Antarctica: Centenary of Scott Expedition

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Hooper for giving us the opportunity to discuss not only the centenary, to which she gave great tribute, but, as she put it, an emotionally enduring scientific legacy and ongoing presence of the UK in Antarctica. It is not surprising that so far almost the whole debate has turned on the proposed merger of BAS with the NOC.

As noble Lords well know, I am no scientist and will not be able to compete with those who have spoken from a very close scientific background, but in this context my attention is drawn to a compelling response to the consultation by Sir Martin Holdgate, opposing the proposal. I mention this because Sir Martin was the chief scientist at the Department for the Environment when I was Secretary of State. I quickly realised that he was a man of enormous ability, integrity and experience, and it was he who had to advise me as to our response to the BAS identification of the thinning of the ozone layer. There have been many other distinguished achievements, not least the discovery of 800,000 years of environmental history through the use of ice cores. That is perhaps one of the most significant advances in the study of climate and climate change. It is not surprising that Eric Wolff was rewarded for that by membership as a Fellow of the Royal Society.

I am in no doubt, as others have said, that BAS has a very long and well deserved international reputation for science at the highest professional level. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, said. I listened to my noble friend Lord Willis with great interest. I have great respect for him but one has to weigh what he said against not only Sir Martin Holdgate but a number of other very reputable commentators who have opposed this measure. Sir Martin’s strong objections rest on three fundamental reasons. He argues first that the suggested synergies between polar science and marine science are far less than the differences between them. My noble friend made some emphasis on the synergy but the differences are much greater. Secondly, Sir Martin identified what he calls the quasi-political nature of NERC’s arguments and, more importantly, the questions that the consultation leaves unanswered. He asked,

“how the proposed merger will serve the world community better than the maintenance of two separate, efficient and highly regarded institutes”.

Thirdly, Sir Martin was very concerned that neither the scientific nor the economic case is evident from the consultation document. In particular, it does not contain any figures to suggest what saving the synergy is likely to produce. He describes it as a “piece of breath-taking deviousness”. Sir Martin Holdgate is not a man given to exaggerated worries without cause. Those responsible need to pay particular attention to that.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, is my noble friend Lord Willis right to say that this is not yet a done deal? In that context can we be assured that not only NERC but Ministers will pay very close attention to the several authoritative objections to the proposals put forward by NERC? It is hugely important that this is not just a decision for the research council. Secondly, what is the reaction of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to this? My noble friend is perhaps better able to answer that question given her present position. The presence of the BAS and other bodies in the South Atlantic has been recognised as clear and compelling evidence of the British concern with the whole of the South Atlantic. Any suggestion that this will be watered down or in some way diluted will send the appallingly wrong message to those who are anxious for our departure. This is almost the most important decisions of all and it should not be taken by a research council; it should be a decision firmly taken by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament.