Antarctica: Centenary of Scott Expedition

Earl of Selborne Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, I have a particular reason for being grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for giving us this opportunity to mark Scott’s science heritage. When Scott set off across the Ross Ice Shelf, he named an area Cape Selborne after my great grandfather, who was the First Lord of the Admiralty—and of course this was on the “Discovery”, not the “Terra Nova”, and was a naval expedition. I am only too pleased, four generations later, to pay tribute to Scott on his expedition. For many years I was a trustee of the Oates Museum, and two years ago, at the invitation of BAS, I visited the Rothera Research Station. It was only a short visit, but one could not help but be deeply impressed and humbled not just by the science and the scientists, but by the other people who support the work. I mention the pilots of the Twin Otter aircraft, who are remarkable people, the plumbers and carpenters and, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, mentioned, the dedication to health and safety, which is an extraordinarily important issue.

Today’s debate invites us to look at the scientific legacy, so I have plucked three names from the past 100 years which encapsulate some of this heritage. The first is that of Professor Frank Debenham, who came back from the Antarctic and set up the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge. Let us fast forward to the 1950s and to Sir Vivian Fuchs, director of the British Antarctic Survey, who set up many of the bases on the Antarctic Graham Peninsula and, of course, led the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition. If we fast forward again to two months’ time, we have Sir Ran Fiennes who, in the tradition of the golden age, is to set off once again on an Antarctic crossing, this time during the winter.

Like everyone else, I now turn to the NERC consultation document. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on posing to us the real challenge of what questions we should be asking. Although I do not agree that the merger is the only alternative, and he has said that it has not yet been resolved, I think that we have to come up with some positive proposals to solve the problem of ever-increasing logistical costs squeezing the science, which is not something that anyone wants. The opening paragraph of the consultation document talks about exploiting “scientific synergies” and the need for a “long term vision”, as well as how to support science,

“in the most cost-effective way”.

We would all agree with such sound sense, but where we part company is how to achieve those aspirations. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a past chairman of the NOC Advisory Council and the present chair of another NERC advisory group.

The proposals are set out in surprising detail considering that a consultation document is meant to look at first principles. It even gives us the name of the new centre: the NERC Centre for Marine and Polar Science. That name is not going to catch on. As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, has just pointed out, there is a reputational risk here since we will lose two good brands. I speak with some experience of this. When I chaired the Agricultural and Food Research Council in the 1980s, we had dramatic cuts forced on us, much greater than the pressures NERC is now facing. We decided to protect the “recognition of our investment”—as NERC puts it in its document—by labelling our institute with names like the “AFRC Institute of Arable Crops” and the “Institute for Grassland and Animal Research”. However, what happened was that BBSRC sensibly reverted to John Innes, Rothamsted and Babraham—these are the brands that matter. We do not need to worry about the reputational risk or the value of the investment at NERC; we should recognise that BAS and NOC are valuable brands that need protecting.

The question that must be asked is: are there synergies to be gained and is a merger the best way of achieving them? Within the NERC family there are organisations such as the British Geological Survey, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the National Centre for Atmospheric Science and the National Centre for Earth Observation. With all of these there are opportunities for synergy. Certainly with marine and polar science there are opportunities.

However, merger in itself does not achieve any of these synergies. It is NERC’s job to ensure that the different disciplines merge. In America they have combined oceanography, atmospheric sciences, satellite observation, weather forecasting and polar science into one organisation. That is the logical end to all mergers. I would focus on the smaller groups and keep costs down—but we will have to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about how we will make ends meet. The answer must be by sharing services and logistical support. Whether sharing the fleet will work, either under the ownership of NERC or of someone else, I do not know—but clearly that is the route that has to be explored.

It is essential to pool resources and share costs, but merging NOC and BAS is not the answer. I was very relieved to hear—and entirely accepted—what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said: namely, that it is not a done deal. If it is not too late, let us have the costings and let us see what the costs would be of sharing rather than merging.