HL Deb 17 December 1980 vol 415 cc1178-93

8.19 p.m.

Lord Sherfield rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on biotechnology (66th Report, Session 1979–80, H.L. 350).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the fashionable hour at which to begin a debate on a report from the Select Committee on the European Communities. Unfortunately it is also an extremely inconvenient hour, and several members of my subcommittee who would have liked to take part are just unable to come so late in the evening, so we are, I fear, a rather diminished band.

The subject of biomolecular engineering is a vast one, highly topical and of major national importance. But your Committee, under its terms of reference, can deal with only one aspect of it—a proposal put forward by the European Commission for a five-year Community programme of research and development in this field. Your committee was alerted to the significance of this programme by a paragraph in the report from the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development—ACARD—on Biotechnology, under the chairmanship of Dr. Spinks. Dr. Spinks was good enough to give evidence to the sub-committee, who are much indebted to him. We are also indebted to Professor Bull, of the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, who is the chairman of the British Co-ordinating Committee for work in this field. He gave evidence to the committee and also specialist advice.

The proposal is naturally couched in technical language and a glossary is provided. But, put simply, the programme covers six subjects, two in the general field of enzyme engineering and four in the general field of genetic engineering. These are set out in the report and I shall not describe them in detail. These six projects would be funded on an indirect basis—that is to say, the Community puts up some money and the national Governments put up some money—by cost sharing contracts between the Commission and private or public organisations in the member states. Each project would be controlled by a small research group. The total cost over five years would be 49 million European units of account, of which 26 million European units of account would come from Community funds.

This is an area in which, at the end of the 'sixties, the United Kingdom was a world leader. Since then, as described in the report, Japan and the United States, in particular, have made great strides, while Europe—and, in Europe, notably the United Kingdom—is falling behind. The ACARD report has, it is hoped, given a fresh impetus in this country. The Commission's initiative is intended to give a similar impetus in Europe as a whole. As such, it is to be welcomed. This is a field which, if properly developed, can bring striking benefits to industry, to agriculture and to society in general.

The departmental evidence was to the effect that work in all six areas—that is to say, all the six topics selected by the Commission for work—was being done in the United Kingdom. They would prefer to support some parts of the programme rather than others and accept an overall commitment which, while worthwhile in the European context, will not unduly divert the national effort. Your committee consider that the case for a fresh impetus in Europe is made out, and that Her Majesty's Government should give the Commission's programme general support. But the committee also recognises that there are problems to be surmounted, some of which will require careful handling and watching.

One problem which gave some members of the committee particular concern was the protection, in such a Community programme, of patents and intellectual property. The Commission intend to attempt to safeguard patentable discoveries by the application of an existing Council regulation, which deals with the protection of intellectual property. Nevertheless, the efficacy of this cannot be fully relied on and, in view of possible effects on the United Kingdom's competitive position, this is a sensitive area which will need to be carefully watched.

The committee also felt that the programme was wide-ranging and that the butter would be spread rather thin among the European laboratories in nine, or perhaps even 10, countries. They felt that more attention should be paid to the question of priorities within the programme. Then there is a further question about the supply of skilled engineers and technicians.

I need mention only one other problem; the conjectural hazards associated with genetic engineering on which the Commission has published a proposal for a draft directive. This was scrutinised in the Thirty-Ninth Report of the Select Committee last year, which concluded that this directive was too restrictive, and was ill-suited to the rapidly developing techniques of recombinant DNA. They proposed that its place should be taken by a recommendation which would allow a significant degree of harmonisation, and permit member states to protect the confidentiality of their emerging industries, without inhibiting the exchange of research information. In view of this report, your committee relied on it and did not consider the subject of safeguards and hazards further. I can, however, inform your Lordships that the Commission has now issued a draft recommendation on the lines of the Select Committee's report. So that is a satisfactory development.

The difficulties notwithstanding, your committee were, on balance, in favour of participation by the United Kingdom in the proposed programme. They were, however, informed that one country, France, was not in favour of Community research funding and had suggested a training programme only. They were further informed that Germany was also reluctant and wanted the programme limited to areas of agricultural interest, to training also and to safety measures. In the meantime, the European Parliament has given the programme its blessing, subject to a number of conditions.

That was the situation when this report was published. I now understand that, as a result of negotiations which have taken place since the committee's report came out, a compromise proposal has been formulated. There has been an allocation of funds to training and education in the areas covered by five of the six projects in the programme; the programme of research and development has been reduced from six projects to three; and the total cost to the Commission cut from 26 million to 11.8 million European units of account, which amounts to about £7 million, over 4½ years. The compromise proposal is now under consideration by a Council working party.

This development obviously puts a different complexion on the Commission's proposal; and I can say with some confidence, since I was able to check with the members of my sub-committee this morning, that the tenor of the report before your Lordships would also have been different if the compromise had been the proposal under scrutiny.

First, I understand that only £5 million of the £7 million is now allocated to cost-sharing contracts over 4½ years, the balance going to training and safety measures. The amount earmarked for the training of engineers and technicians seems to me to be questionable, since this is an activity which would normally be taken care of by member states and should have rather a low priority in terms of Community funding. Secondly, the amount allocated to projects is correspondingly smaller than in the original proposal. It is true that the number of projects has been halved, but the butter will now be spread even thinner than before. It might have been an improvement if approximately the same amount of money had been made available for a smaller number of projects, but this course has not been taken.

Finally, projects 2, 3 and 4, to which our witnesses gave higher priority than to projects 5 and 6 have been dropped altogether from the programme.

There is a general disposition to support a constructive and well-intentioned proposal for co-operative community action in the field of advanced technology. Such support was encouraged by most of the evidence which we received. It is in principle most desirable that the United Kingdom should, as it were, stay in the game but, given the risks in terms of sensitive information and so on and the administrative and scientific effort involved in taking part in such a programme, participarion in these whittled down compromise proposals appears to have lost some of its attractions. I hope the Minister will be able to say what he thinks of this revised programme; state whether he considers it to be properly balanced; and whether—and, if so, to what extent—the Government will support it.

There is perhaps one general point. This report deals with an attempt by the Commission to organise a Community-wide research and development programme of the indirect type in an area of advanced technology. It is not their first effort. Nuclear fusion is a well established precedent of the direct type of Community funding, and there are many examples of the indirect type. But the Commission are now seeking to establish uniform policies which would be applied generally to further projects of this kind. It is important that these proposed policies should be carefully looked at, and it is the intention of the Select Committee to scrutinise the Commission's proposals in this regard in the very near future. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on biotechnology (66th Report, Session 1979–80, H.L. 350.)—(Lord Sherfield.)

8.32 p.m.

The Earl of Bessborough

My Lords, we are all—the few of us, the two or three gathered together—grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for his expert presentation of what, to many of us, are highly complex and technical matters. It is a privilege to be serving on his sub-committee. The programmes for research and development—as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has said, some six in all—fall naturally into two groups: the first concerning enzyme engineering and the second genetic engineering.

These programmes have been the subject of detailed consultation between the technical advisers of the member states. I do not intend, any more than did the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, to go into the details, but what we have to decide is whether the projects are to be generally recommended; what their effect would be on the competitiveness of the European Community's industries; and in particular whether they would allow us to make good the ground which, from all accounts, our industries may have lost in recent years.

At national level it is necessary to determine whether those United Kingdom industries which are known to be well advanced in research and development will be significantly assisted by the programme. The answer which came through quite clearly during our inquiry was that the effects, subject to certain safeguards, could only be beneficial. Even if we have to accept that the figures of patent applications drawn on by the Commission and listed in the Committee's report do not tell the whole story, the picture which emerges is that the United Kingdom, as has happened in the past in other fields, having done excellent pioneering work, has missed out or is missing out on subsequent developments. This can be remedied in a number of ways: either by greater national endeavour, as outlined in the Spinks Report, or by joining with other member states in a joint programme, as is now suggested, or by a combination of the two. It is the latter course, a combination of the two, which I commend to your Lordships' attention.

We have it on the evidence of Dr. Spinks himself that the United Kingdom is one of the three strongest countries in the EEC in biotechnology, the other two being Germany and France. Within the United Kingdom, the establishments which could well attract contracts under the Commission's programme—they are enumerated in Question 17 on page 8 and in Questions 40 and 41 on pages 15 and 16 of the evidence—include the famous MRC unit in Cambridge, which is pre-eminent in the work of recombined or, as is said, recombinant DNA, cell fusion and the like; Imperial College, which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, knows so well; University College, the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, with which the noble Lord, Lord Peart, is familiar; the Manchester Institute of Science and Technology—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, is not here—together with units in Edinburgh, Leicester, Sheffield and the University of Kent. And since the noble Lord, Lord Kings-Norton, is here, he will no doubt be mentioning Cranfield. There is no lack, therefore, of centres of excellence where the necessary work can be carried out.

It may be that co-ordination of activities may present problems, both nationally and even European-wise, but there is already in existence a British coordinating committee for biotechnology, with a European counterpart. The influence of the latter, the European committee, suggests that such organisations can be effective.

We know that the Federal Government of West Germany, assisted by the German Research Society, has contributed effectively to development in that country, development which includes a complete centre devoted to such work at Braunschweig-Stockeim. It can be done. However, as an article in the Times Educational Supplement of 12th December said, one wonders whether these large centres are necessarily the most effective ways in which to deal with these matters. It may be that it is better to make use of all the existing, perhaps semi-independent research establishments.

The importance of work in biotechnology is becoming more generally known. It can produce energy savings. I know that my noble friend Lord Trenchard will agree. For example, it was reported recently that the production of soy sauce in Japan takes two years by conventional methods. Now scientists at Glasgow University can do it in three weeks. Enzyme engineering can produce fruit syrup from corn starch at one tenth of the cost of conventional methods. The production of substances useful to man, such as insulin, can now be effected in marketable quantities, a most important development, since it is estimated that supplies of insulin from natural sources will be inadequate by the turn of the century.

But it is all slow, painstaking work, which requires experts from many disciplines working together and supported by adequate finance. There are problems of co-ordination to be resolved and difficult areas of patents and the protection of intellectual property to be safeguarded. It is therefore to be regretted—at least I regret the fact—that, due to pressure from other member states, the initial projected funding by the Commission has been reduced from £15½ million spread over five years to £7½ million spread over four and a half years. This has resulted in modifications to the programme, which it is now proposed will have a higher education and training content.

I am sorry that other engagements prevented me from being present at the sub-committee meeting this morning on this subject and I appreciate very much what the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has said on this point. That might modify our views. However, no doubt my noble friend Lord Trenchard in his reply will comment on the modfied programme and will say whether Her Majesty's Government consider that it was necessary to scale it down so radically. The member states which took the initiative in this latter operation no doubt had good grounds for doing so. I wonder whether my noble friend will be able to enlighten us in his reply. However, that may be, the programme, whatever its size, will, I hope, provide an added impetus both in the United Kingdom and in the Community generally in areas of advanced technology where we cannot afford not to be actively involved.

Finally, my Lords, in regard to a matter which was not discussed in our report—that is, recombinant DNA as applied to cloning and in humans as apart from vegetables and the creation of the so-called "monster man", or the deus ex machina,—I think the dangers and the hazards have been greatly exaggerated. In this connection, I was glad to read the Select Committee's 39th report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield referred and which was produced by the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden—the report on genetic engineering and genetic manipulation. Personally, I think that the controls already in force or proposed in other countries should be effective and we should not have undue fears.

This evening, travelling back from a sublime service in Chichester Cathedral, I was wondering which of my noble friends I would most like to see replicated or multiplicated in this House. I certainly think that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and my noble friend, Lord Trenchard are among them, to say nothing of other noble Lords sitting opposite me here. I think that they would be among my first choices. I support the Motion and the opinion of the Committee contained in the report.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Adrian

My Lords, I should like to begin by saying how glad I am that we can consider this report and how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for introducing it so clearly. As the noble Lord said, the subject of the report is of the greatest importance to our future, and that must be my excuse if I stray a little beyond the strictly European context of this discussion. I am sure we should welcome this report. Its conclusions seem to me to be nicely balanced and it does not conceal many of the very real problems involved in this kind of jointly-funded European research.

I must declare an interest, or at least a point of view, as a biological scientist with some research experience. So, with a little inside knowledge, I read the report with a great deal of interest and enjoyment and I looked at the list of scientific problems posed in paragraph 13 of the report. At first sight they seem to be much more related to the technical aspects than to the funadmental aspects of bio-technology, but, as I read the evidence, I sensed an uncertainty in the proposals themselves, about the nature of the problems that were proposed to be addressed. I think the uncertainty is reflected in the evidence presented to the committee. On the one hand industry hopes for exploitable processes and know-how—very naturally—to the extent that ICI proposed a role for industry in the direction of the project and indeed a vetting procedure to ensure all patent rights before the publication of any results.

On the other hand with just those problems of patenting in mind, the chief scientist to the Department of Trade and Industry expressed the hope that exploitable inventions would not result from the research programme. So it is probably impossible at this stage to say what mix of technical and fundamental work would emerge; but it is my own opinion that the mechanism of European initiatives, of joint funding and cost-sharing contracts, are an expensive and probably indeed a clumsy way of doing fundamental science, if that is the aim. So often important advances come in unexpected places and to people who may be looking for something else. Besides, we already support the European molecular biology organisation, EMBO, at Heidleberg for large-scale and expensive molecular biology. However, if exploitable development work is the planned outcome of the programme, I share the misgivings which I detect in the report about the complexities introduced by patenting, by the necessity to assess the property which will lie with the NRDC, with the national source of funds, the research worker and the European Community under Council Regulation No. 2380.

Indeed, I believe these very complexities may not be unconnected with the question that is asked by this report: why is so much of the fundamental work clone in this country then exploited abroad? Can it actually be that our own existing mechanisms for patenting and for protecting the national interest actually inhibit the exploitation of scientific research done in this country? I think this is at least a legitimate question to ask, and the joint working party's report on biotechnology contains a great deal that is relevant to this question. Do the research councils and the NRDC sometimes serve to keep apart—unintentionally, to be sure—the drive of venture capitalists and the enthusiasm and special knowledge of research scientists?

Success in the industrial application of new science in the United States of America, both in microelectronics and latterly in biotechnology, it seems to me has depended on the very close entrepreneurial combination of venture capital and scientific enthusiasm. If they are in some way kept apart in the interests of protecting the scientists and the national interest, nothing much in the way of development is likely to happen, and I feel that the addition of a Brussels dimension to this existing protection, makes one wonder whether any application would actually emerge from this programme. I recognise of course a number of notable successes which have been masterminded by the NRDC, but in the special field which we are considering today I think many would agree with the opinion expressed in this report, that the exploitation of research, much of it done under the generous provision of the Medical Research Council, has indeed lagged behind that of our competitors.

I believe half of this problem may lie in size, in large firms, in large corporations and in large research councils. So often as a new scientific idea, which may itself be in a state which is not immediately exploitable, passes across each successive desk and through each successive head it loses its force and appeal, and successive heads sometimes may not have just that special knowledge which is the context that gives the idea its importance. I am afraid I doubt whether we shall increase our success rate for exploitation unless we can somehow shorten the desk distance between the man who wants to take risks to develop a business and the scientist who knows how to do something and has the knowledge to see how that something can be done.

I have to confess a good deal of ignorance about the world of Brussels and of CREST and of Coreper, but in my bones I am unconvinced that these proposals will do anything very much to increase our collective or our national ability to exploit biotechnology. I am not, therefore, much grieved to learn that a reduction in the scope of these proposals is currently under consideration. But whatever the outcome of these European proposals, I am sure we can wholeheartedly endorse the opinion of the committee in paragraphs 27 and 29, where they would like to see an increased United Kingdom effort in this field and much more and much earlier liaison between universities and industry.

8.52 p.m.

Lord Kings-Norton

My Lords, I, too, should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for his very clear exposition this evening of this extremely specialised and now much modified and diminished proposal from the European Commission. A great deal of what I had notes to speak of this evening has already been spoken of by previous people, but I think I should explain that I decided to take part in this debate this evening chiefly because, my interest in biotechnology having been very much enhanced by the work of the sub-committee on it, I have, since the conclusion of our exercise, found out a little more about what is going on biotechnologically in this country. My broad conclusion, which is very much the same as conclusions we have heard already this evening, is that while not enough is going on for us to be satisfactorily competitive with other major countries (and their names are on page viii of the report before you) there is rather more going on than some of us, I think, had realised. Noble Lords will appreciate that while projects which are the subject of the Commission's proposals are very sophisticated in character to most of us, and have for most noble Lords an air of unfamiliarity, the subject of biotechnology is not new; it is in fact very old. Brewing is biotechnology, sewage treatment is biotechnology. But what is new is the recognition of fresh fields for biotechnological research and development, and the rapid expansion, particularly in Japan and the United States of America, of knowledge leading towards profitable commercial development.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said, 10 years ago there seemed little doubt that in this country we were in the lead, but now we are not in the lead. The figures on the patent position, on page viii of the report before your Lordships, are most disturbing. On the other hand they are figures relating only to enzyme technology, not to the whole biotechnological field. Enzyme technology is, of course, extremely important and a large part of the field, but it is not the whole picture. From what I have discovered in the last week or two, if figures for the whole field were available to us—I do not know where to get them—our position would indeed look rather better; but it would not look good enough. Although I believe we could make a good showing in the pharmaceutical area, and probably other areas of research activity, the total investment from Government sources, in the universities and institutes, is small compared with the official support in the USA, Japan, West Germany and France. I was surprised to find that even the Australian Government is spending rather more than we are on biotechnological research and development.

Nevertheless, my Lords, there is not the least doubt that we have a very sound base on which to build the expansion of activity which I, and I think all who have been looking into this subject, believe is essential. Some of the centres of activity are mentioned in the report, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned several more. In fact, it is quite surprising in how many places in the United Kingdom work is going on. May I, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, prophesied, declare my interest as Chancellor of the Cranfield Institute of Technology? We have there just appointed to a new Chair a professor in biotechnology, and we have begun to build up a new department under him. This new activity, my Lords, will have two interesting characteristics. One is that it will be a joint venture with the University of Compiégne in France, where there is already a well developed biotechnological department. The other is close collaboration with industry on objectives designed for commercial success.

Noble Lords may think that this second characteristic is so obviously necessary as scarcely to be worth mentioning: but that is not so. That is what is behind paragraph 27 in the report before you, and it really is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has been saying. I think that while there are notable exceptions, the collaboration between industry and academy is not good—perhaps I should say, not good enough. I should like to feel that industry, as well as government, is fully behind the academic effort, and I would support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, was saying about the distance between the scientific discovery and its exploitation by venture capital. I have many experiences in that field and in several of them I have felt that we have spent far too much of our time finding money and not enough of our time on research and development.

What the United Kingdom industry's own effort is like is difficult for anyone in my position to determine, because obviously a great deal of industrial activity is cloaked in commercial secrecy. But the patent counting exercise, where it can be done, suggests that if we in the United Kingdom are to play a significant part in multinational projects, be they projects that the Commission proposes or others, and if we are to be competitive internationally, both our academic and our industrial efforts have to be greatly increased and collaboration between them improved. I sincerely hope that when the noble Viscount the Minister replies he will be able to encourage us to believe that these improvements will be possible.

My Lords, there is one other aspect of this great and developing technology about which I am disturbed, and I fear that my colleagues are not as disturbed as I am. That is the use in various contexts of the word "engineering". I believe that this is a misuse of language. I know that "to engineer" is to arrange and to contrive, but this is a figurative usage deriving from the earlier and unambiguous meaning with which we are all familiar in such phrases as "mechanical engineering", "civil engineering", "electrical engineering" and so on. I believe that, to take the examples on page VII of the report, we could replace "enzyme engineering" and "genetic engineering" by "enzyme technology" and "genetic technology". We could indeed replace the title of the report of your Lordships' Select Committee; namely, "Biomolecular Engineering" by "Biomolecular Technology". Is it too late to make the change, not only to avoid inaccuracy, but to avoid introducing into the lay mind false pictures of the processes with which biotechnology is concerned?

9 p.m.

Lord Peart

My Lords, I should like to say how fascinating this debate has been. What a tragedy it is that there are only about half a dozen of us present. This debate is important from the point of view of our application to a science which is still in its infancy. I should like to pay tribute to those who produced this report on biomolecular engineering. One of the great aspects of the House of Lords is that we often play our part and lead the world in thinking in many ways. I hope that, as a result of this debate, even though it is so-sparsely attended, it will be on record that we believe very much in the development of biomolecular engineering.

I have carefully read this marvellous report all the way through and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—who spoke as a European—that this is not an easy document. I am academically a scientist. I did a geology Bachelor of Science degree. I find this subject extremely difficult, and I wonder what laymen will say when they read the report of this debate. Basically, we tried to show how important it is that there should be a link with industry affecting also our sciences in the universities and also links with the European Community. Indeed, I am very proud because I was responsible for the setting up of ACARD and the document which I have here in my hand is now in the Vote Office. It is concerned with biotechnology and we produced it a long time ago. Apart from that, very few people have talked about the influence of biotechnology. It is of major concern in the area of agriculture and there is a special chapter on that in the report.

I shall not make a long speech tonight. My goodness!—why should I? I merely wish to say that this matter is important. I want to know the Government's priorities. I believe that more money should be spent in this area. I shall not go into all the details of the committees, and so on, that have been set up. I know that the noble Viscount who is to reply has a tremendous liking for new developments in the food industry in particular because he was very much involved with that aspect. I hope that we can say that we shall develop this and regard it as a priority. I am not asking for much. We should not lose the way in this field. Germany, France and Japan are playing their part and we must catch up. So I hope that the Minister will tell us what is happening and give us the favourable report that the Government will encourage this, because it is so important.

9.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Viscount Trenchard)

My Lords, may I add the Government's thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and his sub-committee of the Select Committee on the European Communities for this excellent report and for all the work that they have done. I should also like to thank him and all those who have taken part in tonight's debate.

I, too, find the time at which this debate came on to be inappropriate to the importance of the subject. I shall probably get into trouble for saying that because I later want to make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government do regard this matter as one of very great importance indeed. I think that perhaps that indicates part of the problem which noble Lords have touched upon already tonight. It is a very difficult subject to describe to a layman, and I think that I am probably the most lay layman taking part in this debate. We have not managed to describe in words what we believe bugs may be able to do for us and for industry generally. We have not yet managed to mention the kind of products in lay terms, in the varying fields, that can be conceived.

I should also like to begin by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Kings-Norton, in that I too, as a laymen, regard the use of the word "engineering" as particularly unfortunate. Genetic engineering as a combination fills the layman with thoughts of, not Dr. Who, because he is a good man, but the wicked scientist and what he will do to us in the future. So I believe that there is a public relations job to be done and perhaps it needs to be done even in regard to the Government and to many people dealing with this subject.

Before turning to the European programme, let me deal first with the subject in general. We are working very actively on a full response to the report of the Joint Working Party, of which ACARD was one part, and the Royal Society and the Advisory Board to the Research Councils were the other two parts. This very broad-based working party of many experts of great wisdom has put a great deal of thought on paper and has been read with care right up to the Prime Minister. As noble Lords know, she has a particular interest in research stemming from her original training. I offer noble Lords this one slight reward for coming to a debate so late in the evening. You are the first people to hear that we shall respond to that report of the joint working party in the form of a White Paper. We regard the subject as being of sufficient importance to warrant a White Paper of its own. We shall respond to that as early as we find practical in the New Year.

While still on the general subject, I think that I am a little less alarmed than a number of noble Lords. Many of those who have taken part in the debate have pointed to the research and scientific knowledge that we already have in this field. I believe that the patent picture may not fully reflect what is already going on. In total, we are already helping research in this whole area by a Government spend of a total of some £5 million per annum. More recently, we have supported the NEB initiative to encourage four companies to join together, with a 40 per cent. holding being retained by the NEB, to develop a large part of this area and to apply it. This is the enterprise called Celltech. This will cost the NEB some £5 million and it is a new initiative. It is, of course, aimed at the subject which the noble Lords, Lord Adrian and Lord Kings-Norton, both mentioned—the application of these sciences to produce products which can really be exploited.

It is certainly true that over the whole field of science and industry there has been criticism of whether our fundamental research is kept too far apart from our commercial research. America is constantly quoted as an example of a country where this does not happen to the same extent.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? I know that expression about America's attitude, but in the pharmaceutical industry, about which I know a little, the work that we have done in Britain is second to none. We do not want to be faced with another thalidomide problem because of slackness about checking or playing molecular roulette in the laboratories. Consequently, I am very proud of the English attitude towards the research that is done in our pharmaceutical laboratories. I am proud to say that it is second to none. I agree that the word "engineering" should be left out, because it has something of cloning or science fiction about it.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, that is one reason why I said that perhaps more is going on than we are given credit for. When we respond to ACARD I think we shall point out that in private industry and in Government more is probably going on than is realised.

Lord Peart

My Lords, on the matter of ACARD, do the Government have any priorities which they can indicate to us this evening?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot this evening. Clearly, if we are to publish a White Paper, we must publish a White Paper. I have said that we are actively discussing the contents of it between all departments at present.

Lord Peart

My Lords, I am quite happy with that, thank you.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, there has, however, been this criticism that, except in some fields where a great deal of private research is done, we do not use our fundamental research and do not apply it commercially. In fact, I tend to believe that the failure to apply is very often post-development. In that context, we must realise that the profit levels of our industry are only about one-quarter of those in the United States in real terms, and that that has been so for a good many years past. To get enough private effort on long-term risk projects, when the general level of return is so low, is a problem. Therefore, this whole area is bound up with the eventual return which we must achieve to a highly efficient, competitive and profitable industry. Meanwhile we have as usual—if I may say so to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—shown ourselves pragmatic by the encouragement of the formation of Celltech. I would end on the general theme with the remark which I believe is correctly attributed to Lord Rutherford, which probably applies to this area—that is, "We have not got much money, so we must think".

Let me turn to the subject matter of this debate, and I make no apology for digressing and I hope that what I have been able to say already will be some consolation to the members of Lord Sherfield's committee. On the question of the European programme and European co-operation, of course we are in favour of European co-operation, and I suspect that everyone in this Chamber at this moment is. Therefore, there is general goodwill towards the idea of trying to ensure that the technology of Europe matches the technology of the United States, and trying to think European to a greater and greater extent.

We are also clearly in favour—but it must be entirely up to private enterprise to achieve it—of private co-operation between firms in different countries in Europe, which gets over the problem of commercial exploitation and the competitive problems which the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and others have mentioned, because individual firms working together in the same, or closely related, fields may well find areas where they can co-operate fully to produce a greater degree of commercial exploitation at home and abroad in a way which will meet international competition. So all these things we are in favour of.

It follows that we are therefore in favour of a background programme in Europe in certain areas, which I shall come to in a few moments. We, too, the Government, have been asking ourselves whether the revised programme as suggested today and as it has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, will add appreciably to the European effort and to European co-operation, and will have benefits. I have to say before commenting in more detail on it that we were among the countries that suggested that the original programme was perhaps a bit ambitious both in scope and in expenditure. So we have to be careful that we are consistent in our attitude.

We suggested that it should be cut and concentrated, but what we did not suggest was that about half the funds should be spent on training so that the programme has now been cut to a major extent, and only half of it is left for research. I shall not repeat the figures that have been given in this debate, which are correct so far as I know them, but the research element of the revised programme is about five million units of account, if you take out the training content, over four and a half years and spread over nine countries.

We know that some of the research centres which have been mentioned by noble Lords taking part in the debate and by my noble friend Lord Bessborough are wondering whether participation contracts for this amount of money are really worth the problems which will be entailed, the work, the administration, and the restraints, which again the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, mentioned so clearly. I have to tell you that the Government are uncertain whether the programme as recommended is really worthy of European support. We shall be discussing it further in the spirit of cooperation to see whether a programme that would be more worthy of support could be produced.

If we turn to the general area of where we do feel that a collaborative European effort might be valuable, let me quickly mention three areas. First, there is the whole question of safety, where I note that apparently the Select Committee's report has been to a large extent accepted in Brussels. We believe nevertheless that it is important that we have eventually, if it is needed, as it probably will be, a well thought out EEC recommendation on health and safety which has the sound support of scientists, and industrialists perhaps, in all countries, so the area of safety is one which we think could feature in common research.

The second area which we believe is less encumbered with problems of potential commercial conflict is that of agriculture, particularly where new types of wheat perhaps may be required to be tested in a large number of countries and different climates simultaneously. There tends to be more research there which is needed to be done on behalf of all farmers and which has less conflict with brand marketing and that kind of thing in the more sophisticated industrial areas of development. The third broad area is some of the fundamental research questions, further removed from the market place but nevertheless with an eye upon it.

Those three areas we believe could form the base for modest co-operation between the countries of Europe in terms of Government funding of joint work. We believe that if a programme on that basis were put together it would also have the benefit of being an additional stimulus to Community scientists to contribute their knowledge to each other and to push forward the prominence of Europe in relation to other parts of the world. Those are the areas where we would still like to see a modest programme. We frankly do not believe there is a need to spend Community money on training, an area which we feel should be left to individual countries.

I think I have touched on the main areas, in a very lay way, which all those taking part have raised in much more scientific and erudite terms than those of this slightly muddled reply. I conclude by saying that we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and all the members of his committee. We hope that, notwithstanding the time of this debate, they will continue to keep up their interest in the subject, and if they feel when we publish our White Paper that our plans can be improved, bearing in mind the remark of Lord Rutherford, we shall be pleased to see whether we can do so.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, before the Minister leaves the subject of the White Paper—and it will be fascinating to see it—may I raise a point, in view of his remarks emphasising research on the agricultural side? For years the Ministry of Agriculture was the finest breeder of horses in the world, including racing horses. Much research needs to be done, but it seems to be neglected, particularly in relation to venereal disease which is spreading in breeds of horses as never before. I hope that when the White Paper is brought forward the area over which the problem will be approached will be wide enough to draw in veterinary surgeons and others in that field of activity.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, the noble Lord's remarks will be drawn to the attention of those concerned.

9.25 p.m.

Lord Sherfield

My Lords, I think we have had a really useful short debate. It has enabled the speakers on the ECC report to take account of a significant change in the Commission's programme of research and development since the Committee's report was published.

We have had a valuable and interesting statement from the Minister on what is proposed as regards the United Kingdom programme. I am not in the least surprised at the cautious approach which he is now taking to the revised European programme, but I am glad that the Government are still looking for a positive and constructive outcome of the European discussions.

I think, too, that the course of the debate will confirm the decision of my committee to scrutinise the Commission's proposed general policy in regard to European schemes of research and development.

I wish to thank my colleagues on the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, whose speech was both authoritative and constructive, for making the not inconsiderable effort needed in taking part in postprandial debates. I thank too the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for his speech from the Opposition Benches. The hour is late, my Lords, and it only remains for me to resume my seat.

On Question, Motion agreed to.