Science and Engineering Research Council (Hansard, 14 March 1991)

§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of some of the possible consequences of the financial crisis currently facing the Science and Engineering Research Council. May I say, Mr. Speaker, how honoured we are to have you gracing this debate at such an early hour.
There was an important debate, initiated by the Opposition, in the House on 6 February on the funding of science in this country. Not surprisingly, quite a lot of the discussion at that time focused on the position of the Science and Engineering Research Council. I do not wish to repeat much of the argument in that debate on the Government's general record on science funding. I would just like to make one point that was repeated in the debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) the Labour party spokesman on science is here, because he made this point effectively in the debate, as did others.
I very much regret that the Government have not published, as has been the normal practice in recent years, the advice given by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. Whatever view one takes of the Government's overall funding of science and, in particular, the latest allocations announced to the science budget generally and to individual research councils, there can be no dispute about the funding crisis at SERC.
On 7 February the Science and Engineering Research Council issued a press notice with the heading SERC's measures to combat shortfall in its funding". Away back in November, because the level of its funding for the current year was being outstripped by inflation, the council had to implement severe measures to cut back spending, including, I believe, a virtual freeze on recruitment. The announcement about the proposed level of funding for 1991–92 for the research council has aggravated that situation.
We have to understand that SERC has a very important role to play within the general framework of science in this country. I respect the position of the Medical Research Council and am a former employee of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, and I understand that they have problems; but the situation confronting SERC stands out as particularly serious. I very much regret the statements that have appeared of late, some in the quality press, that somehow we should not be involved in big science, that somehow there is a case for retrenchment in, if not actual withdrawal from, British participation in what is loosely described as big science, especially astronomy and nuclear physics, the two areas which are particularly threatened and at risk.
I put it to the Minister that it is the Science and Engineering Research Council's role to support that science, because in practice the huge costs involved in equipment and in international subscriptions are such that no university department will pick up this work. SERC is the only organisation which can sponsor much of this research. That is why it is so crucial that it recognises its responsibility to do so.
I make no bones of the fact that my first reason for raising this subject at this hour concerns my interest, as a former scientist and an Edinburgh Member of Parliament, in the future of the royal observatory, Edinburgh. That 1323 observatory and the other SERC observatory, the royal Greenwich observatory at Cambridge are currently the subject of a review. That review was initiated prior to the funding crisis becoming apparent, and certainly prior to any decisions being taken by the council about the funding crisis. However, there is no doubt that the financial crisis puts pressure on that review and makes it more likely that some bad decisions could be taken because of the need to save money in the short term. The review was initiated when Professor Longair accepted another important appointment, and the council decided that that would be an appropriate time to consider the contributions made by the two observatories.
The royal observatory has 122 staff, 20 of whom are based at Hilo in Hawaii. It also funds another 40 local staff in Hawaii. In this modern age, it makes sense for observatories to base their modern telescopes in favourable locations. The real telescope work is carried out at Hawaii.
The royal observatory has a valuable record across the whole spectrum of astronomy. It provides national facilities for astronomers throughout the United Kingdom. Astronomers from a whole range of universities use its facilities. We benefit from the close relationship of the observatory with the astronomy department of Edinburgh university. I emphasise that it is the only SERC laboratory in Scotland. Its director is also the professor of astronomy at Edinburgh and the Astronomer Royal. There is no doubt that that symbiosis between the university department and the SERC staff has created a successful climate for scientific endeavour, which helps to make the observatory such a useful facility for astronomers throughout the country.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the House detailing the achievement of the observatory. I shall concentrate on only a few aspects. What stands out in Edinburgh is the work on instrumentation. It is an important area in astronomy and in the learning of more and more about our planet. The observatory's work is internationally renowned. It has recently delivered a spectrometer to Hawaii which is acknowledged to be three or four years ahead of any of its rivals, including those being developed in the United States. Two large 8m telescopes are to be developed in the late 1990s, one of which is to be based in Hawaii. It is a tribute to the royal observatory staff that they will be managing the 8m telescope in Hawaii. There will be one in the northern hemisphere and one in the southern hemisphere.
The instrumentation department undoubtedly has an exceptional international reputation. Optical engineers, experts in computer software work and scientists in other disciplines work together in that department. Basically, their work is related mainly to telescopes, used by astronomers. We should never lose sight of the fact—it was something of which I was very much aware when I worked as a scientist—that the exchange between pure and applied scientists means that the work in some areas of science can be of great benefit to work in other areas. Examples of that relate to work carried out by scientists at the royal observatory in Edinburgh. They analyse slides and pictures of the sky using the sophisticated Cosmos machine which measures the density of photographic emulsion. The pictures are digitised and analysed by computer. Those instruments and that software can be used to improve the detection of cancer cells in cervical smears. This approach can also be used to detect breast 1324 cancer at an early stage from X-rays of women's breasts. That is an important collaboration between the Medical Research Council and the scientists at the royal obsdervatory in Edinburgh. That is an important example of the spin-offs that can result from research, particularly when there is such a high-calibre team as that operating in Edinburgh.
The team has also collaborated with the Admiralty in analysing the bubbles that are left by submarines as they move under water. The Admiralty is using some of the team's facilities and techniques to improve submarine detection.
There are other areas of activity at the royal observatory in Edinburgh that I have not had time to mention but which are outstanding by international standards. It would be an act of scientific vandalism if SERC, during its current review, destroyed those teams. That is what is at stake.
There might be a proposal to merge aspects of the work of the royal Greenwich observatory at Cambridge with that in Edinburgh. I can think of nothing more damaging than to transfer the instrumentation work from Edinburgh to Cambridge. If that were proposed, many of the scientists would not move to Cambridge. Such a proposal would destroy one of the jewels of the SERC's effort and that would be nothing short of an act of scientific vandalism.
The threat to the royal observatory in Edinburgh is not a direct consequence of the funding crisis confronting SERC. However, we in Edinburgh fear that the additional pressure that is being brought to bear on the council to make cuts and achieve rationalisations, even when they cannot be justified, could lead to damaging decisions being taken that would seriously affect the long-term contribution that the royal observatory in Edinburgh with its tremendous history, can make in that area.
I want to refer briefly to the threat to nuclear physics, which is another aspect of big science to arise from the crisis facing SERC. A great deal has been made of the fact that about two thirds of the funding of the nuclear physics board within SERC is directed to CERN, the European centre for nuclear research. We must consider these issues objectively. If we examine a graph of CERN's total budget at 1989 prices, between 1980 and 1989 it is clear that the budget has effectively been constant. There was a slight increase, but that was due mainly to new member states joining. Since 1980, the CERN budget has risen in real terms by less than 5 per cent., despite the cost of building the LEP—large electron-position collider. It would be wrong to say that the CERN contribution was a particularly unpredictable element of the nuclear physics board's budget.
The problem is that the nuclear physics board is having to bear the brunt of proposed cuts within SERC. It seems that the council proposes to hit hardest the nuclear structure research as opposed to particle physics.
There is international recognition of the value of the research and the excellence of the British contribution to it. It would be a great setback to not only British science but science throughout the world if some of the proposed cuts were implemented. I shall give only one quotation because I know that there is another debate to follow this one. It is from Claude Detraz the chairman of the European organisation of nuclear physics laboratory heads. With 1325 reference to the proposed cuts in nuclear structure research and in particular the proposal to end the support for such research at the Daresbury lab, he said: It seems unusual to say the least that such a brutal change should not be accompanied by a detailed evaluation of the anticipated evolution of the field in the next five to ten years. That is my crucial point on what is happening to nuclear physics research in general and the nuclear structure physics of the Science and Engineering Research Council.
It would be a tragedy if long-term benefits to British science were sacrificed for short-term financial considerations. Undoubtedly, the announced cuts and the further restrictions that they are likely to place on the work, are not the result of a proper objective review of the science and whether it is an area that Britain should be in. I recognise that hard choices have to be made. We cannot give scientists their head simply to carry on working on whatever they want throughout their careers. I respect that. As a former working scientist in my research establishment, I am aware that there were areas in which it was necessary to be fairly ruthless and tell scientists that they had to stop their work because it could not be justified.
I do not dispute that hard decisions have to be taken, but they should be taken on the basis of a proper, objective view of the value of the science and the contribution that it can make.
A supplementary budget for SERC for 1991–92 must be announced before the recess. That is the only way in which we can avoid short-term financial considerations doing long-term damage to British science.

§ Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South)
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Well——

§ Dr. Bray
In one sentence

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, in one sentence

§ Dr. Bray
We are about to embark on next year's public expenditure increase round and we must find increases for science budgets in the next financial year, whatever happens in this year.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon)
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has done the House a service in raising the importance of science for the second time in six weeks. I begin by informing the House that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who has direct ministerial responsibility for science cannot be here. He is engaged on scientific work. He is chairing a session of the Engelberg forum on bio-ethics in Switzerland.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the publication of advice from the Advisory Board for the 1326 Research Councils. There has never been any obligation on the Secretary of State to publish that advice. It is confidential advice, and therefore, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to publish it.
The core of the debate is the budget of the Science and Engineering Research Council. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made a good case for big science. Of course, the big international sciences such as astronomy are important, even though they are expensive.
It is equally important that the council's budget be properly balanced to ensure that the key smaller grants around the universities and the smaller scientific institutions are also given sufficient headroom. That is the purpose of the council's current review.
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to his concern and that of his constituents about the future of the royal observatory in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited the observatory recently and he has seen for himself the high quality of the work there. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman—and I have the council's agreement to give him this assurance—that the royal observatories in Edinburgh and in Cambridge will continue as separate establishments. There are, therefore, no plans to close either of them.
The review in hand has two purposes. It is intended to ensure that some of the more over-optimistic elements of the council's programme are properly balanced against the need to protect the smaller grants as well as the larger programmes. There should be no doubting the Government's commitment to science. The real-terms increase in the funding for science of 23 per cent. over the past 10 years is a good example of the importance that the Government attach to this area.