Research Councils: Director General (Hansard, 2 July 1996)

§ The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)
My Lords, yes, very satisfied. With the benefit of experience, we do not propose to appoint a standing group of independent experts as envisaged in the 1993 White Paper, Realising our potential.

§ Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that, under the long-hallowed Haldane principle, policy decisions of research councils and the definition of priorities within their spending allocations are intended to be free of any political consideration and independent of government? Is it therefore appropriate that the post of director general should be as a civil servant within the Department of Trade and Industry? The former advisory board for the research councils was capable of giving advice upwards to government and downwards to the research councils. In the absence of such an advisory group of experts, is there not a serious risk that, as Sir Mark Richmond recently wrote: The Director General's appointment is likely to become dangerously monocular"?

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, I do not accept that. I do not accept in any way that the present director general has done anything other than offer the best of independent advice to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and my honourable friend the Minister for Science and Technology. His role is to advise. He is a valued and respected adviser. He has to be an adviser. It is right that the power and responsibility for this matter should rest with the President of the Board of Trade. It is important to note that, where decisions have been taken on the basis of the advice that he has tendered to government, that information has been made known through the annual booklets and allocations of the science budget, the director general's own review of the science budget portfolio and the research councils' responses to the technology foresight initiative. It is clear to those interested in this field what advice is being given and the Government's response to it.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that there is some real anxiety that the research councils might drift into becoming mere satellites of the DTI? Perhaps he could go a little further in explaining why what seemed a good idea in 1993 1304 (to set up an advisory group of experts) has now lost its attractions. I believe that the Government could benefit from the existence of such a body.

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, it is not a case of the Government changing their mind now. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, may recall, when my right honourable friend Mr. William Waldegrave appeared before a Select Committee of this House as far back as July 1993, he indicated that his thinking had moved away from the establishment of such a body. The balance is between whether there should be this small expert group or whether it should be left to the director general himself to determine what advice he should receive and from what sources. It is interesting to note that, when he was preparing that review of research councils' portfolios dealing with just such matters which are of concern to my noble friend, he consulted no fewer than 300 people across the sciences of our country. The advice he received has benefited from his own membership of the Technology Foresight Steering Group.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was privileged to be a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology and heard Mr. Waldegrave give evidence? Is he further aware that it became clear that, by comparison with our competitors in the international field, we were doing poorly? Is that still the position and, if so, when will it be reversed?

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, we debated the matter in May when I set out a number of figures and details which seemed to me to indicate that we were doing well in research. However, the noble Lord's question is some way away from the issue of whether the director general should be advised by a small closed group or whether, as this director general has determined, he should take his advice from a broader range of sources. I believe that, if that is what he has chosen to do, he should be encouraged to do what is most appropriate as he sees it. He is certainly acting independently and is publishing the basis of his advice.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, is this not typical of the muddle that arises when moving the directorship away from the Cabinet Office to the Board of Trade? What has the Board of Trade got to do with medical research?

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, as I indicated, the decision was not taken recently. It was taken by Mr. William Waldegrave in 1993 when he had responsibility for the matter. It is not a decision which flows from the move to the Department of Trade and Industry. I have no doubt that the responsibility is appropriately placed within that department. I do not wish to rake over cold ashes, but I am sure that the noble Earl will recall that Bill Stewart, who was then Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, made it clear in an extended article to the press that he saw nothing disadvantageous about the move.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us believe that the mere fact that his right honourable friend took a view in 1993 does not make that correct either then or now? However, we may reflect on that.
We are puzzled by one issue and would like the Minister to clarify it. Why are the two possibilities regarded as incompatible? Why cannot the director general ask questions of whomever he wishes while at the same time having an advisory group, independent of government, not paid a salary by government, but simply giving objective advice? I believe that the Government originally thought that proposal to be sensible. Is it not the case that the two are compatible? I understand that the scientific community would very much welcome the existence of a small independent body and I am not at all clear about the reason for setting one's face against it.

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, I am not trying to indicate that, because my right honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave took that view almost three years ago, it is the only basis for it. We have looked to see how the director general has proceeded and in our view he has done extremely well. As Mr. Waldegrave's successor said: He has created not an inner circle but an open circle into which people from right across industry and the science base have been able to feed their views". Our view in 1996 is that that is a valid assessment of the way in which the director general has taken up and followed through his responsibilities.