Science and Discovery Centres (Funding)

Indeed. I always have to mention Scotland—usually Dundee—to get me off the hook for the following 15 minutes. As a network, the science and discovery centres represent a unique opportunity to foster scientific curiosity and a genuine, long-lasting sense of excitement and interest in science. Every branch of science, technology and engineering is catered for by an army of professional science communicators and enthusiastic volunteers, who have two key objectives: to switch young people on to science and related career opportunities; and to engage the wider public in cutting-edge and often controversial science issues. It was interesting that on Monday, before the Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, representatives of the Centre for Life, in Newcastle, visited the House and gave a presentation to Members of Parliament of some very interesting, simple and explanatory information about research into embryonic stem cells. That demonstrated the sorts of activities in which many science centres are involved. The Committee decided to conduct the inquiry for three reasons: first, because the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East constantly said that we should. The second reason was the widespread concern over the financial security and future of science centres. Of the 18 science centres given capital grants by the Millennium Commission, two have already closed—the Earth Centre, in Doncaster, and the Big Idea, in Ayrshire. Furthermore, the Explore-At-Bristol centre has partially closed after it shut down its ““wildwalk”” facility and IMAX attraction. Since our inquiry, yet another has closed—the Inspire in Norwich—about which no doubt the hon. Member for Norwich, North will want to say more later. In addition, the future of Jodrell Bank—everyone in this Chamber will be familiar with it—which set up one of the first science centres in the world, back in 1965, hangs in the balance. Catalyst, at Widnes, which during this academic year delivered 575 science lessons to more than 17,000 children, struggles to survive and has been within a few days of closure on several occasions in the past five years, despite tremendous involvement from the chemical industry, local authorities and Members of this House. Perhaps we should not be surprised by the financial plight of the science centres. After all, Lord Sainsbury—a great devotee and promoter of science and the then Science Minister—told the Committee in October 2006 that the projected revenues for the millennium centres, in particular, were"““extremely optimistic, bordering on fantasy””." The third reason why we looked at this subject was to examine what role science centres had within the Government's agenda for science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM—to which, to their credit, they remain highly committed. They have acknowledged the important role that science centres play in promoting to young people STEM subjects and careers in science. Yet the bulk of our recommendations on science centres were rejected out of hand by the Government, and science centres continue to struggle. My task this afternoon is to provide an overview of the key themes covered in the report, to give a brief update on relevant developments and to highlight some of the outstanding issues to be addressed by the Government. I am delighted that three members of the former Committee are with us this afternoon—[Interruption.] I am sorry, four members—I apologise to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who has just arrived. I am also delighted to be joined by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is a member of the new Committee. We need to consider the funding stream. We recognised that the majority of science centres lacked stable funding, and that if centres were to remain vibrant and to attract new exhibits and new audiences, stable funding was essential. We noted that funding regimes in England contrasted starkly with those in the devolved Administrations. Indeed, we were impressed with the Scottish model of policy exchange and co-ordinated funding, backed by a £2.5 million per year grant to four designated co-ordinated centres. We did propose a Scottish model for the rest of the UK. Centres are hugely varied, geographically widespread and have differing missions and structures, so different solutions need to be explored, rather than simply importing a model from elsewhere. Instead, we sought to find a potential funding stream for science centres and identified that if the distinction between science centres and museums could be successfully challenged, there might be a satisfactory solution. Museums come in many different flavours, but the thing that they all have in common is that they house collections. The gold standard for museums is the Museums and Libraries Archive Council's accreditation scheme, which sets nationally agreed standards for UK museums in user services, governance, visitor facilities and collections management. Some science centres house collections, and a few science centres, such as Thinktank in Birmingham, are accredited under the MLA scheme. However, most do not house collections and are precluded, therefore, from receiving accreditation. However, the accreditation scheme itself recognises that learning"““is a core purpose of museums.””" In other words, support for museums is based on the fact that the collections that they keep are beneficial to society through education and public engagement. We suggested, therefore, that the accreditation scheme be divided into two parts: first, to focus on collections; and secondly, to focus on public engagement and education. Given that only accredited museums can receive central Government funding, such a move would essentially divide the £320 million funding stream for museums from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport into two streams: one directed to collections and collection management, and the other to public engagement activities. That simple yet workable solution would mean that institutions that carry out the ““core purpose of museums”” without actually being museums—because they do not hold collections—could access funding that would enable them to carry out their valuable role in society. It is a simple solution that would solve many of the centres' problems. However, the Government dismissed the suggestion on three grounds, each of which is flawed. First, the Government attempted to downgrade the importance of learning in the role of museums. They said:"““Education activity is the focus of only one limited element within a section on wider user services.””" That was uncharacteristically disingenuous of the Minister—or of the official who wrote the report. Of the four key elements of the accreditation system, three are relevant to science centres—user services, governance and visitor facilities—and only one is usually not, which is collections management. The MLA makes it clear that educational activity is key to the role of museums. The fact that learning is, within the Government's tight definition of ““museum””, related to collections, does not diminish the reality that it is the very educational benefits that museums offer that makes them attractive to fund in the first place. The second reason why the Government dismissed our suggestion was that they felt that it was impractical because accreditation does not automatically ensure funding. That was a diversion. Only accredited museums can receive DCMS funding. We did not presume that if science centres were to be accredited, they would automatically receive funding because not all accredited museums receive funding. We simply suggested that accreditation would open up to science centres a funding stream currently not available to them. Again, that seems a perfectly reasonable point of view. The third reason why the Government dismissed our suggestion was that the MLA is a non-departmental public body and that"““DCMS operates in accordance with the arms-length principle and believes that MLA is best placed to determine priorities for the sector.””" That is mere obfuscation. The MLA was set up by the Government to set standards for institutions that house collections. Our report suggests that the MLA's remit should be altered, which is something that only the Government can do. Therefore, the Government's intervention is absolutely crucial if that scheme is going to happen; the MLA cannot do it on its own. It is a shame that the Government have dismissed our suggestion to realign the accreditation scheme and split the funding stream. Such a move would increase transparency, and enable the Government to meet the objectives more effectively. In the light of the Department's misunderstanding of our recommendation—because that is what I think it is—we would like the Minister to reconsider and perhaps to suggest a better way to rework the accreditation scheme. We also proposed other ways in which the Government could help science centres. First, to prevent existing science centres from closing and to help those struggling financially, we suggested making available competitively awarded short-term funding. Secondly, we asked the Government to consider reducing the VAT rate on admissions fees to science and other educational centres. Thirdly, we urged our local authorities to offer 100 per cent. business rate relief to science centres. The Government wickedly rejected out of hand the first suggestion on the ground that a science centre that is"““failing in financial terms could not be an effective delivery agent or Government partner.””" That depends on what we mean by ““failing””. I suspect that the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East and for Norwich, North would beg to differ. The Government, through DCMS, already fund science centres that are part of science museums. Science centres earn on average 63 per cent. of their core costs through commercial activities, while science museums fund only 16.5 per cent. of their costs through commercial activities. Is the Minister saying that all the science museums are failing? Of course he is not; he is far too intelligent a man to make such a ridiculous claim. Science museums are not set up to make money. They exist to provide educational services and to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers. Science centres should be thought of in exactly the same light as museums. Our fear about impending closures of science centres was well founded. Inspire, in Norwich, announced last week that due to a lack of sustainable funding it will be forced to close in September. Is the Government letting this resource disappear because Inspire does not add value to Norwich and the surrounding districts? Perhaps the Minister feels that because we have a distinguished scientist representing Norwich, North and a distinguished mathematician representing Norwich, South—the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—some people in Norwich are already sufficiently inspired to take up science, technology, engineering and mathematics.