Science and Discovery Centres (Funding)

I apologise for having to leave at four o'clock, but I have to be in another part of Westminster to take part in debate on whether we should privatise universities or keep them public. I and others will be taking on the vice-chancellor of Buckingham university, which is always a bit of fun. I was not a member of the Committee, but I am proud to be associated with the report. I have read it, thought about it and talked about it to other people, and I congratulate the Committee on the way in which its Chairman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) have presented it. I was extremely happy when the new Department was set up. I thought that that was a real initiative that we should be proud of. It was a bold step—and, gosh, do we need bold steps these days. It was bold and rather important step in the field of science, because it brought higher education and science together in the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Joined-up science policy is very important for this country and, linked with skills, it has allowed us to produce graduates with a sound practical knowledge base who can go into employment, provided that we know what industries are developing. We need graduates to go into industry with skills, innovatory ability and a degree of knowledge of the subjects, but we need to go a bit further than that: we need to explain issues to people at a much younger age, long before they are graduates. Science and discovery centres bridge a large part of that gap and can reach our young people. The Minister and I were at a rather high-octane meeting with some very young people last night. Among other things, we discussed scientific understanding and policy determination in government. I know enthusiasm when I see it, and it is clear that large numbers of young people want to enter this arena to develop their science and make sure that science plays a central part in policy determination. The evidence base should be evidence based, and what better than science to achieve that? This is the 21st century. Nothing is better than catching people young, and I stand with Alex Ferguson when I say that. We must get them when they are young—they may not last long, but, by gosh, they can give a lot in the time they are in the profession. There are specialist science and engineering schools now. It has been interesting to hear from the engineering greats with whom we on the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and Skills have spoken. They do not know how many schools there are in this country where it is possible to specialise in engineering, and that is probably true of science too. However, there are schools that specialise in those areas, and we must ensure that the people who enter them have some understanding of what science is about. Colleagues from the Committee may remember some young engineers to whom we spoke during our recent engineering inquiry who had lots of friends who wanted to do science, but were tempted away from it by better money and conditions in industry. We must take that issue on, quite seriously. I do not think that everything is a matter of money; it is also a matter of conditions and recognition, of saying, ““Well done,”” and of making sure that there are jobs available for a large part of people's lives in which they can develop their ideas. If we could get civil servants who knew a bit of science, we would not have some of the problems that we have in government now. The evidence base would be much better understood. I have said before that one can tell that many civil servants on Capitol hill have a scientific background. Science captures the imagination. It is not just about David Attenborough and the wonderful things in his programmes. I am amazed by some of the features of life he shows us, as are others, I am sure—they capture the imagination. However, earlier this week we discussed stem cell research and Britain being ahead of the curve, and in that context it is no use if, in schools such as one I visited recently, the subject of stem cells is taught in religion, not science, classes. It is interesting that that is how that subject is seen in some schools. Of course that can and will be argued about in schools. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, discovery centres are places where young people can have fun on a rainy day—or a sunny day—and learn about and experience science in an exciting way. I get quite turned on when I go in and try some of the things, although I do not understand much, because science is highly specialised. It is very good for adults to question how things happen, and there is nothing better than to spend an hour or so in those centres. They set young minds going for the future, and that is what we should be doing. Young people need to go into science, and they need to be excited to get those careers. There are competitive markets globally, and we must be engaged in them. If we capture them young and get their imagination involved, we shall hold our own. This debate is not just about science funding; it is also about how Government and society relate to science and about the whole process, from early excitement about science to arriving in whatever scientific career or training people want, whether they go into the civil service, or research science or something else. The issue is national and local at the same time. We have been debating the merits of funding and how the Government might help to fund the centres. The young man who started the Inspire discovery centre in Norwich, who is now in Wales, I think, was here for the demonstration on Monday, when we were lobbied by scientists about stem cell research. It was nice to meet again someone who spent eight or 10 years of his career trying to set up that science centre; he struggled, but it got there, and as he moves on there are difficulties in replacing someone of his ability. That should not happen. Those present for the debate know why it should not happen; the question is how to get out of that position and ensure that the excellence of what he set up is maintained. I am keen on making Norwich a science city. People are cynical about them, but there are science cities in this country, such as Nottingham, Newcastle and York. There is no money attached to the status, but it pulls people together at all levels of society and gives them something to fight for and be determined about, not just at the business end but in the context of getting young people interested in the first place in becoming entrepreneurs and the business men and women of the future. It is a great idea. I asked the chief scientific adviser about them, and he did not know what a science city was; he asked whether one would just put up a sign at the entrance to the city saying, ““Science city here””. The idea has not percolated outwards yet. I hope the Minister is listening when I say that we need another 12 or 15 science cities, to inspire the people at all levels who should be working together. Inspire in Norwich, which is threatened with closure, is a good example of how we can build around the scientific community, which is very big.