§ Mr. RaynsfordTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international standards committees are chaired by employees of the Building Research Establishment; [23098]
(2) what has been the cost of the Building Research Establishment European standards section in each of the past five years; [23090]
(3) what has been the cost in each of the past five years of the representation of United Kingdom interests on (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international standards committees by Building Research Establishment employees; [23094]
(4) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international standards committees employ staff from the Building Research Establishment as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee. [23099]
161W
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesBuilding Research Establishment participation on United Kingdom, European and international standards committees, including steering committees, technical committees and working groups, is as follows:
The cost to the Department of the Environment of the Building Research Establishment European standards section for years prior to 1993–94 is not readily available. Since then, the cost to the DOE of the section—to support standards work—is: 1993–94 £244,000; 1995–96 £190,000 (budget). The cost in each of the past five years of the representation of United Kingdom interests on standards committees by Building Research Establishment employees is not separately identified as this is included within the research and application programme carried out for the DOE.
Standards committees United Kingdom European International Number of committees chaired by employees of the Building Research Establishment 33 22 5 Number of committees with employees from the Building Research Establishment as representatives of United Kingdom interests (excluding those chaired by BRE) 329 41 17 Number of BRE staff who are leading the United Kingdom team on European and international committees — 7 4
§ Mr. RaynsfordTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the total building and fitting-out cost of the large building test facility at the Cardington site of the Building Research Establishment; [23100]
(2) what are the total estimated building and fitting-out costs of the Burn hall at the Building Research Establishment; [23102]
(3) what has been the total cost of building 16 at the Building Research Establishment. [23103]
§ Mr. JonesThe total investment in the large building test facility at the Cardington site to date is £1.68 million. The total estimated building and fitting-out costs of the Burn hall and the Garston site is £3.49 million. The total cost of the new environmental office and seminar block at the Garston site—replacing building 16—to date is £1.52 million, excluding demolition cost of the old building: the estimated total cost of the building to completion is £3.83 million.
§ Mr. RaynsfordTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of research carried out for his Department by the Building Research Establishment in each of the past five years; and what is the budget for such research in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98, (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of his Department's total research expenditure. [23091]
162W
§ Mr. JonesExpenditure on research and technical advice from the Building Research Establishment for the DOE in each of the past five years was:
As percentages of the Department's total research expenditure, the figures are:
- 1990–91: £22.1 million1
- 1991–92: £26.2 million1
- 1992–93: £34.1 million
- 1993–94: £34.0 million
- 1994–95: £34.4 million
- 1995–96: £34.6 million (estimated).
Firm estimates for future years are not available. They will depend on the outcome of the bidding and tendering process for the DOE's programme.
- 34.2 per cent.
- 32.9 per cent.
- 40.0 per cent.
- 37.5 per cent.
- 37.4 per cent.
- 39.3 per cent. (estimated).
1Figures exclude expenditure by the energy efficiency office, which became part of the DOE in 1992–93.
§ Mr. RaynsfordTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of PA Consulting's report on the future of the Building Research Establishment; [23095]
(2) when he expects to publish Government proposals for the future of the Building Research Establishment; [23096]
(3) what assessment he has made of the advantages of developing the Building Research Establishment as a national construction centre. [23097]
§ Mr. JonesMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered carefully the report from PA Consulting on options for transferring the Building Research Establishment to the private sector. I have relayed to him the outcome of my meetings with representatives of the construction industry. He has taken into account also the views of the advisory group which oversaw the work of the consultants, of BRE management and of BRE staff who made their position known to the consultants, to his Department and to me. He has concluded that BRE should remain as a single entity because it offers a unique range of complementary skills and technologies and fragmentation would substantially increase costs to customers and reduce efficiency. He has also concluded that one of the two alternative recommendations proposed by PA Consulting sets out the right route towards BRE' s future structure. It is his view that the best future for BRE would be as part of a national centre for construction, established by the construction industry to improve industry technology, innovation and competitiveness.
This gives the construction industry the opportunity to translate into reality its concept of a national centre for construction—NCC—which would encompass BRE and would take the form of a company limited by guarantee. This approach would channel directly BRE' s expertise towards stimulating innovation and helping the industry improve its performance while maintaining the objectivity 163W and independence of BRE advice. The Government are prepared to share in the funding of a study which the industry proposes to set in hand so as to put in place within six months a business plan for an NCC. My right hon. Friend would look to the industry to take account of the views of BRE management and staff and the university sector, such as that already initiated by University College London in developing this plan. He is clear, however, that delivery of a satisfactory business plan carrying industry commitment to ownership is essential within the six-month deadline if the proposal for an NCC encompassing BRE is to proceed.
My right hon. Friend wishes to ensure that the transfer of BRE to an NCC can be implemented swiftly at the end of the six-month planning period. He has therefore put in hand work within his Department on preparations which would lead rapidly at the end of the six-month period to the implementation of the NCC plan by February 1997. As a contingency, however, against the possibility that the industry is unable to prepare a satisfactory plan within the initial six months, the Department will also prepare for sale or contractorisation of BRE to be completed by February 1997. This would be achieved through competitive tender under arrangements to maintain the independence, objectivity and authority which BRE currently provides. If no satisfactory purchaser were to emerge, a competitive contract would be let for management of BRE.
My right hon. Friend has placed in the Library of the House a copy of the report from PA Consulting, though such commercially sensitive information as might be of use to a potential purchaser has been removed. He has also placed in the Library the report of the advisory group which oversaw the consultants' study.
§ Mr. Garel-JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the transfer of the Building Research Establishment to the private sector. [24784]
§ Mr. GummerI have considered carefully the report from PA Consulting on options for transferring the Building Research Establishment to the private sector. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has relayed to me the outcome of his meetings with representatives of the construction industry. I have taken into account also the views of the advisory group which oversaw the work of the consultants, of BRE management and of BRE staff who made their position known to the consultants, to my Department and to the Minister of State direct. I have concluded that BRE should remain as a single entity because it offers a unique range of complementary skills and technologies and fragmentation would substantially increase costs to customers and reduce efficiency. I have also concluded that one of the two alternative recommendations proposed by PA Consulting sets out the right route towards BRE' s future structure.
It is my view that the best future for BRE would be as part of a national centre for construction—NCC— 164W established by the construction industry to improve industry technology, innovation and competitiveness.
This gives the construction industry the opportunity to translate into reality its concept of a national centre for construction which would encompass BRE and would take the form of a company limited by guarantee. This approach would channel directly BRE' s expertise towards stimulating innovation and helping the industry improve its performance while maintaining the objectivity and independence of BRE advice. The Government are prepared to share in the funding of a study which the industry proposed to set in hand so as to put in place within six months a business plan for an NCC. I would look to the industry to take account of the views of BRE management and staff and the university sector, such as that already initiated by University College London in developing this plan. I am clear, however, that delivery of a satisfactory business plan carrying industry commitment to ownership is essential within the six-month deadline if the proposal for an NCC encompassing BRE is to proceed.
I wish to ensure that the transfer of BRE to an NCC can be implemented swiftly at the end of the six-month planning period. I have therefore put in hand work within my Department on preparations which would lead rapidly at the end of the six-month period to the implementation of the NCC plan by February 1997. As a contingency, however, against the possibility that the industry is unable to prepare a satisfactory plan within the initial six months, my Department will also prepare for sale or contractorisation of BRE to be completed by February 1997. This would be achieved through competitive tender under arrangements to maintain the independence, objectivity and authority which BRE currently provides. If no satisfactory purchaser were to emerge, a competitive contract would be let for management of BRE.
I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the report from PA Consulting, though such commercially sensitive information as might be of use to a potential purchaser has been removed. I have also placed in the Library the report of the advisory group which oversaw the consultants' study.