HC Deb 18 December 1990 vol 183 cc252-64 9.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth)

I beg to move.

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7053/90 relating to a programme for research and technological development in the field of Human Capital and Mobility; endorses the Government's view that this European Community initiative will present an appropriate means of providing assistance to the mobility of scientists, hence enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness; and supports the Government's policy of pursuing clear scientific and managerial objectives within the programme to promote effective delivery of the specific training and mobility measures proposed. I welcome the opportunity to debate this important programme, which has several unusual features. The Government certainly recognise its importance to the scientific community of the United Kingdom, and this is a valuable opportunity for me to inform the House of the progress that is now being made in negotiations in Brussels.

First, let me explain the current state of the programme. I hope that the House will be indulgent if I venture a little into Euro-jargon. The programme known as "human capital and mobility" is a specific programme line in the Community's third framework programme for research and development for 1990 to 1994. Framework programme 3 has been agreed as a rolling programme—that is, overlapping with the one before and, we expect, the one that will follow. It has reduced the 22 programme lines in framework programme 2 to only six. At a cost of 518 million ecu—about £370 million—it is the third largest programme in the third framework.

As the explanatory memorandum explains, the human capital programme is the particular responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, and is of special significance to the five United Kingdom research councils. It follows on from three existing programmes under framework 2—SCIENCE, economic science and large facilities. Let me stress that the science programme is "horizontal"—it provides support for science in all areas of the natural sciences. Once the negotiations are more advanced, we shall be submitting a supplementary explanatory memorandum providing greater detail about the programme, as requested in the 30th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation.

The Commission's original proposal was issued on 28 April 1990. It proposed a programme entirely focused on support for research training, including the funding of 5,000 individual scientists, some through the development of networks of laboratories. I think it fair to say that this proposal caused some surprise and concern. There had been no formal process of consultation with member country representatives and the programme did not obviously continue the work and activities current under the SCIENCE, large facilities and SPES—stimulation programme for economic sciences—programmes.

We were, of course, fully aware of worries about this within the United Kingdom science community. We also knew of preliminary indications of concern on the same score from the European Parliament. In our judgment, those problems were caused in the past by an absence of management committees for the three programmes. I shall return to management in a moment.

The explanatory memorandum to Parliament set out the Government's priorities for the programme in general terms. They were: to secure clear continuation of valued, existing activities; to achieve separation of the programme into four separate elements; to ensure visibility and transparency of scientific advice; and to ensure sound management and evaluation arrangements.

Since then, the thrust of United Kingdom activity—in co-operation with Community partners—has been to advance these priorities for inclusion in the programme.

If I could deal for a moment with procedure, the proposal comprises a brief formal element couched in legal terms with annexes that describe the content, management and funding distribution in more detail. Discussion has been taking place in recent weeks in an ad hoc group of CREST—the Scientific and Technical Research Committee—the senior body of scientific officials from member states, and this is likely to be resumed in January. Its aim has been to develop more widely acceptable proposals for the explanatory annexes. I am happy to be able to tell the House that very substantial progress has been made and that the United Kingdom has played a significant and constructive part, through the presentation of detailed suggestions for modifications to the Commission's original text. I believe that it would be useful to tell the House how the consensus is emerging.

First, there is a continuation of existing activities. The revised text, which still exists only as unofficial drafts, makes it clear that the programme should act as a natural continuation of, and extension from, the three programmes that I have mentioned. Of course, this is a new programme, so it will be important to build in a new dimension of coherence and complementarity between the various activities. The programme will therefore specify arrangements to support research training fellowships and maintain the sort of support for networks and twinnings currently achieved under the SCIENCE programme.

A consensus is emerging that there should be four elements, as the United Kingdom has proposed. There are the two that I have just mentioned and support for large facilities—primarily for access by visiting researchers, but with some scope for improving and enhancing facilities—and for a new series of European science conferences. We expect the European science Foundation in Strasbourg to be involved in these.

Achieving those objectives will depend crucially on the scientific advice. Great importance is rightly attached by the United Kingdom scientific community to the proper use of peer review in determining project support. At present, the Commission's advisers are the main source of advice in the three existing programmes under the second framework that I mentioned. However, the recent overall decision on management in Community programmes, called—I ask the House for its tolerance again—the "Comitology" decision, requires all programmes to have management committees, several different varieties of which are available.

That raises the question of how the implementation of this programme should be influenced and guided through advice from individual scientists; input from member states, including their national science organisations; and the Commission, whose legal responsibility it is to implement decisions of the Council of Ministers. There has been discussion of this quite recently in Brussels, on the basis of detailed proposals from the United Kingdom. They have yet to be endorsed, but would provide a clear framework within which the role of each of the three sources of advice and influence would be defined.

The United Kingdom and several other member countries are advocating what is known as a type 3 committee, not the type 1 committee that the Commission has advocated in its formal proposal. I could rather quickly get into a thicket of technicalities and the House might not care to follow me too deeply into it, but, briefly, a type 3 committee has a greater capacity to influence the Commission's activities, as opposed to being just advisory.

The United Kingdom has been pressing for explicit reference to the need to define objectives for the programmes that can subsequently be externally evaluated. We believe that there is considerable scope far improvement in evaluation, and that view appears to be accepted by the Commission, which has recently been making greater efforts in that direction.

The United Kingdom has clear objectives for this important programme and we have been pursuing them with energy and application. We shall have to wait two or three months for a formal decision in the Council of Ministers. If enacted in the form that we advocate, we believe that United Kingdom scientists will derive substantial benefit from the programme, as indeed they have derived substantial benefit from the three programmes that I mentioned under framework programme 2. This programme is designed to foster and to extend the process of international collaboration in European science. We believe that to be important and, subject to the changes that I have outlined, the programme can be an useful further step in the right direction.

9.50 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South)

I listened with interest to what the Minister said about the programme and to the words that he chose to describe the Government's reaction to the initial proposals.

The Commission's proposal came very much from the personal output of Commissioner Pandolfi, a vice-president of the Commission. As the Minister said, it was issued without prior consultation and apparently without very much discussion in the Commission. The Minister said that the reaction of member Governments was one of surprise and concern.

We must consider what was originally proposed and how much it has changed. The original proposal was, I think, that some 80 per cent. of the 518 million ecu programme would be spent on fellowships, mainly post-doctoral fellowships, and that they would provide some 5,000 person years. Worked out as a proportionate share of United Kingdom contributions to European Community funding, that is about £11 million per annum from the United Kingdom.

The reaction of Governments was that the proposal was too large for the research training field, that it was too concentrated and that it proposed too big an increase in the number of fellowships. We must bear it in mind that up to 1985 the number of fellowships within European programmes was running below 50, but it increased from 150 in 1987 to 350 in 1988, so there has been a large recent increase, mainly due to the biology programme. The proposal was to increase it to 1,000 per annum.

The scaling back in the proposals, which are being circulated informally, means that the fellowship programme will be reduced from 80 to 50 per cent., that research networks and twinning should account for 30 per cent., the use of large facilities for 15 per cent. and European scientific conferences for 5 per cent. That will reduce the number of person years from 1,000 to 600 per year. From the soundings that I have taken, the British feeling is that the research networks should get a larger share than the 30 per cent. proposed. Matters are still not decided and a decision is not expected before April.

To see the background to this feeling, it is useful to look at what happened under the second framework programme in the fellowship programme. That was admirably evaluated by a panel under Heinrich Pfeiffer. It was a model of how to carry out evaluation. I know of no comparable evaluation of a comparable activity of a research council in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom received some 6 per cent. of the fellowships under the second framework programme but hosted some 33 per cent. of fellows. The United Kingdom produces 25 per cent. of the doctorates in the European Community compared with 27 per cent. in Germany and 25 per cent. in France. By comparison with that 25 per cent. of the doctorates produced, we received only 6 per cent. of the post-doctoral fellowships. Germany received 12 per cent., France 20 per cent. and Portugal—which produces only 1 per cent. of the doctorates—received 10 per cent. of the fellowships.

That created the somewhat extraordinary position in which Portugal was getting more fellowships than it had doctors to receive them—fellowships amounted to some 116 per cent. of the doctorates awarded in Portugal. Greece came second, with 46 per cent. followed by Belgium with 12 per cent. and Italy, 9 per cent.; Spain, 7 per cent.; the Netherlands, 6 per cent.; France, 3 per cent.; Germany, 2 per cent.; and the United Kingdom only 1 per cent. Only 1 per cent. of British doctorates had the expectation of getting a European Community fellowship.

With the best will in the world, that seems a bit odd. There is clearly an imbalance. Why? Is the United Kingdom a favourite destination because we speak English? Is it because we have a fine scientific tradition upon which scientists in Europe are anxious to draw? It is healthy to look at the reasons given by the fellows for seeking to work in particular countries and laboratories. Only one third of the fellows said that they considered the reputation of the host laboratory as an important consideration and only one fifth felt that the reputation of the supervisor was a consideration. Eighty-four per cent. said that the main reason was their wish to live abroad and to gain international experience. Is the United Kingdom acting as a surrogate America for footloose scientists in Europe who come, perhaps not for the beer, but for something other than scientific enlightenment?

Understandably, the evaluation report urged that there should be a much sharper rationale and objectives, a much clearer idea and style and an appropriate management system. The rationale that the Pfeiffer pannel suggested was a programme that seeks to achieve the movement of outstanding individuals to research institutions of their choice, that being the best way to transfer ideas. But it depends on what one means by "outstanding". I heard one scientist say to another, "Of course, his Nobel prize was only in medicine." Perhaps "outstanding" in the report does not quite mean those standards.

If one looks at the standards of a Medical Research Council post-doctoral fellowship, a Commonwealth fund fellow in the United States or a Harkness fellow, it seems that the standards aimed at in the human capital and mobility programme are somewhat different. We should be clear on that. The aim is not really to cater for the outstanding research scientist who will clearly be a leader in his generation. It is to provide a basic groundwork experience for a substantial proportion of working research scientists. That is a wholly rational objective and it provides a realistic context in which to look at the scheme.

The Pfeiffer panel said that the rationale should be to increase sharply the number of researchers who have been trained in another country. That fits in with the widening of the international background of the good, working, practical research scientist. However, when the panel discusses objectives, the abundance of them suggests that any one of them seems not to be strong enough to justify a programme of such magnitude. The panel speaks of excellence, mobility, diversity, transfer of technology, exchange of methodology, use of large research facilities, multi-disciplinarity, reduction of the brain drain of scientists leaving Europe, integration of the less-favoured regions and the openness to scientists from the European Free Trade Association and from eastern Europe. That is admirable, but the abundance of objectives suggests that there is still a lack of focus and of clear intention. If we recognise that the rationale aims to achieve a widespread international experience as an element in the experience of young scientists, mobility is a sufficient objective.

Where do the proposals leave us in terms of the prospect for the bulk of the programme? We are still talking about a substantial number of scientist years—perhaps not 5,000, but it would be somewhat over 3,000, or 600 per annum. On past figures, the numbers coming to the United Kingdom might be 200 and on the old ratios, the numbers going from the United Kingdom might be 30 to 40. If the United Kingdom came up to the levels of France and of Germany, it might be about 60 to 70. That means that the number of scientists to be received into the United Kingdom is larger than the number of scientists financed at this level by any research council, and the number leaving the United Kingdom would be as large as a big research council. We are not talking about a marginal element in the post-doctoral experience and training of scientists in the United Kingdom. Is that what we want? It may be, but there are some sordid practical points to consider first.

How will the Treasury argue about the additionality of the expenditure? Will the Treasury argue that the number of scientists received in this country should be counted as expenditure from the science budget, or will it count the number of scientists of British origin who are studying abroad as the figure to be notionally charged against the science budget—or neither?

What should our attitude be? Seeing the broad shape of the scheme, should we welcome it as spreading British influence, the British scientific tradition and the British scientific culture, or should we be cautious about losing British know-how and misapplying scarce British resources needed for British science?

I come down firmly on the view that we should continue to and be glad to extend the influences of British scientific culture. That is of undoubted benefit to the country in the long run, and to Europe. We must also go on to argue that if imbalance and unevenness are inevitable in the structure of a programme such as this, they must be redressed in some way. The pressures from the Government have been to try to redress them within the human capital and mobility programme; hence the call for an increase in support for research networks and twinning access to services provided in large research facilities, and for the organisation of European scientific conferences. I do not think that that goes wide enough, because I do not think that the imbalance can be redressed in that way.

If we look at where British scientific and technological interests lie, we can see a pressing need to increase our technological competitiveness. There are substantial areas where we can learn a great deal from other European countries. For example, there is obviously a capability in production engineering in Germany that is not as strongly represented in the United Kingdom. Although Britain produces admirable industrial designers, their use in British industry falls far behind the use of industrial designers in Italian industry. There will be other areas in which we have much to learn from other European countries and the redress of the balances should be sought across the European framework programmes as a whole.

If that is the framework of thinking, what about the other heads of expenditure under this line in the framework programme? The scientific networks are undoubtedly important. It is of great value to be able to travel and visit other people working in the same areas. If one compares the freedom with which, let us say, British Aerospace travels to and from Toulouse on the airbus project with the parsimony with which co-operating groups of scientists are able to travel between universities in France and the United Kingdom, one can see that there is a gross inefficiency in the networking of scientists.

To suggest that extra money is needed to staff large facilities implies that something has gone wrong with the budgeting since the facilities were first proposed. The budgeting should have provided for efficient use of the facilities on the scale at which they were being created. It is arguable that international access to those facilities is different from just increasing the purely British access. That should have been covered one way or another and it should not be a permanent feature of a programme such as this. For example, one does not build a school and then institute a separate programme to produce children to fill it. One does not build a power station and then set about finding a market for the power generated. The operating expense of large facilities needs to be planned integrally with the capital cost from the beginning.

The subject of European conferences raises a separate issue. It is admirable that the European Science Foundation should undertake the task of organising them, but, in itself, the foundation deserves consideration and funding on a basis different from merely the organisation of conferences. Conferences may be an important part of communication, but the European Science Foundation, as the meeting place of the science funding bodies of the different European countries, warrants a larger role than merely the organisation of conferences. If it has that larger role, the organisation of conferences is purely incidental to it.

I now come to the management of the programme. Is the practice of choosing institutions and allowing them to choose fellows right, regardless of whether it is supervised by a type I committee, for which the Commission argues, or a type 3 committee which, as the Minister explained, gives greater powers to the scientists to influence the Commission. That raises a wider question about methods of evaluation and organisation of national research funding.

The Pfeiffer panel is an admirable model of how to go about evaluation. However, if that model were applied to national funding programmes of scientific activities some major issues would be raised. There are certainly grounds for unease in the United Kingdom. For example, the level of grant for doctoral students is appallingly low and there is a lack of career prospects for young scientists once they are trained. There is a lack of follow-up by the research councils of former grant-holders or even principal investigators.

There are similar problems in France, such as the rigidity of the CNRS. In Germany, the length of the apprenticeship period is excessive. The apprentice scientist does not get out from under the professor until his mid-thirties. In Italy, the number of jobs which individuals hold is a problem.

I do not in the least wish to tear up the entire structure of European science and start again, but there should be consultation between the authorities in different countries about how they see national patterns evolving in relation to the European pattern. The machinery does not exist within the United Kingdom Government at present to make an appropriate contribution to such dialogue.

The Minister who opened the debate is not responsible for the European framework programme. The Minister who is responsible not only is a member of another House but belongs to another Department. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for representing Britain on science programmes in the European Community.

Following an interesting report in The Independent yesterday, we look forward to hearing the result of the Prime Minister's reflections over Christmas on the organisation of the machinery of government in Britain. The article said of the structure within the United Kingdom and Britain: science and technology has been crippled in terms of representation in Brussels, compared to the French and the Germans. Both these countries have strong, central ministries for research and technology, headed by forceful politicians who have secured their national advantage in negotiations with the European Commission. In contrast, putting the EC case for British technology has been the responsibility of the junior Minister in the DTI, whereas scientific research which falls within the DES's remit has gone unrepresented. That is not satisfactory management of United Kingdom science. Participation in shaping European science for the future must be a major consideration in the appropriate machinery of Government in Britain. We cannot simply ignore the structures that exist in other European Community member countries.

That is nowhere more starkly borne home than in the programme that we are debating, with a fair degree of information about what is going on; it costs some £11 million of British public expenditure. Yet tomorrow the Science and Engineering Research Council will make decisions on how to make good the shortfall from the science budget announced by the Government of some £40 million in the next fiscal year. That has been done without any debate in this place or any consideration by Ministers about the specific effects on the SERC of the decisions in the science budget.

British science is in a deeply unhappy state. European programmes cannot possibly make good the troubles that we face, but at least we can give this programme a cautious welcome in the sense that it is a building block in a framework which can be built to the greater advantage of the United Kingdom in a more adequate framework of science policy.

10.14 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

I do not wish to add a great deal to what has been said. I agree with the comments by those on both Front Benches. The Minister managed to open the debate with a clarity which described technology without being too technical and comitology without being comatose. The complexities of the programme are great. Indeed, it is difficult for the House in such a short debate to understand and explore in detail precisely what is being provided for.

I agree with the burden of some comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) about shortcomings in research, particularly blue sky research, in the United Kingdom in recent years. When one talks to university vice-chancellors and principals one hears the complaint year on year that not enough pure research is taking place and that industry is leading the nature of research, which means that research tends to be rather too specific. A consequence is that many university laboratories and engineering houses have become testing shops for products which have already been developed.

It is welcome to see a programme in the European Community which appears to allow for a considerable amount of mainly blue sky research to take place. It is to be hoped that a consequence of the programme will be that original thought, original design and original technique will come within Europe and be developed throughout industry.

I agree with the emphasis of the motion on enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness. I hope that the Government will ensure that this programme does not disappear into the European bureaucracy and that we can evaluate its contribution to science within industry.

The programme will be a success if it means that European companies make products and employ people to manufacture products that bring us to the forefront of world science and technology, which will mean that we compete fully with the Japanese and Americans. However, if it merely ensured that scientists had the opportunity to partake in some nice, interesting research that had no ultimate practical applications, it would be a failure. Therefore, I hope that the Government will ensure that, within the Community, this programme is fully monitored so that we may see some real results which will enable us to point to another European success in research and development.

10.18 pm
Mr. Alan Howarth

This has been a helpful debate. It has been useful to the House to hear the views of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), both of whom represent their Front Benches. It is pleasing that there has been considerable agreement among the parties on much of the ground that has been covered.

The hon. Gentleman wondered why such a high proportion of beneficiaries under the science programme in framework 2 had come to this country. As he surmised, I suspect that it is because of the strength of science and the attractiveness of our country to European students to work and learn here. That is part of my response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. British scientists aspire to further opportunities. We all want more resources to be made available for science and to see the extraordinary wealth of scientific talent in this country find its fullest opportunity. But I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that public expenditure in support of the science base has increased by 23 per cent. above inflation during the period of Conservative rule. We have not stinted on resources. There are periods when expansion is faster and slower, but let nobody doubt the desire of the Government to give the best support we can, on behalf of society at large, to the quality and achievements of British science.

I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that industry was playing perhaps too large a part—was making up some kind of shortfall—in support of science. Many others believe that there has not been a sufficiently strong research and development effort in British industry. It is partly for that reason that the Government have chosen to withdraw funding from near-market research, so making it inevitably a requirement of our industries that they invest in the research that they properly should be doing themselves. By that means, we are able to transfer the resources that would otherwise be spent in the area of near-market research to pure science and that is already leading to a strengthening of our science base.

I am anxious to respond to some of the points of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. I was in sympathy with almost everything he said about European framework programmes 2 and 3. It is right that evaluation needed improving and that the Pfeiffer report passed some very severe strictures on the evaluation that took place. One of our primary concerns is to make sure that in the commitment of substantial added resources to that programme, we make sure that the priorities are sensibly identified, that there is proper management, that what we are supporting is support for excellence and that we are developing a programme for education and training for the body of scientists, who should benefit from an experience of quality in Europe as a whole.

The hon. Member for Motherwell, South stressed that we had not done as well as we might under framework programme 2 and the SCIENCE programme. It is fair to remind him that, from the point of view of experience so far, on average the United Kingdom has received back 22 per cent. of framework programme funds, which is more than a juste retour.

Under the SCIENCE programme, which we expect the human mobility programme to continue, nearly 30 per cent. of all recipient laboratories were in the United Kingdom. I take it as a benefit to us that we had so many people coming to study and work here. I take it as a matter of pride for British science, as does the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, that the United Kingdom took part in more than 70 of the 114 laboratory twinnings.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the range of objectives in framework programme 3 and in the human mobility line was perhaps too diffuse. He recited a series of quoted purposes which he finally characterised as admirable, and on that we all agree. But again, the key point is sharpness of focus to ensure that the objectives are clearly identified and are right.

The hon. Member for Motherwell, South rated as a high priority, and a valuable feature of the programme, the emphasis on mobility and networking. Later in his remarks he referred to the problems of developing satisfactory career structures and opportunities for research scientists. Those are serious problems, and it is a help to know that the framework programme will at least ensure that there is a well-designed, full range of opportunities for further education and training for post-doctoral scientists. That will give strength to those who have the benefit of participating in the programme and will mean that they are better placed in the competitive stakes for subsequently seeking more permanent appointments in their careers.

Clearly, in the world of modern science in which there is a high degree of specialisation, if people are working at or near the frontiers of science there will inevitably be difficulties in the provision of long-term career opportunities for people who are highly specialised. The best people proceed with confidence from one contract to the next, if they do not actually hold long-term university posts or have long-term appointments as professional scientists. But if others move from academic work into industrial employment, it is not necessarily a terrible misfortune. There are great benefits for our economy and the hon. Member for Motherwell, South referred to the need for improved technology transfer and for the high degree of academic skill that some of our best scientists and engineers have to be transferred to and reflected in the production processes in United Kingdom industry. Therefore, I am not discouraged when I view the scene.

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Motherwell, South that the Treasury will take a more benign view than he expects. I do not indulge in vacuous optimism, but we should put the expenditure on the programme in proportion. The participation of the Department of Education and Science in framework programme 3, involves under 2 per cent. of the science budget. Therefore, our participation does not have any serious or realistically measurable effect on the size of the science budget as a whole. The hon. Gentleman's fears about additionality are groundless.

The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the problems of management at the large facilities in western Europe, on which we keep a vigilant watch. He will have noted that last week, in a decision shared with our Community partners, we refused to agree to a proposed 2 per cent. increase in the CERN budget for 1992. We are determined that there should be proper control of such massive organisations which dispose of immense sums of money.

A positive feature of the programme is that it intends, realistically, through the mobility programme, to bring those facilities into fuller use and to give a larger number of scientists the opportunity to use them and gain experience.

I was pleased that we had such a wide measure of agreement, both in our scepticism of aspects of the management of framework programme 2 and in the essential purposes that we recognise as valuable in framework programme 3.

I parted company with the hon. Gentleman on his familiar strictures about the condition of British science. I shall not repeat what I said in response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. As for the observations of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South about the structure and organisation, and responsibility in Government for science, he looks forward with tremendous relish to the day when the millenium dawns and he presides over a separate Ministry of Science. However, he and all those involved should reflect carefully on whether an individual, specialist science ministry would carry the force and clout in Whitehall that he and I would want it to do, in recognition of our concerns for the well-being of British science.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Is the Minister aware that some of us went to the interesting lecture, excellently presented, by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) at the Royal Society? I understand that the hon. Member for Havant is taking a group of scientists to see the Prime Minister on this very subject on, I think, 14 January. This should be a question that is open to discussion. I understand that the Secretary of State for Education arid Science is to be there—perhaps he will report to the House on that interesting meeting.

Mr. Howarth

I think that we can all readily say that my right hon. Friends are concerned to find the best system within Government for supporting British science.

10.29 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am prompted to intervene by the last interchange, the question of the responsibility for science within government, and by some of the Minister's comments—although I do not want to be as specific as the debate, which naturally focused on a particular programme.

At last summer's British Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Swansea, it was widely commented that there is still inadequate recognition in government of the importance of science. This is not meant as a personal criticism—as the Minister knows—but that is borne out by the very fact that within the DES, science is so sidelined that it is the part-responsibility of a non-Secretary of State—that is, of a junior Minister—and has a relatively small budget. It is virtually buried in the Department of Education and Science, instead of being an activity which could be influential across many Departments. That matter is of considerable academic and practical concern.

I do not dissent from the Minister's claims about the Treasury's increase in science spending in the most recent public expenditure round. However, he must not be complacent. He will no doubt recall the presidential address given at the British association's conference. Although it did not relate specifically to further and higher education and current academic performance among both postgraduates and leading scientists, it foretold a future of some doom if our education system does not significantly improve.

This country cannot afford to be complacent. In the forecast era of considerably more mobility within Europe, we shall be more at risk from scientific interchange in more competitive circumstances and suffer some disadvantage in developing the seed corn of scientific advance, unless we show considerably more commitment to the prerequisites for more successful science.

Mr. Alan Howarth

As I told the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), we have made a major increase of 23 per cent. in real terms in science funding during the life of this Government. That is taken on board by all scientists, and naturally the British Association does as much pleading as others for yet more increased expenditure.

I dissent very much from the hon. Gentleman when he says that science is somehow sidelined in my Department. My right hon. Friend is Secretary of State for both education and science, and he gives high weighting to his responsibilities in relation to the latter. Science pervades the whole of modern government. There is not a Department in Whitehall to which science is not immensely important.

The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) must always take that into account in his consideration of what might be an appropriate structure. Will he, in his putative Department of Science, be such a powerful ringmaster that he will be able to crack his whip and have the big beasts respond in the way that he wants?

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was absolutely right to say that science teaching in our schools must be improved. We agree entirely and that is why we introduced the subject into the national curriculum, which is laying the foundations for an across-the-board increase in the level of attainment in scientific studies.

Mr. Hughes

I am grateful to the Minister for his mini-speech by way of an intervention. As to the structure of government, there is a proper constitutional argument to be made about whether an independent science Ministry could be justified, in terms of having the clout within government. Such an argument could properly be made in respect of any proposed Department.

There is a widely held view within the scientific community that science is not perceived as sufficiently important in the whole focus of Government investment and interest, not just in the Department of Education and Science, and the president of the British Association set out what will happen if we do not attach significant importance to it and provide more investment. That the Government are aware of the dangers of complacency is a start. It would be a good thing if the House and the Government put science more regularly on the agenda, because without good science we shall not do very well in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7053/90 relating to a programme for research and technological development in the field of Human Capital and Mobility; endorses the Government's view that this European Community initiative will present an appropriate means of providing assistance to the mobility of scientists, hence enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness; and supports the Government's policy of pursuing clear scientific and managerial objectives within the programme to promote effective delivery of the specific training and mobility measures proposed.