HC Deb 05 December 1961 vol 650 cc1120-2
14. Mr. Willis

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science why the Natural Philosophy Department of Glasgow University was not provided by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research with the necessary funds to proceed with the installation of its new linear accelerator which would have enabled them to undertake work in an area of nuclear physics hitherto not explored at all in Great Britain.

Mr. Denzil Freeth

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research considered the request from Glasgow University for £600,000 for a new linear accelerator in relation to other requests for major items of research equipment from universities, and in relation to the funds which they were prepared to allocate for this type of grant. The Council concluded that it could not then accede to the request from Glasgow University.

Mr. Willis

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Principal of Glasgow University has said that this project might well have put Great Britain ahead in this scientific enterprise and that, for lack of funds, we shall now lag behind other countries? Is not this a rather shocking state of affairs?

Mr. Freeth

The hon. Member must realise that my noble Friend must take advice on scientific priorities from his scientific advisers. That is what he has done in this case.

Mr. Lawson

Is it not the case that there was a choice between Glasgow University and Oxford University and that the Department chose Oxford rather than Glasgow?

Mr. Freeth

I think the hon. Member is gravely mis-stating the decision that was taken when he says that Oxford was chosen rather than Glasgow. What was chosen was a project emanating from Oxford rather than a project emanating from Glasgow. In the opinion of my noble Friend's scientific advisers on the Research Council, the Glasgow proposal, though good, was not rated as highly as the proposal which came from Oxford at the same time.

Mr. Albu

On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Why was the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to answer this Question about research grants to universities but not the Question I put down?

Mr. Speaker

I do not understand the point of order that the hon. Member is raising.

Mr. Albu

I ask for your protection and guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how we can prevent Ministers from transferring Questions in a completely arbitrary manner and apparently according to no rule.

Mr. Speaker

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot as the Chair accept any responsibility for transfer.

Mr. Willis

On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to this Question, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. J. T. Price

Further to that point of order. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that this is a valid point of order and of some constitutional importance. In reply to a number of recent supplementary questions the Parliamentary Secretary has continually repeated the phrase. "My noble Friend must accept the opinion of the experts". Is this a correct attitude? A Minister is under no obligation to accept anybody's opinion. He is entitled to listen to it with the deepest respect, but for any representative of the Treasury Bench to tell the House that a Minister must accept—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is no point of order whatsoever. I do not have to direct Ministers how to answer or even if they should answer.