HL Deb 06 April 1998 vol 588 cc498-500

2.44 p.m.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will now restore responsibility for science and technology to the Cabinet Office rather than leaving it in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Lord Haskel

My Lords, the Government have no plans to move responsibility for science and technology from its present location within the Department of Trade and Industry where we consider that it successfully fulfils a distinct and most valuable function.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I cannot even pretend to be grateful for that Answer. Can the noble Lord find any argument against this proposition: if science and technology are to have any influence at all on our affairs, it would be better if that office were placed as near as possible to the centre of government where it can exercise some influence over, and establish helpful relations with, all departments instead of being buried in one single department, the mausoleum of the Department of Trade and Industry?

Lord Haskel

My Lords, the Office of Science and Technology is certainly not buried in a mausoleum. It is working relationships that matter, not physical location. The Office of Science and Technology remains the focal point across government—that is, for transdepartmental business—supporting the Chief Scientific Adviser and the President of the Board of Trade in her role as the Cabinet Minister responsible for science and technology. The Office of Science and Technology discharges its responsibility by taking a central, independent position among all departments, including the DTI.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, while accepting that that may well be the objective, is the noble Lord aware of the criticism that because the OST is located within the Department of Trade and Industry, it comes under some pressure to fill its vacancies from among members of that department rather than being free to draw on the best talent across Whitehall?

Lord Haskel

My Lords, we are aware of that observation, but I can assure the noble Lord that what he has said is not true. The best people for the job are selected, irrespective of department.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that in this country public expenditure on science as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 2.7 per cent. to 1.8 per cent.? Can he assure the House that the Government have noted that the American and Japanese governments, far from cutting the science budget, are proposing substantially to increase it to protect the scientific industries of the future?

Lord Haskel

My Lords, I can confirm that my noble friend's figures are broadly correct. Of course, the Government would like to spend more money on science and science research. The Government are looking urgently at this as part of the comprehensive spending review. We are committed to putting science ahead of other considerations. We are actively working to encourage greater private sector spending on research and development. A consultation document, Innovating for the Future, was published at the time of the Budget, when we announced the £50 million "university challenge" scheme to encourage exploitation of university research. Perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend because I know that his family trust has been active in encouraging the industrial exploitation of scientific research within the universities.

Lord Porter of Luddenham

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sir Ron Dearing—now, happily, Lord Dearing—in his evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology said: one of our purposes is to lift this"— that is, science and technology— above the interplay of departmental interests and arguments", while Sir Ron Oxburgh said quite plainly: it has to be Cabinet office"? Can the noble Lord say whether there is now any support, outside the DTI, for the present arrangements?

Lord Haskel

Yes, my Lords. However, I cannot comment fully on the Dearing Report because we have only just received it and are considering its recommendations. There will be an official response. Certainly, the committee put in some hard work.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the unease not just in the world of science and technology but in industry and energy that one Minister is now entrusted with the totality of these responsibilities and of the belief that it is too large a portfolio for one Minister? The noble Lord has indicated that one of the Minister's functions should be to emphasise the importance of science and technology across the whole of Whitehall. Does he really believe that the luckless Mr. John Battle has time to perform that task in addition to the role that he must perform in relation to energy and industry?

Lord Haskel

My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend Mr. John Battle is doing a very good job in promoting the interests of science and technology. The Chief Scientific Adviser carries a good deal of responsibility, and the Office of Science and Technology is independent within the Department of Trade and Industry. Therefore, the work of my right honourable friend Mr. Battle is separate from the work of the Office of Science and Technology.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, will my noble friend reiterate that the Government's policy is to entrust this important function to a Minister, not a ministry, in order that in due course these matters may be discussed at Cabinet rather than departmental level?

Lord Haskel

My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, is the Minister responsible for science and technology.

Lord Annan

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some noble Lords recall the days when Lord Zuckerman was Chief Scientific Adviser? Is the reason why scientific advice has been marginalised in this way that very often Lord Zuckerman gave advice which was not very acceptable to many government departments, particularly advice about the independent deterrent?

Lord Haskel

My Lords, I am aware of that criticism, but I can assure noble Lords that the opinion of the Chief Scientific Adviser is not marginalised.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, is the Minister aware that only the very deaf have so far failed to hear the message from scientists that most of them never get anywhere near a senior Minister? They are lucky if they have contact with a parliamentary secretary.

Lord Haskel

My Lords, I am not aware of that problem.