JODRELL BANK RADIO TELESCOPE (Hansard, 4 March 1959)

§ Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)
Jodrell Bank telescope is unique in the world. I wish my voice had the penetrating powers which that telescope has. Hon. Members would be able to hear me then. There is nothing to compare with this telescope in all the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except the Attorney-General."] The telescope cannot be seen through, but the Attorney-General can. The telescope is tracing the paths of the rockets which have been sent both by America and Russia and are now circumnavigating the sun. It is certain that the telescope is one of the things which the Prime Minister could boast about during his recent visit to Russia, and the whole House will probably agree that this is the most marvellous invention and application of British skill and ingenuity that we have had in the last few years.
The cost of the telescope was £700,000. The original estimate was for an expenditure of £335,000, but the telescope took eight years to build, during which time costs rose. I want to break down the figures referring to costs as given in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee so that the House can understand the point that I am trying to make. The original grant from the Government, based upon the first estimate of £335,000, was £230,000, added to which was a grant of £200,000 from the Nuffield Trust. The Government subsequently made an extra grant of £130,000, making a total of £560,000 in grants, or £140,000 less than the cost of the telescope. I must make it clear that this £140,000 remains as a debt. Even though the telescope is not affected by the atmospheric clouds surrounding the earth it is certainly affected by the black cloud of debt which overhangs the installation.
I now come to some controversial matters. The question of the increased cost of the telescope, over and above the original estimate, was investigated by the Public Accounts Committee in 1957, and 586 in its Report the Committee complained that the Government had not been currently informed of alterations. There had been no consultation about increased prices. The Committee also complained that the engineering consultants had changed the design without consultation. There was an inference that they were thereby involved in the creation of the additional cost. With regard to the consulting engineer, it was said that there had been no consultation even with Manchester University.
The consulting engineers are Messrs. Husband and Company, of Sheffield, and the material for the telescope was supplied by the United Steel Company, Sheffield. I am proud—this is one of the reasons why I am here tonight—that the inventive skill and material of Sheffield have made the finest telescope in the world.
While at a subsequent inquiry the firm of Messrs. Husband and Company and the United Steel Company were completely cleared of the charges which had originally been accepted by the Public Accounts Committee, the debt remains. Neither Husband and Company nor United Steels have yet been paid for the work that they have done in respect of the telescope.
While Sheffield firms were cleared, I am afraid that Manchester University was not. I am not here to defend Manchester University. I think it was lax in not consulting the Treasury at important stages of development. It may be said—I do not know whether there is any truth in this—That the Treasury might have given more examination to what was taking place because it had paid out a tremendous amount of money. However, I am not blaming the Treasury at this point. I must accept that there was fault on the part of Manchester University.
Jodrell Bank would not have been the success it is had the application of the original plan not been altered in course of time. Modern scientific research had created improvements, and prices were rising during the eight years of construction, and these factors played their part in the increased cost of the telescope.
I do not blame the Public Accounts Committee for its judgment against Manchester University. The Committee has done its job very well indeed. First, it proved that it was looking after public 587 money. Secondly, it cleared Husband and Company and the United Steel Company, which was an important factor. Thirdly, it has made it impossible for anything of this nature to occur again in any important installation of this kind.
But the debt remains, and it is about the debt that I am speaking tonight. The whole purpose is to try to remove the debt rather than the stigma that attaches to Manchester University. It is the Treasury which has declared that the debt will not be cleared by public money but must be cleared by private subscription. Having smacked the child, to penalise it afterwards is double punishment, and I feel that to withhold this money from so important a British installation is rather contemptible. Frankly, the Government are being treated with contempt and ridicule by the Press for their very parsimonious attitude.
A cartoon in Punch showed two scientists coming out of the telescope, one saying, "isn't it demoralising tracking other people's satellites with something which we have not yet paid for?" On 8th January it was reported in the Daily Express that a boy of 11 sent 4s. pocket money to help pay off the debt. I am reminded of the following from the Bible: When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained". Apparently we are going to do it out of kiddies' money boxes.
The telescope could have been sold to America for ten times the cost, but the people responsible would not sell it for patriotic reasons. The offer was rejected on patriotic grounds, but what would Russia pay for it today? I suggest to the Government, through the appropriate Minister, that it is time that they stopped sulking about the quarrel with Manchester University and freed Britain's finest achievement from this debt.

§ Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)
I should like to support the case put forward by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom). Jodrell Bank lies in my constituency, and, therefore, we have a special pride in this great scientific development and hope very much indeed that the Government will see their way to provide the necessary money.
588 The facts are perfectly simple. In this great project, Manchester University overspent the sum of money allocated to it by £130,000. There was no authorisation for this over-expenditure, and no authority from anybody. They said nothing until after this sum had been spent. The result was that the Public Accounts Committee, which consists of Members of all parties in this House, addressed a question to the Treasury on this point, and the Treasury replied that there was no contemplation of this £130,000 being met by voted moneys, either directly or indirectly.
The Committee, with one exception, welcome this assurance. This, therefore, was a matter which the House itself had raised, and when it received that answer at that stage—that no money should be spent on covering this £130,000 —the House welcomed that assurance.
The situation now is, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that Manchester University has to raise the money itself from public subscriptions and from independent sources. I should therefore like to ask my hon. Friend to use all the powers he possibly can with Her Majesty's Government to make one exception in this case and provide the money.

§ Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a simple question?

§ Lieut. Colonel Bromley -Davenport
No, I cannot give way.
The answer may well be that if we give way here, the Government may say—

§ Mr. Hynd
On a point of order. I have invited the hon. and gallant Member to give way so that I could correct him on a point of fact.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac Andrew)
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Hynd
I have not, in fact, made it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Hynd
rose—

§ Lieut. -Colonel Bromley-Davenport
Please sit down, instead of raising bogus points of order.

§ Mr. Hynd
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It is not a point of order, I have already ruled that.

§ Mr. Hynd
rose—

§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport
Sit down.
The answer may well be—

§ Mr. Hynd
May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I have already ruled that it is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Hynd
I have not asked my question yet.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Is it a new point of order, and not the one that I have already answered?

§ Mr. Hynd
I have not yet put it. I am asking for your Ruling. Did this matter conic before the House?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That has nothing to do with me.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport
The hon. Gentleman is trying to use a point of order to prevent me raising this matter, which concerns by own constituency. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman, who has great difficulty in knowing how to behave.
How crazy we must seem to other countries. We spend thousands of millions of pounds on coal which we cannot even dig out from under our feet without making it too expensive for anybody to buy and without closing down mines all over the country. We spend thousands of millions of pounds on the railways, with the result that the trains are later, dirtier and more dangerous than ever, yet we refuse, in this instance—and this is where we are in danger of looking so foolish—to advance £130,000 to support one of the greatest scientific achievements in the world.
The plain fact is that I fear that we are in some danger of appearing slightly ridiculous in the eyes of the world. With great respect, I urge my hon. Friend to spend the money in this case and so help a great and worthy cause.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls)
I am delighted that the hon. 590 Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) has had an opportunity to state his case. He tried very hard to do so in one of the Friday debates, when we were defeated by lack of time, and I am glad that he has had a chance to put his case now so that I can answer him. I am also delighted that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) has had an opportunity to take part in the debate, because he has bombarded the Department, with all the energy which we know he has, by letter, telegram and telephone. I think that the only method which he has not used is that of carrier pigeon. It is pleasant that he has been able to state his case in person.
I am delighted from our point of view to try to put the matter in its proper perspective. I want to state at once that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Government are second to none in their admiration of this project. We agree with all that the hon. Member for Brightside said about its virtues and about the value which should be attached to it. We recognise the outstanding contribution which it will make to the knowledge of astronomy and of outer space at a time when the mysteries of the universe are being revealed to us for the first time. We regard it as further evidence of the technical skill and ability of our British scientists which has won respect from the whole world.
The Government's acknowledgment of this achievement is not merely a matter of words. They have willingly given support, including considerable financial support, from the very beginning.
Since the hon. Member's figures were not quite accurate, it would be as well for the record if I briefly gave the general outline of events which have led to tonight' debate. The financial history is that from the beginning, in 1950, a small grant was made, to enable design study to be carried out. When the design study was complete, Manchester University applied for a grant of £336,000. That was the university's figure and that was the amount for which the university applied. It was made up of £290,000 for capital costs and £46,000 for the running expenses and the salaries of the radio-astronomy school already established at Jodrell Bank. It was agreed 591 in 1952 that all this money for which the university asked would be provided. The first allocation was £168,000 from the D.S.I.R.—that is, the Government—and £168,000 from the Nuffield Foundation. That completely financed the project upon which we had been satisfied at that stage.
In 1953, because of rising costs and minor modifications about which we knew, the estimated total cost was increased to £430,000, an increase of £94,000. The D.S.I.R. had been told about this and accepted it. It agreed to increase the Department's grant from £168,000 to £230,000, and the Nuffield Foundation increased its grant to £200,000. This was an increase of £62,000 from the Government above the amount first promised, and it was all that Manchester University sought.
Two years later, in November, 1955, the Department was presented with still another revised estimate on which it had not had note of the details. The figure had risen to £680,000. The first estimate, which we accepted, was £336,000, and at this stage we were told that the cost would be £680,000.
At this stage, very properly, I think, the D.S.I.R. and Manchester University set up a committee of inquiry to look into this vast increase in the cost of the project. The committee said that the increased cost was attributable, on the one hand, to alterations or major developments of design, and, on the other hand, to additional features which it had been thought fit to incorporate into it. The committee said that, generally speaking, this had accounted for the great increase but it discovered that even this new figure was not correct. It discovered on further inquiry that the cost had risen to £700,000. It was at this point, I think very understandably, that the matter was taken up by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The House will remember that he investigated it and reported on it.
It was at this stage that the Public Accounts Committee of this House, not the Government nor the Treasury, consisting of representatives in almost equal numbers from both sides of the House, took the matter up and inquired into it. The Committee expressed some dissatisfaction with the financial control which had been exercised by the Department and the university. It could be seen that 592 the project, which had been estimated to cost £336,000, had now reached a figure of £700,000. The Department at this stage, with Treasury approval, agreed to pay a further £130,000 towards the extra that was required. This offer of an extra £130,000, the second increase which had been made, was made on the clear understanding that the Government's payment would be a final contribution to the capital cost of construction, and the university agreed that it would find the remainder from its own resources or in some other way. It certainly was not the Treasury which stated that the matter ought to go out to public subscription. It was clearly understood by the university, the Department and the Treasury that if this extra payment was made by the Department the university would be responsible for the remainder.
It was in these terms that the offer was put to the university, and the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee, who were really keen on seeing that this project was properly handled, said that they wanted a clear assurance that this was the last payment. The assurance was given to the Public Accounts Committee, and this was the basis of the settlement which was accepted by the university. After going into the matter fully in the letter dated 27th November, 1957, the unversity agreed to these terms knowing full well that the balance for which it would be responsible was an extra £140,000. There is nothing grudging or mean about this, because the Department had already increased its contributions twice—from £168,000 to £230.000 and subsequently to £360,000 in 1956.
Up to that time the university had not been called upon to make any financial contribution to the cost of this instrument. But when we made the settlement it was clearly understood that the D.S.I.R. would pay £360,000, the Nuffield Foundation would pay £200,000 and that Manchester University would be responsible for the remainder. Everyone knew the exact circumstances surrounding the whole scheme and each clearly agreed to accept responsibility for these various amounts. I do not think a reminder is necessary to show that the D.S.I.R. and, through that Department, the Government, had co-operated all along the line.
I do not think I need remind the House how vital it is when distributing public 593 money that such agreements as I have just described should be strictly adhered to. I do not think the House would differ from this, that whoever is in government we must never give the appearance of arriving at a position where the Government of the day are committed ultimately to pay in full for every research project to which they merely make a first contribution, no matter how much the original estimate differed from the final figure. If we were to adopt the principle which is suggested, it would mean that we should be encouraging applicants to underestimate in order to get their foot in the door, irrespective of what the final cost would be.
Nor is this out of keeping with the established way of spending the taxpayers' money. I do not think it is out of place to produce the analogy of what happens in other spheres. If anyone wants a farm improvement grant or a house improvement grant, it is clearly laid down that before the grant is agreed upon the Government Department concerned must see the final and completed plans, otherwise if they make a start without getting that approval they cannot expect a grant from the Government. I am quite certain—indeed, I gathered that this is so from what the hon. Member said—that he would recognise that this is a general principle upon which we are all agreed, and it must be continued.
If one takes this as a yardstick, it can be seen that in the case of the Jodrell Bank scheme the D.S.I.R. had stretched its discretion to the limit in agreeing to two increases, as I have already described, which really put the scheme outside the strict principle that I have laid down.
That is the present position. I think that any fair view of the picture will show that the Government had not been grudging; that, from the first, they really have, within the limits of sound financial control, tried to give all the help they possibly could to this great project. I think that I have said enough to assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no lack of sympathy, or lack of generosity on the part of the Government, but we have a responsibility, first to the Public Accounts Committee and then to the country to see we do not deviate from these vital principles. Indeed, right from the beginning, the Government have 594 proved enthusiastic partners in this scheme.
Nor, if one looks at the wider picture, can it be said that Manchester University has not been treated fairly in the way in which public money has been allocated to universities generally. I have looked up the present position. I find that out of eight recent major university schemes which are being supported by the D.S.I.R., and costing over £100,000 each, three, including the Jodrell Bank project, have come under the aegis of Manchester University. I think that hon. Members will agree that, on this showing, Manchester University has not been treated ungenerously.
I respect the hon. Member's point of view. I can well understand the concern of my hon. Friend, in whose constituency this great project has been planted. We do not want to discourage—and, frankly, I do not think that this will discourage—the universities and the scientists from taking on similar projects which will place us in the lead in the future. Everyone knows, the universities as well as any, that any Government, no matter what its political colour may be, can dispense public money only if they adhere to sound, sensible principles. I believe that one principle to which we must adhere is that we must know on what the money is being spent before it is granted. The other principle is that if it is thought that any project is to be very much increased in cost, then, from the time the project starts to the time it finishes, the Government Department concerned should be kept clearly in the picture, and should agree to the extra expenditure before being held liable for it.
I hope that I have said enough to show that there has been no lack of sympathy—there has certainly not been any lack of recognition of the importance of this great scheme—but we have also to show sound financial sense in order to have the money available to help universities with similar schemes in the future—and we hope that there will be many.
Having said that, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that my noble Friend follows very closely the debates in this House on all matters relating to scientific development, and that I shall report faithfully to him all that they have said. They have not said anything new. One understands their 595 concern, and I applaud their energy in seeing that it is on the records of the House. I hope that, in return, they will concede that I have said enough to show that there is nothing mean, or grudging or reluctant on the part of the Government, and that when we applaud this scheme we do so not only with words but, by the increased grants we have carried it into action, too.

§ Mr. J. Hynd
On the contrary, I am convinced, by what the hon. Gentleman has said, that the Government are not only showing a mean spirit but a very serious lack of imagination. I cannot quite see how the Prime Minister can go to Moscow and there boast of this great achievement when he knows that it has not been paid for, and that the firms that have produced it are still waiting for their money.

§ Mr. Nicholls
The scheme has been paid for. There is no debt outstanding 596 to the contractors who did the work. The university has made itself responsible for that. The university's case is that it might make it more difficult to deal with other matters if it has a deficit over this.

§ Mr. Hynd
My information is that the firms concerned have not yet been paid for this work. The Minister talks of the necessity to follow certain principles in the expenditure of public money, and says that in this case the Government have been so generous as to agree to the two increases, but he knows that those increases were incurred over a period of eight years in framing a much different telescope from that originally planned, a much superior telescope—