---

Government Science Priorities

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate, and thanking him for the manner in which he made his contribution. He is known to the general public as his party's Treasury spokesman, and once again he has demonstrated his sound grasp of finance issues. He also has a long-standing interest and background in science, and today he has been able to combine the two and we are grateful for that. In spite of the difficulties experienced at the National Physical Laboratory, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to present the context in which we are having this debate—the position of science in wider society, and what the Government have been attempting to do. The Government inherited a UK science base in chronic decline, thanks to a sustained period of underfunding. Not only was there a shortfall in recurrent public funding of science, but the science facilities in our universities and research institutions were, in some cases, literally crumbling and falling behind those of many of our competitors. We still had great scientists, but many of the best found that they could fulfil their potential to make new discoveries only by joining the brain drain of scientists leaving our shores and going to other countries. In addition, the next generation of British scientists coming up through our schools was being short-changed, because the numbers of specialist science teachers were falling dramatically across the country. There was a widespread feeling that the problem was too big to tackle; indeed, there was an effective campaign at the time called Save British Science. However, we came to office and we tackled the problem. The Government have invested in science and research, and that investment has risen year on year. It has risen dramatically, and by next year will be double in real terms what it was in 1997. Equally importantly, the science and research budget remains ring-fenced—protected—to ensure that the money voted by Parliament for science and research is allocated to support science and research. We also inherited a massive capital investment backlog for science research facilities. We therefore created an unprecedented science and research investment fund, which provided £2 billion to help universities to make good the capital shortfall that they had experienced and to create science facilities of a quality worthy of our scientists. We went further and created a new higher education innovation fund—currently worth £130 million a year—to encourage universities to ensure that the benefits of new discoveries spread beyond the scientific community into the wider community and society. That was because of the continued suggestion in British national life that we invented things, but the commercialisation and extension of that science was something that we were not able to do as effectively. To improve specialist science teaching in schools, we introduced incentives for teacher training. As a result, there are more science graduates in the system than ever before in our history. That is why British science is strong today. It is the most productive in the G8, and ranks second only to that of the United States in international league tables. The National Physical Laboratory is a key component of that strength. Indeed, it has been an integral part of our science infrastructure ever since 1901. The work that it does in establishing, maintaining and refining national measurement standards may sound a bit academic and dry, but it underpins many of the scientific developments that we take for granted around us. Without incredibly accurate and consistent systems of measurement, the internet would not exist; nor would satellite navigation, microsurgery and advanced radiology, and many of the new green technologies on which a sustainable future will increasingly depend. That is why the National Physical Laboratory receives support from my Department on so large a scale. To gain a clearer understanding of the issues, earlier today I discussed the case with the laboratory's parent organisation, the National Measurement Office. I have also heard from my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation, who is willing to meet the hon. Member for Twickenham if that would be helpful. He is keen to discuss the programme or timetable for decisions pertaining to the fiscal strength of the National Physical Laboratory. Since 1995, the laboratory has been a Government-owned, contractor-operated institute. That means that it is owned by the taxpayer but operated under contract by a private company—in this case, a subsidiary of Serco. The contract runs until 2014, and guarantees the laboratory an index-linked annual minimum income from my Department. That currently stands at £41.5 million, but the actual funding that the laboratory receives this year will be £47.4 million—some 72 per cent. of its total income. In his Front-Bench role, the hon. Member for Twickenham has acknowledged more than once the need for publicly funded bodies to make efficiencies in these difficult times. The National Physical Laboratory is not immune from that need, but the core funding that it receives next year from the Department will fall by a relatively small amount to £45 million. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is not its sole income. Its status allows it to garner funds from other sources. I assure him in particular that the current problems that the laboratory faces are not, as his website claims, the result of""a junior civil servant putting a red line through key bits of science research"." Next year's grants from my Department should not affect the laboratory's sustainability, nor the jobs for the hon. Gentleman's constituents that it supports, because the amount will be substantially more than the contractual minimum that I have mentioned and on which the laboratory's planning assumptions have been based. I am bound to add that the current economic climate would make many bodies envious of the funding that the laboratory has received. It is important to go back to the contractual basis and the funding that Serco said that it needed to run the laboratory, and to recognise that the Government have gone further and will still go further next year, notwithstanding the efficiencies that we have had to make. The Government's continuing commitment to the laboratory's work has, I hope, been demonstrated by, among other things, significant investment in its facilities, with a new laboratory building just completed. Moreover, the laboratory's core funding does not include nearly £1 million that it will receive over the next three years from my Department's public sector research exploitation fund to help it to strengthen its capacity to commercialise the work that it does. That in turn should help it to diversify its sources of income for future years. I should also mention the research councils. The laboratory cannot receive funds directly from them, but it may benefit from them by working in partnership with bodies—notably universities—that can receive research council grants. Indeed, it is doing so. Two current projects are especially worthy of note. One is the LIDAR—light detection and ranging—sensing technology system for aircraft that the laboratory is developing with the universities of Cambridge and Manchester. The other is the post-doctoral research partnership in measurement technologies that the laboratory has formed with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. None of that is to say that the laboratory's management are not dealing with serious problems, which cut to the heart of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has rightly brought to the House. Assumptions have been made that are not quite bearing fruit. I am not sure that they are entirely in relation to Government grant because, as I said, we are meeting our minimum standards, but there have been costs, particularly in respect of energy, that were not predicted but have gone up substantially, and costs in respect of pensions, which perhaps are more predictable but nevertheless are making the business plan particularly difficult at this time. Those issues cut to the heart of the laboratory's current problems. The Department is very keen to work with the hon. Gentleman and the laboratory to find a way to deal with the matter. There may have to be some reorganisation, but we are clear that we remain keen to ensure that we preserve the infrastructure and ensure that fundamental capabilities in key areas such as health, energy—