Science and Discovery Centres (Funding)

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who modestly said—in the context of how specialised scientists are, I believe—that he did not know much about science. I hope that that will not be mischievously misquoted back at him by the media. He was very clear that science is a broad subject. Science centres are so important because they expose young people to the breadth of the subject. Although I am speaking from the Front Bench now, I was and am a member of the Select Committee that conducted this inquiry. It was interesting to participate in it. It was short and sometimes sweet, and it certainly set out the problems that science centres face and the wonderful opportunities that a solution to those problems would offer to them, to the people whom they serve and to communities, and, indeed, to Government policy. The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), rightly paid tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for his initiative in pushing the inquiry forward. Whenever this is raised, I point out that it was I who got science centres on the agenda for our quarterly question session with the then Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, because I had been contacted by the science centre in Oxford, which expressed concern about the position that science centres generally were in. I remember being very disappointed by Lord Sainsbury's response at the time. As he put it—I am paraphrasing because I do not have the exact quote—the Government wanted to promote science learning through science learning centres and did not see any role for science centres. In essence, they had to live and die by the marketplace. I thought that that was the wrong approach to take, and I urged the Committee to look into the matter further. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East was able to persuade it to take on the inquiry. In his introductory speech, the Chairman magnificently and succinctly identified the disappointing nature of the Government's response, particularly on the key issues relating to our three options on funding: the museums link, VAT, and emergency short-term capital-type funding to keep things going. I shall return to those things in a moment. The value of the work done by science centres was brought home to me when the Newcastle Centre for Life kindly sent a team of science explainers to the House of Commons, where they set up their equipment—they had microscopes, models, interactive approaches and display boards—to enable members of the public and Members of Parliament to learn more about the exact nature of stem cells and hybrid embryo research. They were even kind enough to battle the elements and come outside for a photo call to show that scientists—those young explainers were all science-trained—have a role to play in explaining controversial issues to the public and the media. If, as I hope, the controversial measures in the Government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill get through, it will be thanks in no small part to the efforts of the science community to engage with the public, the media and with parliamentarians to explain their science, what the research is about and some of the myths created, and to support individuals, including parliamentarians such as me, the Chairman of the Select Committee, other Members who have spoken today and Ministers, who support the proposals in the Bill. I received a letter from the Centre for Life afterwards, explaining that science centres do well at presenting complex and potentially frightening science simply and neutrally through interactive displays and exhibitions. That unit in Newcastle takes the information out in a mobile way, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East mentioned. It is important that there is flexibility to enable it to take mobile displays to shopping areas and schools, because such displays help people to make sense of science, which is sometimes misrepresented in the media. We are not talking just about stem cells, of course, but nanotechnology, vaccinations and climate change, which are just some of the areas that science explainers at the Newcastle science centre have gone into. The Centre for Life is right to say that it does not expect money for nothing—funding—or money for anything simply because it exists. The Government should see that there is something worth while, in terms of policy and outcomes, in spending public money on keeping kids switched on to science. The Centre for Life tells me that, and I accept that, there is evidence that young people switch off from science at certain points during their education, that science teaching in schools is clearly under-resourced and boring, and, therefore, that it is no wonder that so many take softer subjects such as media studies. Fewer students than we would like, and fewer than the country needs, are taking science subjects. Our problem with the supply of scientists starts in schools and among young people. Science centres can offer a more exciting, relevant and hands-on approach to science for young people that complements the curriculum work being done in schools. The Centre for Life explainers pointed out that it can engage the public in cutting-edge, controversial subjects such as stem cell technology; that should be recognised by the Government in funding terms, where necessary. As hon. Members have heard me say before, it is more important than ever that science is explained. It is not a case of dealing with a population that is not as knowledgeable as it might be, or not as knowledgeable as that of other countries; rather, we are dealing with an active campaign against science—an active campaign of anti-science and pseudo-science—that needs to be countered by the facts and by explaining what scientists do. It is worrying that sometimes, the only time that young people hear about some of these technologies is in religious education lessons, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North said. We need an alternative place where young people can get the information. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East made a clear plea for action on the part of the Government. He is careful about demanding action from the Government and they ought to listen, because people such as him putting such a well-argued case for something to be done adds validity to that call. It was fascinating to hear about Bolton TIC. I felt the sudden urge to travel to the north-west—probably via Crewe—to Bolton and it might still happen. I was delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is able, through his efforts and those of the local council, to keep Bolton TIC ticking. The hand-to-mouth existence of such organisations, involving little pots of money, is frustrating. I am struck by the fact that the Wellcome Trust and Halton borough council, in the case of Catalyst, and Bolton metropolitan borough council have felt it worth while to provide support for science centres, whereas the Government have responded by saying that they did not feel that it was worth funding a science centre that was failing financially. I raised that point in my questions to Ministers during the evidence-taking session in the Select Committee on 11 July 2007, when I also asked the Wellcome Trust a question. The Government said in evidence that they"““should not provide on-going subsidies for commercially unsuccessful science and discovery centres””." That was astonishing, because they offer ongoing subsidies and financial support to commercially unsuccessful hospitals, schools, libraries and other things. The point is that these are not commercial enterprises. If the Minister's view is that they should be commercial enterprises—and that if they are not, then that is it—that would be clear, because then we may as well not wait for the outcome of the Government's research into their effectiveness in delivering Government policy. The Wellcome Trust is not foolish about handing out its money, and local councils are not allowed by the Audit Commission and the district auditor to be foolish in handing out their money, yet they have thought that funding such centres is worth while. The corollary of the Government's view is that they will only subsidise commercially successful science and discovery centres: that is, they will only fund the ones that do not need the funding. It is astonishing that, in written evidence, the Government said what they did and followed it up with what the Committee Chairman said was a rather trite statement in response to our recommendation:"““The Government's position has been and remains that funding failing institutions does not represent a good use of public money.””" A number of schools in special measures would quiver if they heard that. It is not about funding failure, but about funding institutions to help them not fail. I have made the point, as did the Committee Chairman, that those institutions would not be failing if there were a fair, level playing field with other institutions. That brings me to a point made by the Chairman during his introduction, which is the question of a level playing field in respect of museum funding. I do not need to repeat what he said about the unreasonableness and shallowness of the Government's response, which was not a valid response to the points that we made. Leaving aside museums, it is peculiar that a science centre's having a collection is the be all and end all in respect of whether they will receive funding. I accept that that is a factor: it is a role that some science centres play. However, the idea that the only thing worth funding is collections is not consistent with any rational view of the validity and importance of the role of science centres or, indeed, of any cultural centre. Other forms of funding are available for cultural centres that do not require them to have collections. I asked the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on 11 July 2007, in question 80, whether there was a curiosity in this regard, because although there is a massive shortage of young people studying physics, chemistry and maths, the Government do not give ongoing revenue support to science and discovery centres, whereas the Department for Culture, Media and Sport gives massive, and welcome, support to art galleries and museums. I asked whether that was because there was a shortage of painters and young people who could become painters. That activity is funded. That was light-hearted, but the fundamental problem is that if young people cannot afford entry fees to science centres, they will go where there is no entry fee. Young people from deprived areas in particular will not have a level playing field and an equal opportunity to go to places where they might be turned on to science, just as they might be turned on to art in art galleries or history and related subjects in museums. I hope that the Minister will return to the matter and provide a valid answer, and I hope that funding might be available on an accreditation basis, regardless of whether a collection exists. The hon. Member for Norwich, North rightly said that when capturing young people for science, it is critical to catch them young, particularly as we will not catch them with the offer of wealth. Science salaries are not what the brightest people can achieve outside science, in the City and in the purely commercial or corporate sector. We must rely on the fact that science is interesting, or—I do not want to ostracise people—even more interesting than accountancy, banking and other sectors where salaries and bonuses are high.