---

Government Science Priorities

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says—there is probably a systemic problem. The Department might have been good at administering expansion, but it is not good at administering contraction. There does not appear to be a rational, systematic way of making choices, which goes to the heart of what I want to say. I accept that we are dealing with a financially austere environment, but the issue is about how it is managed. I am not suggesting that my constituency—or the institutions in it—be spared from economies made across the country. It would be easy to say, "Not in my backyard; deal with the problem somewhere else." I recognise that there are 160 Government science laboratories, and they must all be treated fairly and be subject to the same systematic form of assessment. I have not come here to attack the Government for their handling of science. Over the past decade, a lot of investment has gone into science. There have been good Science Ministers, such as Lord Sainsbury and Lord Drayson, who are very committed to science and are knowledgeable about the subject. I know that the Prime Minister takes a personal interest in boosting science, as does the Secretary of State. However, having built up a reputation for being pro-science, there is a serious danger of the Government blowing that reputation if this more difficult phase is badly handled. I am not here to attack the Department either. The director of the National Physical Laboratory has gone out of his way to point out that its relationship with the Department has generally been good and productive. I can attest to that, as some years ago there was a difficult process of managing the private finance initiative project that rebuilt the laboratory. It was handled sensitively and came to a successful conclusion. It is more worrying that in a very difficult environment, the process is not being carefully managed, and we have across-the-board cuts without any attempt to prioritise and establish costs and benefits. I would like the Minister to provide some reassurance that a proper process is being established to look at how a more difficult resource environment can be managed. At some point, a process must be established that asks what things are in the science budget that cannot be dealt with by the private sector—if the private sector will do them, there is no need for the Government to do them. However, almost by definition, measurement science for the most part cannot be dealt with by the private sector. If we go back to mediaeval times, long before Governments accepted the need to provide roads, let alone schools and hospitals, a basic function of government was to provide a common or standard system of weights and measures. Providing that basic public good is basic government, and it cannot simply be shifted on to the private sector. The things that survive and are given priority will presumably be those that produce the highest returns to society. I have quoted figures from the Minister's Department which suggest that this area is very productive, and surely that should be the rational basis on which decisions are made. When establishing priorities, it is clear that some activities must be focused on the things that will matter in the future—the whole carbon economy problem is obviously at the centre of the Government's priorities. I worry that as a result of the cuts, the critical mass needed in British measurement for dealing with the carbon economy might not be there. My question to the Minister is this: has the Department got a method? Has it got a system of risk assessment? There is no need to rush into these cuts. The Government agree with my party that although we will have to economise substantially on public spending, we should not rush to do so during a recession—that would be the worst thing to do. It would be better to act in a measured way and establish a proper system for assessing risk and costs and benefits. I am pressing the Government to indicate how they will do that. At the same time as announcing cuts, the Government have announced increases in spending in something called a strategic investment fund. I think that £200 million has been allocated to that, and I am sure that it is a desirable thing to do. However, who decided which money goes into the expanding field and which money is taken out of other scientific institutions? Is there a basis for calculating such things? I notice that technology for video games is included in the list of activities funded by the strategic investment fund. I do not want to be snobbish; I am sure that video games could usefully benefit from improved technology as much as anything else. However, who has decided that £3.5million invested in video game technology is more valuable than £3.5 million invested in measurement science? There must be a system for doing such things systematically. To conclude, and to give the Minister a proper opportunity to reply, I have not come here to launch a tirade against the principle of cuts, or to lecture the Government on their poor performance in science, because in general they have been very pro-science. I want to make two simple points. First, I want an assurance from the Minister that a proper, rigorous, deliberate process will be set in train to decide how the cuts in the Department will be made, and that they will not be made on a scattergun basis or on the basis of "10 per cent. off everything". We need a proper, rigorous process for evaluating this. On a more personal level, I hope that it will be possible to pursue these issues in more detail with the Minister for Science and Innovation. Perhaps, as the icing on the cake, we could persuade the Secretary of State to come to the laboratories in Teddington, which is just down the road from Westminster. He would be extremely welcome, and I am sure that he would learn a great deal.