Scientific Research

HC Deb 16 December 1985 vol 89 cc49-71 5·15 pm

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet (Bedfordshire, North)

I beg to move,

That this House acknowledges that the prosperity of Britain in a competitive world depends upon keeping pace with technology in a variety of fields, that the achievement of this goal requires the injection of greater funds into the scientific infrastructure comprising universities, research councils, laboratories and polytechnics, that a closer interface between universities and industries is fundamental to the evolution of a future industrial strategy, and that international collaboration for major research projects is essential to further the development of expensive basic research; that, while welcoming the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in associating Britain, France and Italy in the ISIS neutron spallation source facilities, Eureka and other ventures, nevertheless would regret any steps taken to lower the United Kingdom subscription to the high energy particle physics facility CERN; acknowledges that only the maintenance of an environment for successful research in the United Kingdom will prevent the migration abroad of the ablest scientists and innovators; considers that a mechanism must be found for harnessing for civil use the fruits of defence research; and concludes that, while the private sector should be encouraged to invest more funds in research and development, there remains a continuing need for further public funds to maintain the thrust of basic, strategic and applied research in a number of fields such as microelectronics, biotechnology, information technology and robotics, because to a very large extent the employment and standard of living of tomorrow depends upon the research undertaken by the community today.

It is becoming customary for the House, even after two major statements, further to curtail the time left to debate a private Member's motion. On this occasion, the time has been cut down to one hour and 45 minutes. I hope that when the subject of this debate is discussed in the future adequate time will be provided by the Government to cover the points that Members would have liked to raise today.

Paragraph 26 of the Select Committee report on the future of the science budget shows the comparative performance of various industrial states in relation to Government funding for research and development. The performance of the United Kingdom is not encouraging. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide clarification today. In volume II, paragraph 40, Sir David Phillips stated in evidence that he was instituting a review of the way in which particular branches of science are funded in this country and in Germany, France, Netherlands, the United States and Japan. This review … is being conducted by the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University". Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us the outcome of that review?

International figures reflect not just inadequate funding but a shortage of scientific staff. I illustrate the point by giving the number of scientists and engineers in research and development in four major countries. In the United States, the figure is 660,700 or 0.62 per cent. of the labour force. In Japan it is 463,062 or 0.76 per cent. of the labour force. In West Germany it is 121,978 or 0.41 per cent. of the labour force. In the United Kingdom, it is even lower, at 86,500 or 0.33 per cent. of the labour force. Science and technology cannot possibly advance adequately if there are insufficient engineers and scientists to see that the advances are made.

The performance figures also reflect a paucity of technological management. This was highlighted by Sir Edwin Nixon, chairman of IBM (UK), in the Financial Times recently. He said: The country could improve its trade performance by means of better industrial management, by more appropriate education programmes, by improving work practices and a better application of technology in industry. According to a recent report, local firms are reluctant to use information technology such as electronic mail. A recent National Economic Development Office report entitled "Strategy for construction and R and D" criticised the construction industry for its inadequate use of technical information and the inadequate funding of research and development. We should bear in mind the answer of Sir David Phillips which appears in the second volume, paragraph 31 of the report. He said: I … commend to you the over-riding importance of deciding whether or not the future of this country requires a declining investment in science, basic, strategic and applied, and science education, or whether it does not need a different approach. To summarise the three points I have made, we fall down on an international comparison of investment in the basic sciences. We fall down on the shortage of scientists and engineers compared with some of the leading industrial states. Technological management in the United Kingdom is inadequate and this caused the chairman of IBM UK to make the cryptic remarks which appeared recently in the Financial Times.

International collaboration is essential for large research projects. I have discovered that as the European market is conterminous but not integrated, collaboration is fundamental both to smooth frontiers and to match the achievements of the United States which has formed a highly integrated collection of states within a customs union. It is surprising when the population figures are compared between the EC, the United States and Japan, the EEC represents the greatest industrial block in size but it has the least favourable performance on high technology. The EC, if one takes the 12 states, has a population of 320 million, the United States a population of 237 million and Japan 120 million, yet it would appear that the success of the world market in technology is in reverse order. Withdrawal from commitments without agreement would reduce Britain's triple A rating as a research partner in international projects. International collaboration in high energy particle physics is the only way of remaining in this branch of science thus the migration of physicists can be expected as Britain has signalled its departure from the leading role it has chosen in the centre of excellence at Geneva.

It is significant that, while the ABRC has agreed with Kendrew to a 25 per cent. cut in the CERN subscription from 1989, it has not prompted a similar response from any other member state, they have decided to go ahead in full with their subscription rates. The threatened reduction of interest in CERN, together with the abandonment of UNESCO and the belated support for the deep ocean drilling programme, are not likely to commend the foresight of the United Kingdom negotiators. It is incredible that with the new neutron spallation source in Oxfordshire and the synchrotron radiation source in Cheshire together with the impressive United Kingdom performance in CERN that this time has been chosen to diminish our subscriptions to CERN and specially considering the opportunities arising out of the strategic defence initiative. This technology includes the building and operation of particle accelerators and the production and control of high energy particle beams. Surely, with the SDI appearing on the horizon the Government should be prepared to go ahead with the full subscription rates beyond 1989.

Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if particle physics figures too large in the present allocation for science the answer may be not to reduce the allocation for high energy particle physics but rather to increase the allocation for science in general?

Mr. Skeet

Yes, but when one has a centre of excellence where a great deal of work has been put in by the engineers and scientists of the united Kingdom, and where one has an advantage on the world stage, it is futile to throw it away.

The Department of Education and Science has recently been apprised by the ABRC of the serious brain drain of outstanding talent among chemists and biochemists. It is inconceivable that this occasion should be chosen to disrupt the operations of the best example of European co-operation and thus accelerate this brain drain. The miners' strike cost this country no less than £5 billion. It would require but a tiny fraction of that sum to support this and many other fruitful branches of science.

There are numerous examples of other collaborative efforts and these will include CERN. There are 13 European nations associated with CERN and it is financed in the United Kingdom through SERC. Eleven countries are associated with the European Space Agency, which is funded through the MOD, the DTI and SERC. The ISIS neutron spallation source in Chiltern, Oxfordshire involves the United Kingdom, France and Italy. The European incoherent scatter facility is situated in Norway and involves that country, Sweden, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom. The EUREKA programme involves 18 European nations and concentrates on information technology telecommunications, robotics, materials, biotechnology, marine technology and a number of other disciplines. Finally, Esprit is funded by the Commission itself.

When one considers the state of our technology in the United Kingdom one would like to think that of the 10 projects which have been set forth in the EUREKA programme we in the United Kingdom have more than three places in consortia. That is, first, in the creation of European standards for personal educational microcomputers, secondly in high performance cutting and welding lasers and thirdly in medical diagnostic kits for certain social diseases. If the United Kingdom had the ball more at its feet it would have got more out of the EUREKA programme—although I agree that the programme is largely pushed by the French.

European collaboration is significant and important but industrial collaboration with the universities' laboratories and polytechnics—the scientific infrastructure of this country—is necessary to secure the objectives of improved living standards and fuller employment. There is a trend to encourage closer collaboration between the 45 universities of the United Kingdom and industry rather than to persist with the development of research institutions which were, and will continue to be the traditional practice of the Agriculture and Food Research Council and NERC but to a lesser extent the Medical Research Council.

The argument for this policy has been portrayed by Professor Sir John Kingman, former chairman of SERC. He said: We believe that research activity on the whole is best carried out in universities where it can influence the teaching activities and more generally the spirit of research can communicate itself to the younger generation. I fully agree with that. It will involve further rationalisation of research councils. Who will pay for the restructuring which is recognised as being in the interest of universities? I agree with the report that restructuring does not represent the proper use of the science budget. The money required could be used for other branches of science.

The close interface between universities and industry is best demonstrated by the development of science parks in the United Kingdom. There are now 30 and the leading example is perhaps the science park at Cambridge. Initiatives at universities with an eye to later commercial advantage are illustrated by work on the optic computer at the Heriot-Watt university at Edinburgh. The additional revenue thus secured is not sufficient, however, to make up for the loss of grant during the past five years. We also have the Prudential-backed South Bank technopark at the South Bank polytechnic, which is designed to accommodate some 100 technology companies and is due to come into operation in 1987. The Government's innovation grants have helped in that connection.

The House has heard two statements today. One concerned the future of social security and the other concerned the future of a company which might be a key industry in the United Kingdom. These will illustrate the point I am about to make. National investment in research and development is utterly insufficient. Dr. Roberts, the independent member of the ABRC, said at paragraph 32 in the second volume of the report: I do not believe we will improve the economic strength of this country by spending more on social security". Having read that part of the report with some care, I thought that it was a good idea to examine the public expenditure plans for 1985–86. Expenditure on health and personal social services works out at £16.4 billion and expenditure on social security totals £40 billion. Added together, they represent 42 per cent. of total public expenditure—£134 billion—or 47 per cent. of the revised figure. Wealth-creating expenditure amounts to only £21 billion, or 16 per cent.

Research and development for 1986–87 reaches only £4.6 billion. It is a minuscule sum, and half of that will go on defence research and development. We hope to expand the economy and provide employment for future generations. To achieve that we must spend a certain amount on social security but we are certainly not spending enough on the technological industries that will provide the jobs of tomorrow and the money to pay for them.

Civil research and development is accorded a low rating in the United Kingdom because of a paucity of funds. Expenditure on almost everything continues to expand—energy, agriculture, social services and defence—but expenditure on research has been level funded. The only tribute that I can pay to my right hon. Friend the Minister is that he made a little extra money become available in the autumn statement for science. I dare say that he gave ABRC all that it asked for. It is not asking for more, but it is obvious to anybody who studies this subject that the United Kingdom requires much more than appears to be the case. The cost of equipment has advanced ahead of the rate of inflation and commissions from Government Departments have fallen drastically.

The unfortunate repercussions have fallen on the science budget as illustrated by Sir David Phillips saying at paragraph 37 of the report that genetic engineering and protein engineering depend on the purchase of expensive materials such as enzymes and radio-isotopes. It has been reckoned that the expenses of an individual researcher used to amount to about £1,000 whereas now he requires between £7,000 and £8,000. The Government have not compensated for that increase adequately.

I strongly believe that private industry could do more. It is in industry's interests to participate, but its contribution varies from industry to industry. The Green Paper admits that no substantial part of established public funding responsibilities can be substituted by private finance. Some industries such as the pharmaceutical industry have always made a significant contribution. It is agreeable to find that the Wellcome Trust proposes to double its support for medical research in Britain from £22 million to £45 million. Other companies and enterprises may suggest what can be done, but much research is abstract and will not receive any immediate payment, so it is unlikely to be supported entirely by the private sector.

Expenditure on defence research and development is significant. Out of total research and development expenditure of £4.6 billion in 1986–87, civil research represents £2.2 billion and defence research and development £2.3 billion. The money spent on defence research and development has climbed by 22 per cent. between 1972 and 1983, but expenditure on civil research and development rose by only 2 per cent. in real terms over the same period. That is all the more extraordinary since defence activities account for only a small part of British exports—about 3 per cent. Defence research and development rarely stimulates a commercial advance. Industry's financing of research and development rose by only 0.9 per cent. in Britain between 1967 and 1982 whereas it rose by roughly 4 per cent. in the United States, 5.9 per cent. in France and the Federal Republic of Germany and by 9.8 per cent. in Japan.

Professor Sir John Kingman, who is now the Vice Chancellor of Bristol university, said: we ought either to shift the balance, or alternatively find a mechanism by which defence investment can have more interconnection with the civil and in particular academic research. We have made a move in this direction in the Alvey programme, associating the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and SERC. Surely more could be done in that regard. In paragraph 15 of the report, Sir David Phillips said: In the current round of the annual review of Government research and development … an attempt is made to break down the Ministry of Defence expenditure. What is the Ministry of Defence's expenditure? Has the breakdown been done? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will let me know and also say what part of the expenditure goes on "research". It will then be possible to calculate how much can be applied to civilian research. I suspect that well below 10 per cent. is spent on research and that therefore the size of the spin-offs is limited. I bend to my hon. Friend's further knowledge and hope that he will be able to give an answer.

I conclude with a few words about the structural position. I am bearing in mind that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, which must end at 7 o'clock. I recommend the merger of the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development and the ABRC. There can be no justification for having two bodies. I appreciate the skills in ACARD, but all the services could be discharged by the ABRC, into which it could merge.

Better co-ordination between the research councils and the chief scientists of the Ministries is required. Although associated on the ABRC it has been the withdrawal of the departmental commissionings that has caused disruption to research councils and universities in recent years. If there were more co-ordination and if the left hand knew more about what the right hand was doing the research councils would not be in such difficulties. NERC, it seems, may be suffering administrative rather than scientific problems.

We are in an age of mergers and I recommend another—between the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body into a new higher education council which deals with polytechnics. There is a need for such a council, which could eradicate the difference between the two sectors. The polytechnics are making a big mark in their contribution to industry. I do not want polytechnics to be at a disadvantage compared with the universities which have that traditional role.

The Department of Education and Science has other responsibilities than education. It has to look after youth and, of course, science. Its performance in science matters has not been satisfactory in the last few years.

We should consider establishing a new structure which is accountable for science. That would give it the prominence that it deserves in a modern industrial state. It would signal a new approach by Government and ensure that firms were structured to withstand competitive forces.

Britain is only at the beginning of change. I do not go as far as to suggest that we should have a Ministry for science. However, I suggest that that should be considered. We are discussing a major subject—the future of science; the future of our exports and employment. All that is based on the technology discovered today and implernented by industry tomorrow. That technology will do much to guarantee jobs and a good standard of living, yet today's debate, crucial as it is, is crammed into such a short period. It must end in one and a quarter hours.

5.42 pm

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South)

I shall make a brief intervention because this is a short, but important, debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on giving the House the opportunity to debate this subject. It is notable, but not surprising, that he chose this subject. The House and the country will be grateful to him.

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) to the Front Bench. We are pleased to see him and look forward to great things from him, particularly in science matters.

Most hon. Members will agree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North about the importance of science. We share his disappointment, and that of one committee after another, about low expenditure on basic and applied scientific research in the United Kingdom. We are particularly weak in civil research and development. Much of the public funding of research and development is on defence. There is wide agreement that something should be done about that, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North on his suggestions for tackling the problems.

It is a pity that the funds bandied around in takeover bids in the City and the spare cash on the capital market are not being channelled into companies' research and development programmes.

I have a suggestion that might spotlight the problem. We should make it a statutory requirement for all companies to publish the amount that they spend on research and development and the percentage of sales and turnover that it represents. That would help hon. Members and others who are interested to analyse the amount of research and development that is taking place and to put pressure on companies to spend more on scientific developments.

The Government's expenditure pattern is low compared with that of other countries in terms of percentage of gross domestic product per head of population. It is worrying that it is only one side of the analysis. Percentage of GDP is one thing, but we must also take into account the size of GDP. Our GDP is lower than that of most of our competitors, such as Japan, Germany and America. That means that in volume terms the comparison is even worse. The comparison between the United Kingdom and our major industrial competitors, such as Japan, West Germany, and other European countries is deeply disturbing.

We are particularly worried about what the Government are spending. The autumn statement gave the new science budget allocations of £614 million for 1986–87, £628 million for 1987–88 and £647 million for 1988–89. The figures represent an increase of about £15 million in 1986–87 and a further £15 million in 1987–88 and in 1988–89.

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

Far from the amount spent on science research and development reflecting the total gross domestic product, the reverse is true. If we want to keep in the forefront of nations, we should be spending a higher proportion of our GDP on research and development instead of spending only that which seems reasonable compared with expenditure by other countries.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

I agree.

The figures that I mentioned amount to a cash increase of 7.5 per cent. which, on the basis of the Treasury's lower inflation forecasts, is designed to maintain level funding in real terms over the next few years.

The increased funding amounts only to what the Advisory Body for Research Councils calculates as the minimum required. Taking account of past erosion and future costs of the research councils, the ABRC recommends total increases of £15 million, £30 million and £40 million—a total of £85 million. That would allow for a 1 per cent. per annum real growth in the science budget over the next three years. That modest and minimal claim is substantially less than that suggested by the Education, Science and Arts Committee report, "The Future of the Science Budget", which recommends a 3 per cent. increase. Those are modest sums compared with what many hon. Members would like to see.

The only future for Britain is one in which we have highly professional, high technology-based industry and commerce with a highly educated and qualified work force, in which we have high value added, in which we are beating our competitors and in which we are carrying out research across the board on the frontiers of science.

It is palpably obvious that major countries, such as America, Japan, West Germany, France and Italy, are overtaking us substantially in one sphere after another. Unless the Government give a lead with budgets, industry will not be prepared to respond with civil research and development. Therefore, the Government have an enormous responsibility to do something about the current position.

In addition, we all want to see some of the money that the Government spend on defence research and development having a spin-off in the commercial sphere. As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North said, we need a much bigger spin-off than we get at present. Will the Government consider establishing a company, possibly under the British Technology Group, to promote civilian exploitation of defence research and development? It may be difficult, for official secrets reasons, to exploit some of the research and development in the defence sphere, but if there were a much better mechanism, under the umbrella of the British Technology Group, it might be possible for much more to be done.

Mr. Jackson

rose—

Mr. Wrigglesworth

I have only a few minutes. I prefer to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his points during his own speech.

The Government can do a number of things, and I have mentioned some of them. I agree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North about merging the ABRC and the ACARD and having a council for science policy. There is a great deal to commend that and a wide spectrum of opinion would be in favour of it. We can improve the operation of the Alvey project by increasing its size and possibly making small firms contribute only 10 per cent. towards their projects in order to give them an advantage. The Government should consider the various suggestions that have been made.

At the end of the day it comes back to a matter of political will. What vision do the Government have of the future of our industry and technology? What vision do they have for Britain's future? Do they see Britain having a low-paid, low-skilled economy, or do they see it as a country in which we carry on the professional and academic excellence of the past? Over the past few years there have been precious few signs, from the amount of money that the Government have contributed to scientific research and development, that they are intent on making Britain one of the world leaders in science and technology. I hope that the Minister will reassure not only hon. Members but the scientific community outside and industry generally that the Government will move much more strongly in that direction in future.

5·53 pm

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on being successful in the ballot—something that in 26 years I have never succeeded in doing—and on picking a topic of major importance which is much greater than one would believe from the 0.2 per cent. of the Back Benchers of the House of Commons who are present. That is particularly unfortunate.

As this is meant to be a debate, I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). He referred specifically to the need to have industry and commerce record on their annual balance sheets what they spend on research and development, either as a percentage of their turnover or the actual amount. He obviously missed a question that I put down to my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology the other day in which I urged that that should be legally enforceable, as it is in a number of American and European states. I am afraid that I got a pretty dusty answer, so perhaps we can unite to try to ensure that that is done. After all, it is a simple matter. It would be helpful to everybody and keep industry more on its toes.

This debate is not just an academic exercise; it is about the creation of wealth—so that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services can come to the Dispatch Box and announce the giving away of the tens of billions of pounds which are necessary in social welfare today. Unless industry can create the necessary wealth, all that falls to the ground. It is imperative that the Government understand that the future of Britain's industrial and manufacturing base can be sustained, and the base itself will grow only, if pure research and industrial research and the development of that research are not just helped but are positively assisted and encouraged by the Government so as to ensure that industry places greater emphasis on it. Research needs a lead and an incentive from the Government and from each Department in individual sectors in their sponsorship in the different areas of industry.

I wish that I could tell the House that Britain has a fine record in that area, but exactly the opposite is the case. In the financial year 1984–85 the United States spent over $110 billion on research and development—$66 billion coming from the private sector and $44 billion from Government. Europe spent only $50 billion—S25 billion coming from Governments and $25 billion from industry. Germany, France and the United Kingdom made up 83 per cent. Britain's paltry contribution was about $15.8 billion—$9.1 billion coming from the private sector. But Japan spent $24 billion—$18 billion from the private sector and $6 billion from Government. When we consider expenditure per capita, the British and European position becomes much worse. America spends $535 per head, Japan $351 per head, Europe $227 per head—and it is much less in the United Kingdom.

The trend is terrifying. Britain is getting worse. If one takes 1975 as the base of 100, Europe progresses between 1975 and 1983 from 100 to 128 and the United States from 100 to 141, and Japan nearly doubles from 100 to 183. How can we possibly expect to stay in the lead and to be able to create the industrial strength that we want for industry if the contributions of Government and industry are falling so far behind? I am not a pure monetarist. That is why I am not sitting on the Treasury Bench. But this is an area outside monetarism where Governments should be giving a lead and where there is an absolute demand.

Surely we should be able to compete with what the French are doing. However, the New Scientist on 18 October said: As the French government begins to prepare for a general election … it remains committed to a significant increase in funding for research and development … announced that spending by governmentt departmens on R and D will reach a total of 42.5 billion francs. With an anticipated inflation rate of 4 per cent., this translates into a planned real growth of 4.2 per cent.—and compares with the zero growth that is being imposed on public spending … the government is proposing that tax credits on the new research and development efforts of industrial companies be raised from 25 to 50 per cent. Why can we not emulate that? In real terms, research and development in Britain is on a downward trend. The Government must get their priorities right. It is little use the Exchequer providing hundreds of millions of pounds to train and retrain the unemployed if industry is contracting and therefore unable to provide the jobs. Surely the need for industrial expansion is accepted by everyone, including the Government.

The Government should have industrial expansion as one of their major objectives in dealing with unemployment. That is where the new jobs can be provided. They will be provided not by attempting to regenerate old and dying industries, but by the new industries, the new technologies, the new developments and the new sciences—those areas in which, I am sorry to say, we are too often overtaken by Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong and America. It will only be through new technology and discovery, with proper development, that jobs will be created.

The Government must not turn away from supporting basic research which, on the whole, they support quite well. We must ensure that we put our knowledge to use in industry more quickly than other countries that make use of our technology and expertise through our brain drain. We must increase our efforts in engineering research. The link between fundamental scientific research and its application in engineering and marketing is essential. Our industrial development has so often been behind our inventions.

There is a real need for the Department of Education and Science to co-operate with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that our tax structure provides incentives for industrial development. I do not necessarily mean providing money from the taxpayer, but allowing industry to use its money for such development through a tax policy designed to encourage such use.

In September, I was elected chairman of the Science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly—a group of 16 nations working in concert on science and technology. During its last meeting, resolutions were passed to attempt to deal with the problems of technological transfer and the duplication of expenditure on science and technology within the Alliance. The total amount spent within the Alliance is about $200 billion per annum. A conservative estimate is that between 18 and 30 per cent. of that expenditure is duplicated. Why can we not get together to try to cut the amount of duplication? I accept that duplication cannot be eradicated altogether because there will be competition and areas where it is impossible to co-operate. However, if we could cut duplication by just 25 per cent., the minimum we would obtain for additional expenditure on research and development would be $16 billion. Let us think what that would mean in real terms. Let us think what that would mean in advancement in research and development within industry.

Has the Minister considered the resolutions passed by the Alliance? They were: to consider the added expense, in terms of effort and resources, of the disagreement on technology transfer policies, and to assess the savings and benefits of reaching a compromise on these policies". Have we done that? If not, why not? They continued: to consult with the United States in a reappraisal of the Military Critical Technologies List in order to decrease restrictions on technologies which are already available outside the United States"— but which, of course, are actually still restricted by the United States, which is absolute nonsense— to consider the creation, in each Alliance nation, of a Technology Transfer Bureau to assume overall responsibility for dealing with high-technology exports, and to report their views to the Assembly. The Alliance wants to achieve greater co-operation between its member nations.

Those are ordinary, sensible and businesslike recommendations. Perhaps they are too ordinary and too businesslike, but they should be taken up by the Government. I hope that the Minister will assure me that that will happen.

Today saw the launching of Industry Year 1986. Five Ministers of the Crown, together with a number of Members of Parliament—some of whom are in the Chamber—spoke about the need for the creation of growth. That was an excellent and necessary thing to do. However, in pushing forward the need for Industry Year, no policy is more important than trying to move our young people towards the realisation that within industry science, technology and research are just as important as they are in universities and that they exist for the creation of wealth for the whole nation. That is the note on which I began my speech, and that is the only way that the need for research and development can be sold to the nation.

6.7 pm

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on his choice of subject for the debate. It is a matter of extreme importance to the nation. I agree not only with the hon. Gentleman but with the hon. Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). This is a matter on which we are all united.

I have only one small quarrel with the terms of the motion which is where it states: a mechanism must be found for harnessing for civil use the fruits of defence research. I would go further than that and suggest that we should spend more on civil research and allow some of that to spin off to defence. The proportion of our expenditure on research and development that is devoted to defence is far too high. Although the Secretary of State for Education and Science says that Britain compares reasonably favourably with other countries in research and development, he forgets to mention that a high proportion of that expenditure is devoted to defence.

I especially agree with the part of the motion that states: the employment and standard of living of tomorrow depends upon the research undertaken by the community today. I was in Italy earlier this year—in, of all places, Palermo—and all the lamp standards carried a notice stating: In affare, non vincerete le battiglie di domani con la technologia di ieri. That means In business matters we do not win the battles of tomorrow with the technology of yesterday. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North said.

Many hon. Members have visited the Secretary of State for Education and Science and have received the same comment, that we are now a poor nation and cannot therefore be expected to spend so much on research and development, but it is the other way round—the poorer we become, the more we must spend to return to our past position. We should not be cheese-paring, because by spending money on scientific research we are planting the seedcorn for the future. That is important, and the Secretary of State's attitude is short-sighted.

It is not a question of undertaking research only where scientific development can be applied. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that we should consider not only applied science but basic science. We were strong on basic science, which involves research and development which at the time does not seem to have an application. It is also excellent to undertake research and development for application, but it is necessary to do scientific research, even if one does not see the fruits of it immediately. For that reason, we must be involved in particle physics. The Germans are good at it, and we should play a bigger part in CERN. We have fallen behind the United States of America, the USSR, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan and France, and we may even be behind South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. I hope not.

Last week the London Standard published a large paragraph on "Medical research sacrificed". The vice chancellor of London university, Lord Flowers, talking about cuts in General Medical Council expenditure, said: if spending cuts continue Britain will no longer be able to maintain acceptable standards of teaching for its doctors … Research is being sacrificed in order to protect patient care and teaching. By that he means that patient care and teaching cost so much that the Government do not believe that they can afford to spend any more on research and development. In other words, the necessity to treat patients is being made the enemy of more research. We should not accept that.

That is having a disastrous effect on our young academics and our universities. I have an interest, as I have a son who is a science university lecturer. He cannot obtain a permanent post, and he will undoubtedly go abroad. He could be useful to the United States, European countries and other parts of the world. That step will be emulated by many young men and women whom we cannot afford to lose. I plead with the Government to take today's debate seriously. It has not been attended by a large number of hon. Members, but there are present those who over the years have shown an interest in the matter. Again I commend the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North for introducing the subject and asking the Government to take our comments seriously.

6·14 pm

Mr. Ian Lloyd (Havant)

All hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) for introducing the debate, which is of the greatest significance. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said, these debates bring to the Chamber the same small, dedicated, interested and enthusiastic group of hon. Members, among whom there is a great deal of agreement.

For some time my hon. Friend and I have been propagating the idea that we need an office of technology assessment. I shall not deal with that now, but when I see that the matter again falls to us to consider, I wonder whether we need an office of indifference assessment. That would be more to the point. Scientists have a right to complain. They may complain that we do not understand, but they can remedy that, as we can. However, they have a legitimate complaint if they feel that we do not care, which is something that they cannot and should not attempt to forgive. We are a small group, and we must do our best.

My hon. Friend and I disagree about having a Minister for Science, but when the subject is discussed at national level or in the House, we experience the lack of a Minister to fight this corner with energy and determination, which it needs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will fulfill that role and that he will rise rapidly to the Cabinet, where alone this fight can be carried out. That is where it must be fought and won.

I want to discuss the interesting contrast between two or three reports on the subject which have been published recently. The report of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on science and public expenditure 1985 is of great significance. It is a staggering document, as most hon. Members present will appreciate. There is no time to go into it in detail, but I wish to draw attention to some phrases in it. The report states that the council is unable to fund ⅓of the Alpha quality research proposals from higher education", that the council cannot afford the instrumentation necessary for this kind of research", and that it cannot meet the agreed share of the cost of collaborative research with industry in information technology. Lord Stockton suddenly latched on to the importance of information technology in his fascinating speech in the other place recently, and we welcomed that.

Molecular biology is a subject of immense significance today. The report states that it can only be given ½ the funds it needs to buy top priority state of the art equipment. That shows the tremendous increase in the real cost of science.

Natural Environment Research Council projects are underfunded to the point of ineffectiveness. The research councils have lost 2,000 staff since 1981–82. The Science and Engineering Research Council has lost 70 posts, and redeployed 250. "Big" science has fallen from taking up 70 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the budget, but there is no time to enter into that controversy. The Medical Research Council has lost 228 posts. The NERC has lost 450 posts to date. It will lose 300 in 1985–86, and 600 between 1986 and 1990, and so it goes on.

We hear such phrases as

The well-found laboratory no longer exists", and It is difficult for the most outstanding research scientists to secure research appointments. Another phrase, used by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, refers to The exodus of outstanding young scientists from the United Kingdom. This is dangerous and is something which no Government, of whatever party, dare neglect. We neglect it at our peril. Another phrase is: Parliament, the Government and the country are complacent. That criticism is not without considerable substance. If it is true, we have cause to look to our laurels, in this place., in the Government and in the country.

The conclusions of the report are of the utmost importance. It says: Year by year reduction may appear to be modest, but the cumulative effect may be that by 1990 the UK's science base could be 10 per cent. smaller than in 1980. It refers to a steady attrition that has squeezed out investment in many new and growing areas of science, crucial to developing the industries of tomorrow. I think that this is now virtually common ground between every hon. Member here. I await with great interest to hear what the Government say.

In reply to the general case, we often hear that we are a poor country and that we do not have the funds, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. Where do funds come from? The House gives us an unrivalled perspective from which to comment on that interesting question. We have just heard that some £5,000 million was wasted on the miners' strike. Perhaps that was unavoidable or a distribution or wasting of resources that could not have been diverted into expenditure on science. Be that as it may, we should look at some of the other points, such as the great industrial subsidy market where, as we know, we seldom look at figures with fewer than eight noughts on the end. We pass them with an aplomb that would do credit to someone who has just won the pools. We see projects such as Nimrod, with nine noughts on the end, or the De Lorean sportscar, with eight noughts on the end. We see vast sums lost in the naval dockyards year after year.

Perhaps most interesting and significant of the lot, because it is in the context of the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North on the balance between expenditure on the welfare state and expenditure on science and the seedcorn is the extraordinarily interesting document just issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General which disclosed that, as a result of the strike in Newcastle, some £170 million has just disappeared. No one knows where it has gone. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not know, although he can guess. However, he knows the scale of the sum.

We know that the Science and Engineering Council is asking for about £40 million to £50 million just to stabilise the situation. That is a large sum in scientific terms but by comparison with some of the sums with the eight or nine noughts at the end, which we often pass on the Estimates on the nod, or sometimes discuss, it is, to use an old word, peanuts.

Mr. Jackson

In the catalogue of alternatives, will my hon. Friend consider the following proposition from the latest Government annual general review: the UK Government comes bottom or next to bottom of the R and D league of the six major European Community nations in all areas except Defence, where it is top."?

Mr. Lloyd

That is an interesting and important point. We realise that there is an imbalance between research and development on defence and that in the civil sector, and the Government have been making valiant and interesting efforts to move the results of research, wherever possible and wherever security is not involved, out of defence and into the civil sector, more of which must be done.

However, that does not address or solve the problem of the basic allocation of resources as a percentage of research and development. I share the view that has been expressed twice already, that this is where our real wealth will once again be created—if we restore the standards, quality and effectiveness of our basic science. An interesting point has been made, not only by Sir John Kingman but during the debate in the other place on the history of the ESPRIT programme and new technology. It was made by my noble Friend Lord Stockton, who said that the distinction between basic science and applied science was difficult to draw. Drawing artificial distinctions and saying that we will do this here and not that there can lead to great difficulties and destroy the standards that we are trying to achieve.

I draw attention to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North about Japan. We are constantly being asked to look at the Japanese example to see what we can learn from Japan. I looked at a recent United Nations report on this, and the trends are staggering. I can give figures only in billion yens, because those figures are given in the report, but in the years 1965, 1970, 1975 and 1979, the Japanese GNP, which is after all what we are trying to emulate, is where the wealth is coming from. One reads, as I did this morning, that Japan has one of the largest net overseas investments of any country, not excluding the United States.

If that is the case, how is it done? Expenditure on research and development for the same years, starting in 1965 and coming up to 1979, was 486 billion yen, 1,300 billion yen, 2,900 billion yen, 4,608 billion yen and finally, planned for the present, 2.5 to 3 per cent. of GNP. That is the background, that is the challenge that we are facing, and we have no real alternative but to look seriously again at the scale and direction of national resources that we are deploying. It is only by that redeployment that we shall achieve the swing round that is the common objective of all parties and of all hon. Members. Only by achieving that shall we create a base on which the wealth of Britain towards the end of this century and the beginning of the 21st century will be acceptable, defensible and worth achieving.

6.27 pm

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

I shall add to what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) said, but say something about the use of technology for disabled people. Some 21 years ago, I had my first Adjournment debate on this subject, and the man whom I mentioned on that occasion was the oldest surviving respiratory polio victim in the world. He is still living but he is completely paralysed, unable to breathe, speaks by throat breathing but from his bed exports hospital beds, by the application of technology.

I should have been happier if the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North had said something about the quality of life and independence for the disabled by the careful application of technology. We talk about NASA and the space age, but last July I saw a wheelchair made of carbon fibre which an old lady could pick up, easily put on a bus or in the boot of a car and help her aged husband to go all around the place. She gave him mobility and access, both of which were the product of advanced work in space.

We have an example in the House of a fallout from technology, used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who has applied the techniques of Palantype typing, which may be in use in the Chamber today, to turn the symbols into words that are readable on a visual display unit. This means that my right hon. Friend can follow the proceedings in this House. This technology was evolved at Southampton university. It involves a substantial amount of word and language use and micro-circuitry of the highest order. That kind of technology will eventually be of value to everybody in our society.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North for moving this motion. I believe, however, that a committee ought to be formed to investigate the application of technology to the disabled. By raising the quality of life of the disabled and the frail elderly, it is possible that we should save money. I have linked this subject on many occasions with various motions. This is technically possible, economically sound and morally right.

6.30 pm

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South)

Once again a debate on science policy has run out of time before all hon. Members have had an opportunity to speak. I am particularly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has followed science policy for many years and who failed to catch your eye last time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has been unble to speak in this debate. It is a clear indication that we shall need to hold another debate on science policy in six months or so.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), as have other hon. Members, upon his selection of this topic. He has followed with enterprise and effectiveness his role as chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, an admirable body which he is revivifying. It has an important part to play in securing for science and technology the attention of the House and the country, which science so badly needs.

I welcome to the Treasury Bench the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). I am sure that there is plenty in this subject to provide ample scope for his considerable talents, particularly his diplomatic talents—much needed in a topic of burning concern to science at the present time.

In the six months since our last debate there has been little progress on science policy. The Science and Engineering Research Council's corporate plan is to be published tomorrow. It will highlight the areas of strategic research in science and engineering that are essential to the future industrial development of this country. These opportunities are being seized by other countries—the United States and Japan and also Germany and France. However, this country is still neglecting them.

The grant for the first year that was sought by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils—a minimal increase of £15 million in the science vote—was agreed by the Government. For that small mercy we give thanks. One leg of the dual support system has been jacked up by one peg, but the other leg has been jacked down several pegs by continuing cuts in the funding of higher education. There has been a 2 per cent. a year reduction in the funding of universities. That is incomprehensible in the face of the need and the opportunity to build up skilled manpower and research. No doubt in the future, as in the past, the cuts will fall disproportionately upon research activity.

On the relative decline of support for British science—therefore, of British science itself—there have been two new important sources of information since June. The ABRC approached 40 leading research groups—those most likely to attract such funds as are available. Nineteen of those groups had been selected by the University Grants Committee as potential recipients for the additional equipment funds. Yet in this privileged group the survey found grave concern about increasing losses overseas not only of their most talented students and post-doctoral research workers but of their outstanding senior scientists. The litany of complaints that they listed is familiar to all those who visit research laboratories and universities: that there are more posts overseas and better pay, prospects and facilities, and that there is aggressive recruiting by United States' universities and industry and greater receptiveness by American industry of new ideas. That is contrasted with the frustration of not getting research grants and the resistance to new ideas that is found in Government and industry in this country. The provision of research equipment, central facilities, like the nuclear structure facility, and well-funded, well-staffed research groups, like molecular biology at Cambridge, demonstrate that proper support for science works in this country, and that we should do more.

In June the Secretary of State doubted the 30 per cent. increase, in real terms, in Federal Government support for basic research in science and engineering in universities and colleges in the United States. He agreed that figure with me in correspondence, but he pointed out that it had followed a long period of decline. What has happened in Britain? There has been evidence of a brain drain, and that evidence helped with the first £15 million. At Easter there will be the results of a more thorough survey by the Royal Society into the brain drain. Its report will be available in ample time for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to raise his sights at the next public expenditure round.

There is no need to wait to see evidence of the decline. There has been a further instalment of Irvine and Martins' analysis of publications and citations, bringing the story up to 1982. Of particular interest is the record in particular sciences. I refer to one technology in which I am particularly interested. Heading the areas of decline in applied science is metallurgy, with a 34 per cent. decrease in the share of publications from the United Kingdom between 1977 and 1982. With cause and effect flowing in both directions, this is mirrored in the British Steel Corporation's cut in research and development, in real terms, of 45 per cent. since the Government took office in 1979, with the surrender of all basic research and of recruitment of new blood into the BSC laboratories. That has inevitably resulted in the loss of competitiveness of the higher grade steels that are produced by that industry.

In the light of that kind of evidence, which is accumulating, we should reappraise the targets for the science budget. Level funding makes no provision for sophistication. Sophistication is difficult to measure, but the 2 per cent. per annum put forward by the ABRC is at least a step. However, a constant share of a rising gross domestic product, growing in the long term at 3 per cent. per annum, is the least that the present Government might hope to be able to maintain. The need to catch up in science and technology however, is a factor that we must introduce into the argument. From its peak in 1972, research council expenditure, in real terms, in this country has fallen by 10 per cent., while the GDP has risen by 25 per cent. Therefore, both to match the United States' increase since 1981 and to achieve past shares of GDP in the United Kingdom, a 30 to 40 per cent. increase in research council expenditure on basic and strategic research and development seems to me to be the kind of target for which the scientific community should start to lobby.

That recovery should be followed by more modest growth, but with a big step up in the minimum number of years in which it can be achieved. The United States achieved the 30 per cent. increase in four years. We should begin to plan the phasing of the increase that cart be efficiently absorbed by this country without recreating all the demographic bulges that followed the expansion of the universities in the 1960s and 1970s but that cart be managed within the more modest and limited increase to which we are referring for the research councils.

The research councils and the ABRC have to lobby within the impact that can be achieved on this Government. But they also have to contribute to shaping public opinion and expectations. We are not talking about pay increases for scientists and technologists. We are talking about the science and the technology that are needed to put Britain into a competitive position among the industrial nations. There is an acute pay problem in the universities and in education generally, but that is a separate issue with which we are not dealing in this debate.

There is also mis-spending and misallocation of money and, more important, of scarce scientific manpower, of which the most horrific example is the strategic defence initiative. Star wars simply will not work technologically. The computing side, which holds it all together. is best documented, and it shows that, however fast the optical computers may be, the software problems remain and they are insoluble.

Professor David Parnas of the University of Victoria, who resigned from the SDI advisory committees, is a recognised world expert who continues to be active in naval research in the United States. He has described the difficulties clearly involved in writing and debugging a vast software system that can never be tested in operation. It is as if one were suddenly to switch on for the first time all the computers of all the airlines in the world without having given them a trial run, and expect them to work. SDI poses a comparable problem.

There has been widespread protest among computer scientists, yet the Government have ignored and overridden them. Artificial intelligence, automatic programming and other software developments pleaded in aid in the SDI will not ease the problem. To divert this vast effort into a field that cannot work is a poor way of developing techniques that are useful in systems that can work.

A much more difficult field is CERN, where the particle physicists and machines at Geneva and elsewhere work so brilliantly. It would be quite wrong to interpret the intention of the Kendrew report as cutting off Britian's interest in particle physics. However, there is a general feeling among scientists that, even with budget increases, particle physics would be getting too large a share.

There are also clear long-term problems in relation to decision making in particle physics research, on the machines, the accelerators and individual experiments. As a result, particle physicists may expect to see through only two experiments in a working lifetime.

The Kendrew report set out a negotiating position, and it is up to Ministers, particularly the hon. Member for Buckingham, to carry out the negotiations. In doing so, I hope that he will keep in close touch with working physicists.

I urge two particular directions that should be explored. The first is wider international collaboration. In the post-Geneva atmosphere, there ought to be some scope for the redrawing of national programmes and time scales between Europe, the United States and the Soviet Union. The super-powers will retain their own activities as insurance against any unexpected discoveries of fundamental military or economic importance. But they will also collaborate, and they have an interest in involving Europe in that collaboration.

The other direction in which I encourage the Minister to seek the advice of scientists is the unbundling of the vast range of experimental technique that goes into the particle accelerators and the experiments that use them. Ministers should encourage the particle physicists to seek allies in other sciences. The techniques in instrumentation, computing, pattern recognition, materials, and so on, are potentially applicable not only in industry—although that is important—but in other sciences. It will cost more than a dedicated technique, but a shared technique will cost less to any one science.

I am talking not about spin-off, but about synergy from considering with other scientists the fundamental problems of experiments and the best way of tackling them. This is a long-term development and aid, but particle physics needs to take account of horizons beyond 1990. If the Minister can hold out a perspective beyond then in the further years up to the end of the century, he may find it somewhat easier to negotiate the transition with other countries and with CERN.

The rationalisation of United Kingdom space interests is welcome, but it could become a sink for low-grade imitative technology if scientific research is not given a sufficient role within it. The continuing attrition of agricultural research is utterly deplorable in the face of the problems that we see worldwide, and the much greater problems that will arise at the end of this century and into the next when the population of the world doubles. That is the time scale in which we shall need the results of the plant genetic engineering that is now becoming possible.

The machinery of government remains as undeveloped now as it was in June, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister what use he is making of it.

6·45 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden)

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) has done us all a service by proposing the motion. The need to maintain the debate on a high level is obviously self-evident, and my hon. Friend did us another service by the serious and thoughtful quality of his contribution. I am personally grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me, as a relative newcomer to this subject, the chance to listen to the seasoned—sometimes highly seasoned—advice of experienced Members on all sides of the House. The debate also takes place against the background of the recent Select Committee report, about which I shall say more later.

The motion suggests, quite rightly, that without a sound research and development capability our economy, and all that depends on it, will suffer considerably. Some hon. Members—if I caught their drift—seemed to imply that the Government were blind to all this. Through the UGC and the research councils, the Department provides more than £1 billion every year for research, but no one is complacent about the needs of science—certainly not the Government.

It was because of this recognition of the importance of the science base to future economic prosperity and their concern about evidence of a new brain drain of British scientists that the Government injected an additional £15 million into next year's science budget, representing a 2.5 per cent. cash increase. The addition is not for one year only. It will be carried forward in the baseline. Similarly, we have increased from £7 million to £10 million the amount available to the UGC next year and in 1987–88 for its selective equipment scheme, which aims to equip the best university research groups in the country to state of the art standards. The £10 million scheme will be carried forward into 1988–89.

The general equipment grant for the universities for the 1986–87 academic year will be £95 million, representing a cash increase of 5.2 per cent. over the current academic year. Additionally, the Computer Board for the Universities is to receive an increase of £1 million in 1986–87 and £2 million in each of the following years to enhance the joint academic computing network. We have today announced our decisions on the allocation of the additional £15 million for the science budget, taking account of recommendations put forward by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. Copies of the board's advice have been placed in the Library.

In its advice the board says that it recognises that the additional sums will make a valuable contribution to sustaining the science base. The House will note that the addition of £15 million to the science budget in 1986–87 corresponds exactly to the bid for that year which the board puts forward in its advice "Science and Public Expenditure", which was published in June. The board recommends further additions in subsequent years. Clearly it will be important to consider these carefully in next year's public expenditure survey in the light of further information which the board has promised about costs of research, international comparisons and the health of Britain's science base—and, I may add, in the light of some of the concerns voiced in today's debate.

Mr. Skeet

We heard all about this in the autumn statement, and I am grateful for that. We have heard today that we are well behind almost every other nation in civil research and development. The Government must put a strong foot forward and do something about this. Are they prepared to do so?

Mr. Walden

I was about to discuss the larger issues in the short time that is available, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of them.

The Government have no illusions. We recognise that the scientists regard themselves as seriously constrained within existing financial provision. The problem, in a sense, is simple. Of its nature, science grows—new fields open up and new perspectives beckon. The costs of undertaking scientific research grow, notably because advances in technology—themselves usually based on advances in fundamental knowledge—lead to in-creasingly sophisticated and expensive scientific equipment and materials. The growth of science has been described as "exponential" in the strict sense of the term. The growth of resources, I do not have to remind hon. Members, is not, but the Government recognise the pressures on the budgets of the research councils and the universities.

At the same time, let us not over-dramatise these pressures. The Government's provision for the 1986–87 scientific budget represents an increase in simple cash terms of more than 60 per cent.—£275 million—compared with the science budget in 1979–80. Measured against average inflation in the economy at large, this cash increase translates into a real terms increase of 8.5 per cent.—a far from ignoble record considering the competing demands in this period on the public purse.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Will extra funds be provided in coming years for the new blood scheme?

Mr. Walden

I shall cover that point in my further remarks.

No Government could afford to go on year after year underwriting a continuing real increase in the resources devoted to science. Indeed, the growth in the science budget began to level off in mid 1970s.

Mr. Jackson

rose

Mr. Walden

I am sorry, but I have very little time in which to discuss many points.

If I have any criticism of the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North it is that it seems to suggest that we should maintain support for all existing commitments—domestic and international—and support all new areas, or perhaps I have interpreted him exponentially. I wonder whether that is really possible. All developed countries—not just the United Kingdom—are having to face the problem of the inexorably growing costs of maintaining their science and technology base. In the United Kingdom we have evidence from the ABRC and from the Education, Science and Arts Committee of this House which suggests that overall our research councils' costs are growing at 3 per cent. per annum above the rate of inflation. If we were to cover those costs and the costs of meeting all new scientific opportunities, it would imply that science took a progressively larger share of our national wealth. That could scarcely be affordable in the long term. The only serious alternative must be selectivity—identifying fields and groups of researchers that hold out particular promise and concentrating resources on them.

We know from experience that, in the past, there have been serious weaknesses in terms of organisation, management and attitudes, which are only beginning to be properly tackled under this Government. I shall give the House an example of managerial weakness. It may surprise the House to know that we still have no up-to-date information about the scale and the distribution among the various areas of research activity funded through the UGC in the universities. We have no clear picture of how much is going on already and where. The overall estimate of some £600 million, which appears in the Cabinet Office's annual review of research and development, is based on a 15-year-old survey. The Department has funded a research project to provide up-to-date figures, the findings of which should be available early next year.

It seems equally remarkable that the UGC's allocation of resources to universities for research has traditionally taken no account of the strengths and weaknesses of different institutions or of the need for greater concentration of resources as science has become more capital intensive.

In all those areas, new attitudes are now emerging. The University Grants Committee is now moving towards a more selective deployment of general research funds. The research councils are producing five-year corporate plans involving the reshaping of programmes to reflect current—as opposed to historical—priorities. I am glad to note that the Science and Engineering Research Council's first corporate plan is to be published tomorrow. Much more emphasis is being put on directed or centrally co-ordinated programmes in areas identified as being of particular strategic importance. The Economic and Social Reasearch Council has recently taken action to try to improve the appalling PhD completion rates of some of the students supported on ESRC grants. Generally, the research councils are becoming more priority-conscious and rigorous in their management.

I do not pretend that the changes that some of the new attitudes involve can be effected painlessly without some sacrifices in interesting areas of research or hardship for individuals, whether scientists or laboratory cleaners, but indiscriminate scattering of resources would be worse in the long run—worse for science, worse for employment and worse for the country as a whole.

I should like to respond to the remarks made on both sides of the House about CERN. I note the constructive attitude of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).

The Kendrew report of United Kingdom participation in high energy particle physics, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, is a prime example of the inescapability of priorities. The review, which was jointly funded by the ABRC and the SERC, was established in early 1984 and published its report in June this year. The report made a number of recommendations, the main one being that United Kingdom expenditure on particle physics should be reduced by 25 per cent. by 1991 and that the funds thereby released should be reallocated to other areas of basic science.

That recommendation was not made because the review group considered that United Kingdom particle physics was in any way deficient; on the contrary, as hon. Members have said, it reported that the United Kingdom was making a significant contribution to what is an exciting field of research. The recommendation was not made because CERN had disappointed our expectations—in fact it is a brilliant example of what can be achieved by European collaboration in science.

What led the group to its conclusion was its judgment of the correct priority to be given to particle physics relative to other areas of science. I point out to my hon. friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) that in the group's view 10 per cent. of the science budget was too great a proportion for any one area, no matter how excellent.

I am sure that hon. Members agree that it would not be right to make a hasty judgment. For this reason, one of the first visits that I made after assuming my present appointment was to CERN, to see the laboratory for myself. I add that no one who has had the opportunity to visit CERN could fail to be impressed with the extraordinary work being done there or the capabilities and the enthusiasm of the scientists doing it.

The very success of CERN, however, poses a dilemma. It shows that in this area of fundamental science Europe can lead the world, but it also shows that given the resources we could do the same in other areas. CERN is a challenge, as well as a success. It challenges us to repeat the performance in other areas. CERN is a model of what can be achieved, but only if we are willing to adapt ourselves to the needs and pressures of the time.

Perhaps some figures will illustrate the dilemma. In 1984–85, not only was the CERN subscription 6.5 per cent of the total science budget, and over 12 per cent. of the SERC expenditure, but it represented more than 60 per cent. of the international subscriptions paid by the SERC. However, other, less expensive, areas of international collaboration, involving the sharing of expensive facilities, serve a larger scientific community and a wider range of scientific research. That is the view of Sir John Kendrew and his team. It is no use cultivating the illusion that Sir John Kendrew is a Treasury Minister; he is a Nobel laureate and the Government value his report and his advice.

The Government consider that the possibility of achieving significant savings from particle physics, and hence from CERN, needs to be examined seriously. Surely any organisation of the size and complexity of CERN, which has been in existence for over a quarter of a century, could benefit from a major review. I am therefore undertaking a round of bilateral consultations with Ministers of science in CERN member states, to explore with them their reactions to our idea of a joint independent review of the organisation. I stress that the Government remain firmly attached—this matter has arisen during the debate—to European collaboration in science, as has been shown by our recent actions.

Mr. Skeet

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will move only by consent, and not unilaterally, on CERN?

Mr. Walden

Our aim is to engage in consultations to achieve a joint independent review. I believe that that is a reasonable objective.

I should like to have said more about defence versus civilian research. I will simply note that the Government are keeping a close and critical eye on all departmental research programmes and on the balance of such programmes.

I am sorry that it will not be possible to respond to all the points made in the debate, particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North, who initiated the debate. I should mention that we still await the advice of the ABRC on international comparisons, and we shall study them closely when they come. The restructuring costs of the councils, which are a heavy burden, have to some extent been alleviated by the new money that my right hon. Friend has found for them.

On the question of the—

It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business).