THESE days it is understandable that public sector employees do not fancy putting their heads above the parapet to oppose unwelcome changes. Latter-day Bob Cratchits usually have a family and mortgage to think about, let alone their position, so few want to be branded as troublemakers.
But there has been much bitterness at East Kilbride, Lanarkshire, eloquently voiced by the town鈥檚 MP, Adam Ingram, and who also happens to be the new opposition spokesman on science. The government has agreed to pay Assessment Services (ASL), an English subsidiary of the German electronics giant Siemens Plessey, 拢1.95 million to take the National Engineering Laboratory (NEL) off its hands. The Department of Trade and Industry has added insult to injury by calling it 鈥済ood value for money鈥�. Staff at the NEL cannot conceal their outrage.
The fact is, the NEL is a national asset, albeit recently with operating losses, providing the nation with independent and impartial advice. It is a centre of excellence in flow measurement and turbomachinery, engines materials, power systems and much else.
Advertisement
Ian Taylor, the science and technology minister and MP for Esher, playing the part of Scrooge in this sad drama, says that the idea that government agencies are universally regarded as independent and impartial is humbug. Beyond that, says he, perhaps a little more seriously, 鈥渢he basis for NEL鈥檚 standing before the sale to ASL was not that it was a government agency but, rather, that it had established a sound reputation and had widely respected professional engineering and scientific staff. It still has those staff under its new owners and it will only prosper and succeed for ASL if they maintain its existing competence and reputation.鈥�
On the important issue of maintaining and developing our national flow measurement standards, Taylor adds that it will provide work worth more than 拢2 million a year for NEL for at least the next five years. The NEL represents a competence of great importance to all users of flow measurement, industrial and otherwise. All work under the National Measuring System, the minister remarks, is closely monitored both by the DTI and by an independent measurement advisory committee, thus any lack of independence would soon be detected.
So be it. But what bothers some of the employees at the NEL is what would happen if Siemens or one of its subsidiaries appeared to have a conflict of interest with one of NEL鈥檚 clients. Even if the judgments were technically impeccable, there would be a lingering suspicion of less than partial opinions. 鈥淲hat does the MP for Esher, in leafy Surrey, know about us, and our contribution to the national wealth?鈥� ask the staff. The NEL鈥檚 experience has certainly led to a good deal of anti-London bitterness.
AT THE end of last year, it was my good fortune to meet and talk with the Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma 鈥� a space scientist and former director of the Baikonur cosmodrome 鈥� and the Kazakhstan Prime Minister, Akezhan Kazhegeldin. They are the leaders of the world鈥檚 numbers three and four nuclear powers. I was left in no doubt that both were seriously concerned at the problems of nuclear theft and terrorism.
Those talks made me think that Paul Keating, the Australian Prime Minister, should be supported in his idea of setting up a group of 15 international experts, dubbed the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, which meets for the first time this month. Two Britons are included in the group, namely Joseph Rotblat, last year鈥檚 Nobel Peace Prize winner and Lord Carver, formerly Britain鈥檚 chief of the defence staff.
I鈥檓 sorry to say that ministers here don鈥檛 seem to be showing much enthusiasm for the Canberra Commission. David Davis, a Foreign Office minister, tells me somewhat stiffly that the two British members of the Canberra Commission have been invited to participate in a personal capacity. But he adds that the government would naturally consider any request to provide information to the Commission.
Britain鈥檚 position on nuclear nonproliferation and on disarmament, Davis asserts, 鈥渋s a matter of public record鈥�. However, he emphasises that Britain has given nuclear security assurances to states without nuclear weapons which have made commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, adding that: 鈥淲e are ready to begin negotiations on a fissile material cutoff treaty.鈥�
For all the minister鈥檚 enthusiasm for the 鈥減ublic record鈥� I can only say that the government鈥檚 starkly cold attitude to Rotblat鈥檚 award of the Nobel Peace Prize was awful.
SECURITY of information services on the Internet that offer encryption facilities pose a huge problem as the market in such systems is international. Ian Taylor tells me that the government is considering how best to contribute to discussions within the European Union, OECD and elsewhere, and with industry鈥檚 cooperation and support. One answer, it seems, could be to establish a licensing system to ensure appropriate standards of service.