate throughout the period of the five years. For the year 1963–68, expenditure is planned to reach the £14 million mark. That is exclusive of certain items, the biggest of which is the United Kingdom contribution to the European Organisation for Nuclear Research. That and others will continue to be financed outside the five-year plan on which I have commented.

Mr. Fort

How much of the money for the D.S.I.R. is for its disbursements in grants and how much for other expenditure?

Mr. Nicholls

I am sorry; I have not got the breakdown of the figures. I only recently had clearance to make the announcement of the global amount. I do not doubt that we can come to that later and that we shall discuss the matter on other occasions.

I turn to the question of the research associations. I wish to pay a real tribute to this movement. Since I have been looking into it, over the last two years, it has become quite clear to me that it provides a most effective and economical means of encouraging research on behalf of industry as a whole. At present there are 39 research associations and 10 smaller organisations in the D.S.I.R. scheme. These employ a staff of 4,500, of whom one-third are of graduate status. About 20,000 firms, covering about 50 per cent. of manufacturing industry, are members of research associations. These associations spent about £7 million in 1957–58, of which the D.S.I.R. contributed about £1¾ million in the form of revenue grants. The balance came mainly from industrial subscriptions.

Under the next five-year plan the amount available to research associations will be increased from £1¾ million to over £2 million a year, but in announcing what may seem to be a modest figure I should say that that does not tell the whole story because the Government grants are in proportion to the contributions coming from industry. Therefore, the extra contribution I have mentioned is expected to result in industry increasing its contribution more than proportionately. One increase presupposes another bigger increase and the total result will be much more than the £250,000 I have mentioned by way of increase of our grant.

I now turn to university research. Good though all this is, we know that applied research and development cannot flourish without a firm foundation of basic research, and for this it is proper that we should look mainly to the universities. In full recognition of this, the research councils provide post-graduate training awards of various kinds to encourage a steady flow of trained research workers from the universities. They also support promising research projects at universities and technical colleges by a system of research grants. A large expansion has been taking place and more is planned in this field for the immediate future.

For example, the D.S.I.R. has planned to increase the number of post-graduate awards to students by about 10 per cent. each year for the next five years and to increase between threefold and fourfold the amount available for research in universities and similar institutions. It is expected that, by 1963–64, 3,800 students will be in receipt of D.S.I.R. grants for training and research, as against 1,900 this year. That is a considerable increase and it is some answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe, although today I am not in a position to give him details of the actual costs.

While, undoubtedly, we must look to the universities to make a major contribution to the country's effort in basic research, they are also responsible for providing the teachers and scientists for the future. This was clearly in the mind of the Government when recently building projects were announced. As the House knows, in the current year university building projects to the value of £12 million are being started. The same amount is to be authorised for 1959. The programme for the following four years—1960–63—has been provisionally agreed at £15 million start a year. That is not to say that it can all be spent and for that reason I use the phrase, "£15 million start a year."

The technical college building programme, to the value of about £15 million a year, has been in hand since the end of 1956. If one adds all that together, we cannot be accused of complacency, even though I know that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North suggested that in the kindest way. Never before has the country spent so much on new buildings for universities, on techical colleges and schools. These massive plans for expansion aim at doubling the output of scientists and engineers by 1970 compared with 1955. This endeavour has made an encouraging start.

Between 1955 and 1957 the combined output of scientists and engineers from the universities and technical colleges has risen from 11,000 to 13,000. The number of students entering university departments of science and technology has been increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. a year since 1954. More students are taking advanced courses in the technical colleges. More than 10,000 Higher National Certificates and diplomas were awarded in 1957, compared with 8,600 in 1955. This year about 1,000 students started on advanced courses for the new Diploma in Technology, compared with fewer than 600 in the previous year. There is every reason to suppose that the target output of 20,000 set for the late 1960s will be achieved.

I do not want to appear complacent, but on these grounds I feel justified in saying we have a success story so far. All the portents are that it will grow in a way which will be satisfactory to those of us particularly interested in the subject, such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe and others who would like to have spoken in the debate. We recognise the vital importance to a country like ours, which depends so much on being at the head of ideas to maintain its population.

I must say a word about the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. The Government provide some financial support to both these distinguished bodies. For instance, they make a considerable contribution to the Royal Society's activities in connection with the International Geophysical Year but they also make annual grants in support of the Society's regular activities. These sums are not very big compared with what we spend on our own establishments, but the Government regard them as money well spent. The wisdom and prestige of the Royal Society—both nationally and internationally—are important assets to the progress of scientific research and education in this country.

As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North indicated, it is quite impossible in such a short time to answer all the many points which have been put in the two speeches we have heard, or to do more than sketch in broad outline the way the Government are facing the modern challenge of scientific and technical development. If any hon. Member wishes to pursue by letter any of the points I have had to omit, my noble Friend would give them full consideration.

I should say a final word on the reference the hon. Member made to the decision of the D.S.I.R. Research Council to disperse the Industrial Microbiological Unit at Teddington. I understand that that decision was taken entirely on scientific merits and without any intervention by my noble Friend or any other Minister. Indeed, for a Minister to give a direction on a matter of this kind—which, as the hon. Member said, is wholly within the scientific responsibility of the D.S.I.R. Research Council—would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Act which we recently passed. My noble Friend is satisfied that the matter was given extremely careful thought by the Council before it came to this decision. He especially asked me to say that he will be ready to answer any questions by letter if any hon Member would like to write to him about it.

I say again how grateful I am to have had the opportunity of giving this rather longer report than we have been able to give in the past, I hope that what flows from this debate will enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to enjoy their Christmas much more than if this statement had not been made.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Before this debate is closed, would the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of the sordid skeleton in the cupboard in relation to his success story which is surrounded by the £65 million financial assistance which the Government are giving? I refer to the £130,000 still outstanding on the capital cost of construction of what no doubt is one of the most brilliant scientific achievements of which this country can boast, the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope.

This money has been outstanding for a long time and attached to this debt is a smear. It may have been created by the Press; at any rate, it is disseminated through the Press, against the whole operation. As the Minister knows, the original estimate for this construction was about £700,000, but over the eight years of construction and improvements the cost became £130,000 more and, so far, the Government have refused to meet the extra cost.

I ask the Minister to understand what discouragement this means to the scientists working on this brilliant conception, to United Steel, which built it, and everyone concerned, including Manchester University. All are entitled to a tremendous amount of credit for their work, but they feel there is a slur on that because of the publicity which has been given to the over-estimation. There is an apparent confirmation of the slur by the refusal of the Government to pay the £130,000, which is a pitiful sum in relation to the amounts that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned in his speech.

Throughout the world the impression is being created that the Government refuse to meet this sum—I know they are prepared to grant sums of £50,000, and so on, from time to time to meet running costs—through some suspicion and lack of confidence in the achievement. When we consider the sums involved in relation to the achievement and the amount which Communist countries spend on achievements of this kind, surely there is a case for the Government reconsidering the question. What would Russia be prepared to pay to have this project?

I know that the Minister may not be competent to give me a direct assurance now, but I informed him that I would raise this matter and I have informed the office of the Lord President of the Council. The hon. Gentleman may have some information. Unfortunately, we have not much time to discuss the matter, but I hope that he will be able to give an assurance about this debt.

Mr. H. Nicholls

I think that the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) prefaced his remarks by saying that he was asking a question and, therefore, I may not have to ask leave to speak again.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

The remarks were too long to obviate that necessity. The hon. Gentleman must ask permission of the House to speak again.

Mr. Nicholls

With permission of the House, I will answer the hon. Member. There was a Question today on the Order Paper the Answer to which will be contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Although the Question was not reached, it will be dealt with by way of a Written Answer.

The comments made by the hon. Member will be carefully examined and taken into account by my noble Friend. He is interested in these matters and, as has been commented, he is keen and vigorous in pursuing points made in this House. The Department has already put £350,000 into this project. The comments of the hon. Member may not have left that impression. The Public Accounts Committee addressed a query to the Treasury on this point. When the Treasury assured the Committee that there was no contemplation of the £130,000 being meet out of voted moneys directly or indirectly, the Committee, with one exception, welcomed the answer.

I put it in the context that this is a matter which the House itself raised and, when it had an answer at that stage that no voted money should be spent on covering this item, it welcomed the answer. Having said that, it is a fact that £15,200 has been offered for extra equipment. If they want any other new equipment and make out their case, as no doubt they will be able to make it out, the request will be favourably considered.

I assure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter by letter or by interview, my noble Friend will be glad to help him.

1.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

I will detain the House for only a few moments, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) would like to begin his Adjournment debate.

I wish to ask a question about the Microbiological Unit at Teddington. I am bound to say that I found the Minister's remarks extremely disappointing. The whole scientific world realises the magnificent work which this unit has done. It is unique in character. It is felt that before this very valuable scientific adjunct is dispersed, the Lord President of the Council should consider the matter, because there is widespread consternation and dismay about the decision. It is felt among scientists that this decision has not been given the attention at the highest level which it deserves. I make the plea that even at this stage the Lord President will consider representations before this unique body is disbanded.