Science, Engineering and Technology

HL Deb 26 May 1993 vol 546 cc298-313

4.7 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on government policy on science, engineering and technology which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:

"Following the debate in this House last June, I launched a consultation exercise about the future of science and technology in this country. This produced more than 800 responses. Many were of high quality, not least those submitted by the Science and Technology Committee in another place and the new Science and Technology Committee of this House chaired by my honourable friend the Member for Pudsey.

"Very many of the responses I received from industry affirmed the quality of Britain's scientists and engineers. I believe that I will speak for the whole House when I say that I agree with that judgment. I hope I will also speak for the whole House when I add to that my belief that on those scientists and engineers rests a very large part of our hopes for the future of our country. They represent one of our fundamental national assets. The Government now wish to build on this national strength by developing a closer and more systematic partnership between the scientific and engineering communities, industry and commerce, and government. The purpose of this new partnership will be the strengthening of the contribution of science and engineering to wealth creation and the quality of life. This is the focus for the White Paper Realising Our Potential, a Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology which we are publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

"The principal themes which emerged from the consultation exercise were as follows. First, there was a widely perceived contrast between our continued excellence in science, engineering and technology and our relative weakness in exploiting it, particularly to economic advantage. Secondly, many felt the absence of a clear statement of a national strategy in this area. Thirdly, many felt that there was a need to manage the Government's investment in science and technology better.

"The proposals in the White Paper address these themes and some others which are complementary to them. First, we have decided to provide a clear, annually updated, statement of the Government's strategy for science and technology, to be known as the Forward Look. This will give an assessment of the balance and content of our own science and technology programmes over the medium and the long term.

"The Forward Look will draw on the results of our second innovation: namely, a new technology foresight exercise, to be jointly conducted by industry, the science and engineering communities and government departments. The aims of this exercise—which reflect best practice in our leading companies and in other advanced countries—are to gain early notice of emerging key technologies and to provide a systematic process for the exchange of ideas, people and know-how. It will be steered by a group chaired by the Chief Scientific Adviser and will aim to bring together working scientists and engineers with those in industry and commerce who are close to markets. Reflecting this and the other increased responsibilities laid upon him by this White Paper, I should tell the House that the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser will be paid in future at the Grade 1A level.

"Thirdly, I have decided to establish a new council for science and technology—which I will chair on behalf of the Prime Minister—to provide the Government with independent and expert advice at the highest level on research spending priorities. This will replace the present ACOST. We will also look to the newly established National Academies Policy Advisory Group as an authoritative source of independent advice.

"The Government believe that we need to clarify what we expect from scientists and engineers in universities and research council institutes in relation to the creation of wealth and improvement of our quality of life. We intend, therefore, to restructure the research councils, to reformulate their missions and strengthen their links with those who use their research, and to improve their management arrangements.

"In particular, the Government wish to build on the steps taken by the present Science and Engineering Research Council to develop structures more clearly related to the needs of users of research. I have therefore decided that the Science and Engineering Research Council should be divided into two new councils: an engineering and physical sciences research council, which will underpin key industries based on engineering and the physical sciences, and a particle physics and astronomy research council. The Agricultural and Food Research Council will be modified into a biotechnology and biological sciences research council, reflecting the increasing importance of the life sciences. The coverage of the Natural Environment Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Economic and and Social Research Council will remain broadly as now.

"Reflecting advice given in the consultation process, the functions of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils will be absorbed within the Office of Science and Technology.

"Next, the Government's arrangements for the promotion of innovation, for technology transfer and the spread of best practice will be substantially strengthened, taking account of the Faraday principles on the interchange of ideas, know-how and skills. Access to technology will be improved, irrespective of its source, for firms of all sizes. The secretariat of the LINK programme will be transferred from the DTI to the Office of Science and Technology to emphasise the importance of its role in bringing the science base and industry together.

"The Government have reviewed the dual support mechanism under which funding for research in universities is provided through both the higher education funding councils and the research councils. They have concluded that uncertainty about its future should be ended. Funding for teaching and general research should continue to flow together. We have therefore decided that the present dual funding arrangements should be retained. Arrangements for co-ordination with the science and engineering base will be strengthened to ensure that the funding councils and the research councils establish close co-ordination.

"The Government wish the research councils and universities to develop research training more closely related to the needs of potential employers and designed to encourage young people to see science and engineering careers as worthwhile and attractive. This will involve further development of the content of postgraduate courses and changes in the balance of the support provided by research councils, with a Masters course becoming the normal initial post-graduate degree in science, engineering and technology. More care should be taken to manage the careers of those postgraduates who go on to do academic research.

"Over the past 20 years the Rothschild customer-contractor principle has been successfully applied in the management of departments' spending on the R&D which is directly related to the support of their policies. The Government now wish further to strengthen the role of departments as customers for R&D and to create a fully open market for the provision of research and development to departments so that all competent contractors can compete for work. Further work is being set in hand on the best ownership and organisational arrangements for civil research establishments in the public sector.

"The Government also recognise that science and technology must now be seen in a global perspective. Co-operation with other countries is essential and the United Kingdom will play its full role while aiming to improve our take-up of research carried out overseas.

"Our future depends on the effective exploitation of science and technology. This is not just a question of producing excellently educated and trained scientists, engineers and technicians at all levels, crucially important though that is. We need also to ensure that our society as a whole appreciates the role and the importance of mathematics, science, engineering and technology. The Government intend to raise the profile of the work presently done to improve public understanding of science. We will do this by extending our partnership with the charities and other bodies who are already doing much good work in the schools and elsewhere. I shall be committing additional funds from my budget to this purpose.

"This White Paper sets out the framework within which we can better develop and exploit the work of our many excellent scientists and engineers in industry, the academic community and government. It represents the beginning of a process of change, not the end. I am confident that we shall have the backing of British industry and of those who work in our science and engineering base in building the stronger partnership which is crucial to Britain's success. It is a strategy which is indeed designed to realise our potential and I commend it to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.17 p.m.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, the House will he grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend on the issue of the White Paper which has been eagerly—nay, impatiently—awaited by many of us, since the subject is of central importance to the economic, academic and industrial development of this country in the coming decades.

It is, I believe, generally accepted (indeed the Minister herself paid tribute to the fact) that scientists and engineers—I stress the inclusion of engineers in this country have been responsible for most of the great scientific discoveries of the world. Even now, United Kingdom scientists are making equally significant discoveries. So, from the towering intellect of Isaac Newton, through Rutherford and Faraday to John Logie Baird and people like professors Stephen Hawking and Steve Jones, there is a clear line in our scientific community of intellect and innovation which has made British scientists, even today, the envy of the world. However, the central question of investment by the Government remains less than fully answered by the White Paper. Only too often have British scientific discoveries been developed abroad because of lack of government interest and investment.

It would, however, be churlish not to welcome the White Paper as we welcomed from these Benches the establishment of the Office of Science and Technology. Each of them is a much-belated recognition—but a recognition—of the place of science and technology in government.

Clearly, we on this side of the House shall need to study the White Paper very carefully before giving a considered response. It is a heavyweight document and it repays study. There are parts of the Statement which we on these Benches can welcome and with which, broadly, we can agree. In stressing the importance of science, engineering and technology to the national economy and the international industrial scene, it says what we would all agree, just as we would all agree about the importance of motherhood, sliced bread and the cultivated mushroom.

Similarly, we all recognise the importance of research and development both in industry and in the universities. Like the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, we on these Benches regret that the Government's interest did not go even further and that a similar importance was not conceded to the humanities when it was announced by the Government last week, in a Written Answer, that there is to be no separate humanities research council—a fact which, I believe, many of us on all sides of the House regret. I suppose that we must be grateful for the crumbs which fall from the Government's table but we must—if I may mix the metaphors—look this particular gift horse very carefully in the mouth.

First, we welcome the announcement that there will be a new research council for engineering and the physical sciences (which will include chemistry and materials) and a new research council for particle physics and astronomy. We hope, however, that this is not simply a cosmetic exercise and that it will not be, in the traditional words, a "rearrangement of the deckchairs on the 'Titanic' as she goes down". We understand the reasoning behind the new research councils (the importance of wealth creation), but we would beg leave to question whether they will have the resources to do anything much more in the way of applied work without damaging basic research if they do so. We would welcome the Minister's comments on that possibility.

Secondly, we are relieved that international subscriptions (such as those to CERN and ESA) are to be safeguarded. But, of course, that carries a concomitant problem with it; it means that the Secretary of State will have to fight even harder for his money in the Cabinet and while we wish him well, at this particular time we have some doubts about the extent to which he will succeed.

Thirdly, we are very interested to learn that a committee will be established to identify key technologies and to have some sort of research foresight role. Once again, the Statement does not tell us whether there will be any substantial amount of extra money for that or whether that body will be allowed to publish its reports. We hope that it will. We also warmly welcome the proposal for an annual statement on strategy for science, engineering and technology. Once again, from our point of view, it does not go far enough and phrases such as "long-term planning" have been sedulously and studiously avoided. But we must be grateful for what we can get. Although welcoming the proposal, we recall the words of ICI in its reply to the consultation exercise when it was talking about advisory bodies of this sort. ICI said: It will be hard to find the folk unless they feel that this time something will happen". I commend to your Lordships those words from one of the great scientific and industrial companies of the United Kingdom. I repeat that ICI said that it would be hard to find the folk for the advisory bodies, unless they feel that this time something will happen". So we urge the publication of all reports of this type. I believe that the DTI is still refusing to publish its aerospace advisory body's strategic technology acquisition plan. I must ask whether there will be any money to back the new technologies when they have been identified.

We understand, too, that some sort of public understanding campaign will be put into place. We believe that it is the case that the Government have secured the co-operation of Welcome and the Gatsby Charity in doing this, and that is to be welcomed. But, of course, we have had the British Association for the Advancement of Science with us for a long time, and there are still plenty of our fellow citizens who do not know a sub-atomic particle from a sub-aqua wetsuit. There is a vast job to be done here and, while a little may well be done by a public understanding campaign, I hope that the Government will take note that the splendid work of the British Association for the Advancement of Science has still not been totally successful.

The news that the Teaching Company Scheme and LINK will be removed from the DTI and brought under the umbrella of the OST is again welcome. It is where they logically belong, but their correct placement does not guarantee their effective operation. We also welcome the news that the ABRC will be wound up and its function carried out by the OST internally. I think that it is generally agreed that the ABRC has not quite been the total success that was hoped when it was set up. Of course, the OST must still be held accountable, not just to Parliament, but also to the science and industry community. Again, we urge the publication of all reports made by it so that we can see the transparency of OST decision-making.

Our priorities on this side of the House would include many of the proposals outlined by the Government in the Statement, but we would go further and deeper, and assert those priorities somewhat differently. We believe that the Government, in co-operation with industry and the science base, should set long-term national science and technology objectives and provide the mechanisms for achieving them. We believe that an EC research office should be created to market, inform and guide the uptake of international opportunities by United Kingdom science and industry.

We note that government expenditure on science and technology is still lower than that of many of our competitors. It should therefore be a priority of the Government to increase the total spend. We fervently believe that the dual support of university funding should be maintained. Here, we appear to be at one with the Government if the words of the Statement mean what they appear to mean. It is our view that the current policy of not funding near-market research is both divisive and damaging. We think that the Government should fund research into strategic, generic technologies—as close to the market as is necessary—so as to strengthen British industry.

We would go further. We believe that a system of tax credits for research and development should be urgently considered. We believe that the creation of intermediate institutions or so-called "Faraday Centres" should be supported. We believe that the Government should support the development of a national technology database. We believe that A-levels should be replaced with a broader curriculum to enable science students to continue to study languages and humanities and vice versa. We believe that there should be more support from government for continuous professional development. We believe that the Government must take the lead in developing a proper career structure that can span the research councils, government service and the universities. These are by no means the same priorities as the Government seem to be suggesting in the Statement and the White Paper. We would urge the Government to think more widely, more radically, and to agree with us that long-term planning is what the scientific community urgently needs.

On 6th May 1993 I asked the noble Baroness a supplementary question to the Starred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I asked whether the Minister could inform the House how many scientists in this country were on contracts under five years long and whether the Minister agreed that it was essential to give scientists longer contracts as they tended to do their best work in middle age and this encouraged them to stay in the profession. Quite understandably, the Minister was unable at that time to provide the figures I asked for. She asked me to absolve her from the necessity of writing to me on the question, and I was happy to provide that absolution. Clearly, she will not have any of those answers this afternoon, but I hope that she will now agree that the question is important because it bears so strongly on the long terms plans for science so vital to the health and morale of the scientific community, a community which, I suspect, will receive today's Statement with true, trained and traditional scientific scepticism.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches agree with many of the points that the noble Lord made. We agree, for example, with the proposal for Forward Look and for technology foresight. We also agree that the Government should have supported the establishment of a humanities research council. However, we shall leave our detailed reactions to the White Paper to the debate which will no doubt follow in due course.

I should like to make just one or two points about the Statement. First, the consultation exercise which preceded the White Paper was useful and interesting. There was a consensus, apparently, among the 800 well-informed replies that all was not well and, in particular, that we needed a clear statement of national strategy and that the Government's management of science and technology and of their investment in it should be better. Those matters are important and a strong criticism of the Government's record. The Government have been in office now for 14 years and those are things which good government would not have allowed to arise during that time.

We welcome parts of the White Paper, but on the whole we on these Benches find the Statement and the White Paper disappointing. The Statement seems curiously out of balance: massive attention to administration; little about innovation; nothing about funding. Will the new bureaucracy be any better than the old? It is hard to judge. If it takes place, we shall have to judge by results. The White Paper seems merely to be putting eggheads into different baskets. That is the long and the short of it. It is difficult to judge what the result will be. We can only hope for the best. There is nothing about funding—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris.

Why is it that investment in R&D has declined as a percentage of GDP? Was that government policy? I am told that of all the OECD countries that is true only of Turkey and Britain. Did the Government intend that? What do they propose for the future? It is a disaster. This is one of the most important things in our national life. How has that decline been allowed to come about? What precise measures do the Government propose to take to keep our brightest people in British universities? What action are they taking to smooth the exit of talented scientists and engineers from the defence to the civil sector?

There are a number of other points that I know my noble friends would want me to make. They will be made in the debate in due course. In the meantime, on their behalf, I have to register considerable disappointment with the Statement and the White Paper.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, perhaps I may start by accentuating the positive.

Lord Dainton

My Lords—

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Order! Order!

Baroness White

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dainton is the only real scientist here.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I understand that it is the convention of the House that I respond to the leaders of the Opposition Benches. Perhaps I may do that.

Perhaps I may accentuate the positive and welcome the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Mayhew. There is a great deal that unites us. I find it almost inconceivable that the House will not wish to return to the White Paper in considerable detail. It will almost certainly form the subject of a debate at some point, although that must be a matter for the usual channels.

Underlying much of what noble Lords said in welcoming parts of the White Paper was the issue of resources. The essential point here is being missed. We now have a coherent framework accentuating partnership and emphasising the importance of government, charities, industries and commerce working together, making much more effective use of resources, focusing what is spent on those areas that will contribute considerably to the wealth and health of the nation, and, as I said at the outset in repeating the Statement of my right honourable friend, properly exploiting, in the best sense of the word, the excellent work of the scientific community.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was rather disappointing when he said, "Nothing about innovation; nothing about what the whole scientific, engineering and technological world is about". Everything is about promoting, facilitating and making it possible for the brains of this country to flourish. We want to ensure that we have a framework that does not thwart those talents but promotes them and makes it possible for them to flourish.

The colleagues in another place of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, produced, only a matter of a few weeks ago, a document called The Challenge for Waldegrave which was a response to the consultation. Most of the material used in it was taken from the submissions made to my right honourable friend as part of the consultation process. In its introduction it said that, too many organisations simply stated the case for more money or influence for their own narrow interests rather than voicing broader concerns on the future of science and technology". That is all that has been said. If I sum up what the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Mayhew said, what they were asking for were more resources. Of course my right honourable friend will fight his corner for his fair share of available resources, but we have to concern ourselves about the sensible and effective application of those resources. That is what is important.

I return to the introduction of that same document. It was said that the document should not be seen as a definitive statement of Labour policy on science and technology, but it then goes on to say that, we outline the policies that Britain's scientists and engineers wish to see and which the Labour Party has advocated repeatedly". On the one hand, we have a document that is not definitive, while, on the other hand, we have a document that is definitive. There is a good deal of debate left in all of this.

Reference was made to the lack of the establishment of a humanities research council. I notice that my noble friend Lord Renfrew is not in his place: I know that it is a matter of great interest to him. I can assure noble Lords that the Government thought long and hard about whether a humanities council should be included in the arrangements set out in today's White Paper. We came to the conclusion that the balance of advantage lay in retaining the present arrangements, for the reasons set out in my Answer to the Question asked last week by my noble friend Lord Mountevans.

The Government have made clear their commitment to high quality research in the humanities. The 11 per cent. increase—11 per cent. at a time when the parameters for all other Whitehall departments are tight—in the British Academy's grant for 1993–94 demonstrates that commitment. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it was right to announce our conclusions ahead of the publication of today's White Paper, so allowing us today to concentrate upon science and technology and avoid the accusation that almost certainly would have come across the Dispatch Box that we had slipped it in somehow or another into today's proceedings.

We intend to strengthen the Office of Science and Technology's policy, research and analysis; improve co-operation between government, industry and the science base in pursuit of shared objectives; review the workings of the EUROPES system under which UK expenditure on research projects is attributed to government departments; increase transparency—this is an important point—of how government money is spent; maintain the dual support system, something which has been welcomed; retain broadly the same research council structure; improve communications and co-operation between different research councils; wind up ABRC—I am aware that that has also been welcomed—and allow it to be absorbed by the Office of Science and Technology; and create a more diverse range of postgraduate opportunities for young people, with a growth in the role of Masters degrees. All of that will contribute substantially to the health and wealth of our nation.

4.39 p.m.

Lord Boyd—Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this interesting Statement which she read so well contains one significant omission? She made the point which I believe everyone will accept that a major factor in our troubles is that the wonderful work done by our scientists and engineers by way of research too often fails to be put into operation by industry. There is a failure by British industry, in particular, to exploit the results of that high grade research.

Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons for that is that the use and development of that technology is subjected to very severe taxation? Any profits are subject to income or profits tax and a good deal of the work is subject to charges for VAT. Will the Minister indicate that the Government are aware of that? If we are to have full value from the research carried out and full value for British industry, it is necessary to make it financially more immediately attractive for industry to invest in the development of such technology. I do not expect my noble friend to anticipate any Budget Statement but I should like an indication that the Government are aware of that. One of the most important factors in the exploitation of that research is the knowledge that those who risk their money and take the opportunities to try to develop and exploit the technology should not he stunned by heavy taxation.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, as always my noble friend makes several important points. I believe that I touched upon the point made about exploitation. My noble friend is absolutely right that we need a much stronger link between the work of our scientists and some manifestation of that work in the productivity of companies. That is important.

The other point which my noble friend makes is about taxation. The United Kingdom has tax incentives for research and development which are relatively comprehensive by international standards. The overall position is set out in paragraph 2.12 of the White Paper. The results of an objective study were set out in response to a House of Lords Select Committee in June 1991. However, I am sure that that does not go as far as my noble friend would like it to go because I believe that he is hinting at incentives.

We have almost made a culture of talking down our country, not just in terms of the practical sense of what we do as regards science and technology but also our position vis-a-vis other countries in the world. I should like to return to a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He asked why, as a percentage of GDP, our spending had gone down while that of every other country appeared to be increasing. As a statement, that is absolutely wrong. If the noble Lord looks at the figures of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan or the United States, he will find that their spending has fluctuated over the past 10 years. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that in terms of civil R&D as a percentage of GDP, the United Kingdom is ahead of the United States and Japan and we fall behind only France and Germany. If we take government expenditure on R&D for all seven countries, we are fourth out of seven countries. That is not a bad record.

Lord Dainton

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I apologise for the fact that I was late entering the Chamber. That is because I was chairing a meeting of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I apologise also for the fact that the usual chairman of that committee, my noble friend Lord Flowers, is out of the country. Therefore, it falls to me, having just heard the Statement, to try to give a few preliminary views on what has been said and what I imagine the White Paper largely contains.

It is quite clear to me that this paper is not concerned in any way with funding. I understand it to be a framework paper. I believe that she used those words. That carries me back to a time 21 years ago when a White Paper called A Framework for Government Research and Development was issued which contained a report by Lord Rothschild as well as a report written by myself. Therefore, I am quite familiar with traversing matters of organisation and policy while leaving out considerations and questions of finance.

The impression that I gained from the Minister is that the White Paper is trying to stake a claim for science in the life of this nation in all its aspects; for example, as a social activity, as an economic activity and so on. At one point I believe the Minister said that the White Paper constitutes a wide-ranging review of scientific spend and the purposes for which money is spent in a whole range of departments, research councils and universities. She said also that she wanted transparency. In the sphere of science I believe that openness is absolutely essential. It is the oxygen that we breathe as scientists. Unless there is openness, we cannot criticise one another and cannot get the best out of one another. That applies to the organisation of science just as much as it applies to the scientific process itself.

My immediate and personal reaction to the Statement is one of welcome. There has been a long gestation period for the production of the White Paper; that is understandable. I know from my own experience that consultation has been extremely wide. That is a merit. However, I must reserve my position until I have had time to read the White Paper.

From what has been said, the following comments occur to me. First, the White Paper is very timely. In the past few years morale in the scientific and engineering community has been slipping. That is an undeniable fact. Years have slipped by with no fundamental review, with no sense of a vision for the future or the part which science and technology can play in our national affairs. There has been no sense of a planning horizon. At least we now have an attempt —and I cannot say that we have it because I have not read the paper and I shall make a judgment on it when I have—to put science into some kind of perspective in the life of the country, to see how it can best be fostered in the interest of the United Kingdom.

It struck me from what has been said that the Minister has tried to get a grip on scientific policy right across government, which is badly needed. Scientific policy is a term which is very much misunderstood by many people. There are two elements to it: there is a policy for science—how priorities are arranged, how much money should be spent and so on; and secondly, there is science to serve public policy. That is not a new thought. That distinction was made clear by Lord Haldane only 90 years ago. The point is that although those are two distinct concepts, in terms of administration they are intermingled. It is against that background and in a philosophical sense that I shall examine the White Paper to see whether the balance is right and whether the inter-relationships between those two aspects have been rightly interpreted.

Some of the devices which were mentioned seem to be sensible. The notion that there is to be a strategic council for science and technology to be chaired by the Minister, which will replace ACOST, will be an improvement on the present arrangements.

I believe also that the requirement for annual reports will be good provided that there is a mechanism for setting those annual reports against what I hope will be—I use modern business jargon which I very much dislike using but which seems to have come into general currency—the mission statements and programmes of the bodies which should be set out at the beginning of the year. Therefore, there will be a constant monitoring.

As I understood what the Minister said, that kind of monitoring will be part of the role of the chief scientific adviser and the Office of Science and Technology. That can only be good. Therefore, there is a sense of openness in the annual forward looks which the Minister mentioned. However, those looks must be compared with the performance as detailed in the annual reports. There should be an open scrutiny so that everybody knows what are the strengths and weaknesses and how best to address them.

I like the reference to a sense of research foresight being achieved by a kind of partnership between industry, on the one hand, and communities of scientists and technologists on the other. That can be very important because it could be built upon in order to develop not necessarily a national strategy but a kind of consensus. If you can develop a consensus with the troops behind you, then whatever you want to do will go forward with some speed and determination.

Viscount Tonypandy

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Dainton

Certainly, my Lords.

Viscount Tonypandy

My Lords, we are not discussing the White Paper today. As the rule of the House is that 20 minutes only should be allowed for Back-Benchers and we have in fact thus far taken 41 minutes on the Statement, I must point out that it is grossly unfair to those who are taking part in the main debate.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Dainton

My Lords, nevertheless, I hope that I may be allowed to make a few more observations.

Noble Lords

Questions!

Lord Dainton

My Lords, I am not sure as to the ruling of the House on the matter.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I believe that when we are discussing a Statement that usually consists of questions to the Minister and the briefest of comments to enable a number of noble Lords to speak. Longer speeches are made on the debate. Am I right in that assumption?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, perhaps it would help if I were to point out that ministerial Statements are for the information of the House. Brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are then allowed. I think it would be convenient if my noble friend replied now to the noble Lord's observations so that other noble Lords will be able to put their points.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I shall try to be brief because I know that the Clock is ticking over. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, is absolutely right. What we intend is, in fact, staking a claim for science; it is making science, together with technology, absolutely central in our affairs. That is not just from higher education onwards, but also in the whole of the national curriculum. Our young people from the age of four and five will be studying science as a course subject in the national curriculum. Therefore, we shall increase scientific awareness and competence, and also technological competence, in our young people leaving school, thereby enlarging the cohort of young people qualified to get into higher and further education and exploit their talents.

On the question of openness, the word "transparency" has been used. That is absolutely right. If I can paraphrase it, what we have is a manifesto for an open society. The new Forward Look will be a public document which I know will be welcomed. Again, it would be inconceivable if opportunities were not taken annually to discuss that report as it is published. The contribution made by the Director General for the research councils and his expert group will be incorporated in that public document.

The Council for Science and Technology, which my right honourable friend will chair, will be devoted to generating a top level partnership about the strategic direction of science and technology in the country. Accordingly, he will fully expect that any reports which the council commissions or produces will normally be made publicly available. As I have already said, the council is also intended to turn for independent advice to the National Academies Policy Advisory Group and the other expert bodies in the field. Their reports and the Government's responses to them will also be made public.

My understanding in terms of the chain of command and how it will work is that, as the noble Lord knows, there is basically a five-year rolling programme for the councils. They will deliberate and pass the fruits of their work to the Director General who, in turn, will inform my right honourable friend Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then endorse it. It will become the bank of information which will inform government policy.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister referred to my noble friend Lord Renfrew and his unfortunate absence this afternoon, perhaps I may point out that it is perfectly clear what he would have said had he been here. He would have shared my disappointment and that of other noble Lords who spoke in the debate on the humanities research council that both the decision of the Government and the arguments put forward by my noble friend in her reply ignore that advice. What is the use of our collection of expertise in this House if the Government take no notice of the advice that they receive?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I thought that I had replied to that particular point. My right honourable friend took advice from a number of areas. Simply because he did not specifically take the advice that came out of the short debate that we had in the House is not an argument for it not being the right decision. Moreover, not everyone who spoke in that debate was absolutely in agreement with the idea that there should be a separate research council.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the pleasure with which I heard her use the word "engineering"? Indeed, I heard her use it not once but several times during the Statement. That, in itself, is a step forward and an innovation. I have two questions only and, I am happy to say, they will be brief. I do not think that I heard any mention of the engineering council among the many bodies and organisations that were referred to in the Statement.

First, is the Minister aware of the current discussions that are taking place between the engineering council and several of the engineering institutions in an effort to reorganise the council? Do the Government have any view in that respect at present? My second brief question is one that I have raised several times previously in the House. Is there any possibility of the Government funding the engineering council in the same way that they have, for many years, funded the Design Council, which carries out work that is not dissimilar?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, now is not the time to go into any detail on that particular question. Perhaps the noble Lord will read the document and then, if he finds his questions are still unanswered, he can return to me. I can tell him that the Science and Engineering Research Council will be converted into an engineering and physical sciences research council. I am also absolutely assured that there is no aspect of science, technology or engineering left out of our plans; absolutely every aspect of it is subsumed.

Moreover, although I have given the broad subject headings for the different research councils under the new arrangements, there may well be some modification at the margins where one aspect of science may belong with another.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the concentration this afternoon on science and technology will be welcome to many of us who feel that perhaps over the many decades humanities has had more than its fair share of a place in the sun and that it is time that the importance of science, technology and engineering was fully recognised? Did my noble friend say that the role and status of the Chief Scientific Adviser is to be enhanced? Perhaps I may pay tribute to the current holder of that position, my fellow West Highlander Professor Stewart, who I know has been heavily involved in writing the White Paper.

Is my noble friend further aware that a great deal of work will be needed if we are to enhance the status of science, technology and engineering in our schools? That does not just include the curriculum; it also includes making youngsters and their parents aware that there are positive and meaningful careers to be had in science and, in particular, engineering. Will my noble friend ensure that her department underlines the difference between engineering as a generic name and graduate engineers in civil engineering, electrical engineering and chemical engineering who are so vital if we are to translate fundamental scientific research into productive manufacturing capacity?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, my noble friend raised a number of important points. However, on his final point, there is certainly an awareness programme which will be funded. It is absolutely essential to put status back where it belongs; that is, in properly qualified engineers. We know the casual way in which that terminology is used.

As regards humanities, it must be a question of equal value and of a proper balance between what is important in the humanities and what is important in science and technology. My noble friend also made the important point about the raising of awareness and understanding the importance of science and technology. He also mentioned competence in science, technology and engineering. That is now absolutely central for all our community, especially for our young children starting school, throughout their school life and going on into higher and further education. On that society depends.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, we have now passed the 20-minute time limit allocated for Back-Bench speakers.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I should like to make a point about the procedure of the House. We have just experienced the fact that many noble Lords have been frustrated because of the lack of recognition of the Standing Order which governs the proceedings following a ministerial Statement. I wonder whether, in looking at ministerial Statements in the future, we could do the same thing as we do with five-hour debates or short debates and give some guidance to the House on the disciplines involved before the ministerial Statement begins.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, I think that the principle which has been agreed by both this House and, if I remember correctly, the Procedure Committee, is that there should be 20 minutes for questions and answers from the Back Benches. That is a simple fact. When 20 minutes have elapsed, for the convenience of the whole House we have to draw the discussion to a conclusion.