House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Jul 1998 (pt 25)

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I hesitate to interrupt, but the statement today included extra resources of £400 million.

Dr. Michael Clark: I am grateful to the Minister. I thought that that £400 million was for the research councils and not for the Higher Education Funding Council to allocate to research. I am sure that I read the statement thoroughly, and I thought the money was for the research councils.

Mr. Battle: The £300 million in the statement published today is in addition to the money announced yesterday, as will be set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment tomorrow.

Dr. Clark: I am most grateful for that good news. We have £400 million for the research councils and£300 million--the other side of the dual support--for the Higher Education Funding Council to spend on research. That intervention clarifies the matter.

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is still confusion because £300 million was included as part and parcel of the money from the Wellcome Foundation for infrastructure? Will that £300 million go towards those costs?

Dr. Clark: That is possible, but I hope not.

Mr. Battle: I wish to say simply that there is an additional £300 million. I will do my best to lay out the figures, £100 by £100, when I wind up.

Dr. Clark: Let us move on to funding for infrastructure, which is primarily a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council. The money comes from the Department for Education and Employment, and the corresponding Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Minister has suggested that £300 million will be available. For infrastructure, £300 million is being made available following the generosity of the Wellcome Foundation. Is that £300 million from theWellcome Foundation free money which can be used as freely as the £300 million that the Government are providing, or is it to be directed to projects in which the Wellcome Foundation takes an interest or pet projects it wishes to pursue?

Mr. Battle indicated assent.

Dr. Clark: The Minister appears to suggest that it is free money which can be spent as freely as the Government money. That is reassuring.

On the indirect costs which the research councils should bear, the report said that the research councils

"should pay the full indirect costs, excluding academic salaries, of the research which they fund in universities."

14 Jul 1998 : Column 267

The report continued:

"all increased expenditure incurred by the Research Councils as a result of paying a higher rate for indirect costs be matched by increased Government funding".

We do not at this stage have any indication of whether the Government accept that statement with regard to indirect costs, and, if they do, where the money will come from for indirect costs.

The £407 million that the Government are allocating is, they say, for new research. If it has to be used to pay for the indirect costs also, there will not be as much money for new research as the Government had thought or as we would wish.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On the subject of the Wellcome Foundation, the hon. Gentleman used the words "pet projects". Before she retired, I thought that Dame Bridget Ogilvie made it clear in public lectures that the foundation worked closely with the Department, and she certainly would rebuke anyone who accused it of having "pet projects".

Dr. Clark: I heard Bridget Ogilvie say the same thing when the hon. Gentleman and I were together at the Law Society, when she talked about how the money was to be allocated. However, I thought it was right and prudent to check with the Minister that the money from the Wellcome Foundation was not being directed, but was free money to be used as freely as the Government money. The Minister said that that was the case.

If I go on much longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be breaching the covenant I reached with the Select Committee members to keep my speech short so that they may contribute. I conclude with another question for the Minister--I had three. The first, about the funding for the Higher Education Funding Council, has been answered. The second question was about whether the Wellcome Foundation money had any strings attached, and that has been answered. My third question concerns the indirect costs, and I do not think that that has been answered. I hope that the Minister will refer to that matter when he winds up.

Science is a very important subject, and those who are trained in or studying science think that it should be tackled in an objective, and not subjective, way. The Committee has tried hard to tackle every inquiry we have undertaken on a cross-party basis, as scientists and not so much as politicians--although we are politicians, too. Science is a subject on which we seek truth, objectivity and progress. The Select Committee has done that in this inquiry.

The Minister takes a strong interest in science, and we are pleased he does. Yesterday's statement from the DTI, and today's announcement of the comprehensive spending review, show that the Government also take science seriously. May I say, from this side of the House, that we are delighted that that is the attitude of the Government? We will always think that there is more that the Government can do, and perhaps the Government think so as well. However, it has been a good two days, and I thank the Minister for what he has done to progress funding for science over the last year.

14 Jul 1998 : Column 268

8.25 pm

Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr): I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the distinguished Chairman of our Committee, the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark). I was on an earlier Select Committee from 1992 to 1997. Half its members were from a science background but, as the hon. Gentleman said, every member of our Select Committee in this Parliament has a good science background. Therefore, our deliberations are well informed.

Our first inquiry was on the Dearing report and its implications for the funding of university research. We were operating on a rapid time scale so that our report would be available to the DTI for its lobbying in the comprehensive spending review. I am delighted that the Government have taken such a positive view of the report.

I have been involved in Select Committees for ten years or so, and therefore have been involved in the preparation of about 20 reports. Generally, when we have the Government's response, there is always something positive--provided it does not cost too much. The only real achievement of those 20 earlier reports was when the Advisory Committee on Genetic Manipulation was set up as a result of one of our reports. On this occasion, I am delighted that the Government have adopted almost every recommendation we made.

The strongest recommendation was on infrastructure in universities--both equipment and buildings--and concerned the general capital rundown that has taken place because of the shortage of money in the last few years. The figure we quoted in the report, as a kind of consensus estimate of how much was needed to make good the infrastructure problem, was between£410 million and £430 million, spread over the next three financial years. Yesterday's announcement exceeded even our highest expectations. Thanks to the Wellcome Foundation, a 50:50 partnership with the Government has produced £600 million over those three financial years. It is wonderful that the Government and Wellcome should have set out to solve the infrastructure problem over three years.

Other elements in yesterday's announcement total £1,100 million--£400 million from Wellcome and £700 million from the Department of Trade and Industry--to be added to the science budget of the DTI in those three years. It took me some time last night to work out how those figures match. Had there been no increase yesterday, the total would have been£4.05 billion for the science vote, but, with the additional £1.1 billion, it is effectively a 27 per cent. increase in science funding over the three-year period--10 per cent. from Wellcome and 17 per cent. from the DTI. That is a superlative increase.

Save British Science, which has been rightly critical of the Government over the years--that is its job--issued a press release yesterday, the tone of which was almost unqualified delight, referring to

"a good day for British science".

This weekend's briefing from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals mentioned that in the United Kingdom expenditure on science research and development

"compares unfavourably with other G7 countries, having fallen in real terms by 21 per cent. between 1986-7 and 1997-8."

14 Jul 1998 : Column 269

I hope that industry will match the Government's record during the next three years, and realise just howimportant is science research and development. Today's announcements and yesterday's from the DTI are a good start in making good the shortfall that there has been.

I hope that, when we meet again for our comprehensive spending review, the finances allocated for infrastructure will be consolidated within the science budget for years four, five and six of the Labour Government, and that we can maintain an annual increase of the order of 8, 9 or 10 per cent. for five, seven, 10 or even 20 years. My arithmetic tells me that a 10 per cent. growth over seven years is a doubling of the science budget, over 14 years a quadrupling, and that over 20 years there would be an eightfold rise in the science budget. I do not know whether we shall live to see that.

Over the years, science has been underfunded by Government and industry. I am delighted that the Government have taken such positive steps, and I am pleased with the Select Committee's role in producing an authoritative and detailed piece of research which has helped to persuade the Government.