HC Deb 21 December 1961 vol 651 cc1647-66

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

I think it not important that this part of the Session of Parliament should conclude with a general discussion on science and scientists. It is often felt by many people outside that Parliament is still too much in the grip of classicists who only reluctantly admit that science and scientists have a profound effect on the fortunes of Britain. If that is true to any degree—listening to some of the debates, I feel that there is an element of truth in it—this House and the Government would be out of touch with the world and reality. Parliament must give an increasing and much greater proportion of its time in future than it has in the past to considering many of the scientific problems which confront us.

Some of my hon. Friends and myself felt that the Report entitled "The Long-term Demand for Scientific Manpower" was a very important document which should be discussed in the House. Not only is it important, but it has achieved great notoriety because of its somewhat surprising conclusion—surprising to many experts who have studied the problem—in paragraph 75 of its Report, in which it states that the overall supply and demand for qualified manpower will not be very much out of balance at the end of the first five years of the decade 1960–70. This conclusion has been seized on with joy by all those who think that we have got over all the difficulties and need not worry much about this matter and viewed with dismay and even anger by a number of universities and principals of technical establishments and, indeed, by many scientists. Both of those points of view may well be wrong. I believe that the statistical Committee which produced this document has performed a very useful statistical exercise. It has done it with diligence and, I think, with great ingenuity.

I should like to make the general point that we are very well served by all those many distinguished experts who serve on the various committees of the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy and on the main Council itself. They give devoted and disinterested service which is a fine contribution to public life. We are all grateful, as, I am sure, the Government and the country are, for the work they do.

When the Ministry gets these reports, quite apart from the specific one which I am raising today, I often wonder what it does with them. We certainly never have much opportunity of discussing them in this House. I do not recall a discussion on any of the Annual Reports of the Committee. Nearly always such references as are made are done on the initiative of back-bench Members, very often on this side of the House, although I know that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) is very interested also. No doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say something, not only about his appreciation of the work done by the Committee, but how the Reports are generally used and whether he is in favour of the idea of having a regular annual occasion on which to discuss these valuable documents; otherwise, some of the members of the Committee must wonder what happens to the result of their efforts.

The Report is a competent and intelligent attempt to forecast requirements of scientific manpower for the years ahead. We nevertheless believe that it may to some extent have clouded the situation and that the conclusions drawn from it by some are not warranted by the facts. Some of the Committee's conclusions could have a damaging effect upon the policy of the Government and the attitude of the public to the problem of scientific manpower and how to train it. In any event it is always dangerous to make statistical estimates of the future. We have had many examples in the past of such estimates proving disastrous. It is rather like flying in the face of providence to try statistically to forecast what a situation will be in five or, even more so, in ten years' time. I am not making a party point in recalling the famous occasion in 1955 when the present Minister of Health said that we were within twelve months of reaching a situation when the number of dwellings would roughly equate the demand for them. We all know that that certainly has not been borne out by the fact in London or elsewhere. There was the estimate made in 1950 of the number of teachers required which proved to be lamentably short of the number in fact required.

More recently, perhaps, and pertinent to the point I am making, was the 1957 Report of the Willink Committee about the number of doctors that would be required. That Committee came to the optimistic conclusion that in 1955, medical schools were producing too many doctors and a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of students was recommended. A few years later, we discovered how wrong that estimate was and that we could only maintain the Health Service in the hospitals by increased recruitment of doctors trained abroad. I say nothing against them—they have done splendid work—but the fact is that we had to rely on doctors trained outside the country. Indeed, more than 50 per cent. of all emergency operations in the hospitals had to be done by doctors who were not trained here. The result is that the recommendation has been altered and the Government have had to encourage a 10 per cent. increase in the number of students to get us back to the position when, eventually, although it will be a long time yet, we may produce sufficient doctors at home for our requirements.

That has been a salutary experience for the Nation, although I should have thought that it was a good deal easier to estimate the number of doctors required than to try to forecast the requirements for scientists over a vast field in which new developments take place daily.

Having talked about the general difficulty and danger, I want now to come to some of the specific assumptions which must be questioned. At page 20 of its Report, the Committee assumes at paragraph 71 (a) that there will be suitable school-leavers who wish to enter higher education in sufficient numbers. The university population is expected to rise to 170,000 in the early 'seventies and plans have been laid to that end, and we all hope that that target will be reached. On the other hand, we are nowhere near the target, for the number of those students taking advanced courses, either sandwich courses or courses in institutes of advanced technology, which will have to rise from 8,000 to 26,000 or 27,000 by 1970. So far as I understand it, the Government have announced an increase in the number of places in those types of institution of only about 14,000, so there is a very big gap here between the additional places which will be required, and those being provided. I would hope that the Minister can say something about this. If this gap is not planned and filled quickly there will obviously be a serious short-fall on this side of the estimates.

However, I think a much greater difficulty arises in accepting this assumption from that part of the paragraph which talks of suitable school leavers who wish to enter higher education". I assume by the word "suitable" is meant students willing and qualified to do so.

In the science debate on 10th July I drew attention to the really catastrophic position of mathematics teachers. I quoted on that occasion Professor Thwaites, who reported on 23rd May this year that it was found that there was a shortage of mathematics teachers in 800 out of 990 schools. He said: The fact is that in a single year there was on the average a shortage of mathematics staff of nearly 50 per cent. in some 800 schools". He went on to say that he put the present deficiency as equalling for the universities at least one year's total output of Ph.D.s and in the grammar schools at least three years' total output of graduate mathematicians. On page 31 of his Report he said: The disappearance of properly organised mathematics teaching has consequences for science and so ultimately for the life of the whole nation so appalling they need no emphasis from me. That is the position reported by an eminent authority in May of this year. Is it possible that the Committee really can safely afford to assume that in the short space of time action has been taken which has remedied or will remedy the shortage in the period under review? Because the Committee suggests that the balance of supply will be right in four years from now, with the possibility of a surplus afterwards. This seems to me such a big assumption that it must be questioned, if it is wrong that, calculations in the Report will be wrong. I hope the Minister will say something about that.

There are two other minor assumptions in this part of the Report which I must mention. One is this. Apparently the Committee assumed that the number of students from overseas who are trained here and who will return to their own countries will remain constant. I think that that may be wrong, and I should be very sorry if it were right. I would have thought that one preeminently suitable task which we could perform for Commonwealth countries, particularly for the under-developed Territories where there is a lack of institutions for further education, would be to provide a great training ground for them here. As we have the facilities here we can train students and by these means cementing the ties, which is an essential part of the developing Commonwealth as we now see it. At any rate, I think the Committee may be wrong in its assumption there, and I rather hope it is.

I think also that it has probably underestimated in paragraph 15 (3, b) about the migration of qualified students, people who have got their degrees. For one thing, as the Committee itself says, it has not been able to take into account the quality of those who go abroad to get jobs, particularly in Canada and the United States. Salaries offered there do tend to attract the most able of our scientists, and this must have a disastrous effect in the long run. Secondly, I think the rate of migration will probably increase. I do not think it can be assumed that it will remain as the Committee do at its present 3 per cent. There is some little evidence to support that in the Report published yesterday, the Seventh Report of the Overseas Migration Board, which shows that in the engineering group and scientific groups there was a slight increase in the number of those who emigrated.

Of course, this Report deals only with those who go abroad by the long sea routes. Many qualified people go by air, so one has to add this number to that estimated by the Board. I do not want to go at great length into this, but the Board said, It seems clear that our home demand for manpower in these categories is generally very high and likely to increase, and that our resources could become strained if the supply is insufficiently replenished. It also says: These losses could have a cumulative effect. When the figure of those who go by air is added, I believe that 3 per cent. is probably an under-estimate.

On demand, I come now to the assumption—which is a large one and may well be wrong—about industrial requirements. First, the Zuckerman Committee Report says that, in the past, the requirements of manpower have been based on reference to the expansion of production. On this occasion, because some difficulty resulted from the old methods, the Committee took an industry by industry approach. Whatever basis it adopted, it seems to me that it under-estimated industrial requirements, and I hope it did.

The Committee said that in the period 1950 to 1959 industrial production went up by something over 2 per cent. a year, which is not very much, but that qualified manpower rose by 8 per cent. which is a fairly impressive increase. If one assumes that, in the next decade, there will be an increase in production of only 2 per cent., I believe that those figures suggest that manpower would rise by 140 per cent., but the Committee believes that 90 per cent. will be sufficient. I do not understand how this figure was arrived at.

Either the Committee assumed that we shall not increase production much above 2 per cent. per annum, or that we shall use less and less scientific manpower, in which case industries will become more inefficient and in a more difficult competitive position. I find this figure difficult to understand.

The Committee seems on the whole to have accepted the view about industrial requirements that the pattern will continue as now. It says that requirements vary widely from firm to firm and industry to industry, but does not seem to have given much consideration to the need for an improvement in the ratio between the qualified and the non-trained personnel in some industries. It is true that in chemicals and oil about 8 per cent. of the staff are qualified, but in some other industries, such as constructional engineering, which has 1.7 per cent. qualified manpower, it is extremely low.

Indeed, even the Committee, in paragraph 43, feels that something should be done if the motor vehicle industry is to remain competitive in the modern world. I believe that we must assume that a much greater use of scientific manpower will be needed if industry is to do efficiently the task which faces us in the next five to ten years, whether under private or public enterprise. Employment of more trained scientific personnel is essential.

This is already recognised by the best private firms. For instance, I.C.I., although it must have reached the peak of efficiency in much of its production, had 15 per cent. of its staff technical managers in 1951, and this had risen to 16 per cent. by 1960. Admittedly, all manpower had gone up, but the proportion of scientific manpower had gone up even more. What is good enough for I.C.I. is what most other industries need. If they do not follow suit, we shall fall far behind in the provision of the scientific manpower that is needed.

I find it difficult to understand how this Report can be true when I read also the Report which has just been published, "Industrial Research in Manufacturing Industry", by the Federation of British Industries. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary for Science has a copy of it. This is one of the most comprehensive investigations that has ever been made into more than 1,000 firms. Paragraph 11 of the Survey's conclusions states: The main limitation on expansion of research activity is lack of qualified manpower. There is a standing vacancy rate of 13 per cent. overall in industry's research and development departments". That is the position now. Can all this be remedied in four years? Incidentally, this Report shows that 80 per cent. of expenditure on private enterprise research is in six industries. There is a whole field where practically nothing at all is being done. I cannot believe that the requirements of scientific manpower for industry, if it is really to be competitive, can be reached in four years or even in ten years.

Whilst I do not take the view which a writer in the New Scientist did when he hoped that the Report on "The Long-Term Demand for Scientific Manpower" would earn the obscurity which it deserves and who said that it would be lamentable if official policy were based on what he described as slapdash statistics, it would be disastrous for the country and for industry if anything in the Report led to a slackening of effort either in the employment of scientists in industry or in the amount of national income we devote to education. What I am terribly afraid of is that the Treasury, consciously or unconsciously, will use the Report in negotiations with the University Grants Committee to find less than the annuities really required for expenses. That would be absolutely fatal. If the debate will have done something to show that the Report must be received with some qualification it will have done some good.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

Time is short and I will try to be succinct. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) had as his objective the re-emphasising of the opening sentence of paragraph 15 in the introduction to the Report I am with him entirely. It would be quite wrong if we were not to watch against any complacency in this matter.

Although the Report itself states that we shall have a slight surplus, complacency is terribly dangerous and there is no better reason for not being complacent than that given by the noble Lord the Earl of Halsbury in a debate in another place on 15th November. I know that I must not quote his words here, but Lord Halsbury was absolutely right when he said that most competitors tend to assume that their competitors will not get all they want and therefore they grade their demands for manpower of this kind on that assumption. If everybody else got all the new people that they wanted the original competitor would at once raise his sights.

I am quite certain that that is what will happen over the years, and from the comparative figures in a table at the end of this Report it is perfectly obvious that most industries visualise virtually the doubling of their present scientific manpower. I believe that some will go further as time goes on, especially if we go into the Common Market, since some of the industries on the Continent have a higher portion of scientific manpower than is the case in this country.

I want particularly to emphasise one or two points which have been made by my noble Friend the Minister for Science, and particularly what he said to a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee in July when he put forward two propositions with which I entirely agree. The first is that if we get our educational pattern right, we shall in the end get everything right. I am sure that that is true. The second point is that after education the most important thing we can get right is the organisational relationship between Government and science.

Perhaps it is not proper for us to discuss the second proposition this afternoon; anyway there is not time to go into it fully. It is of immense importance that, just before we rise, we have the latest Report from the other Zuckerman Committee, and I hope that early in the New Year we shall be able to discuss this in more detail. As the hon. Gentleman indicated in opening the debate, the amount of literature pouring out on various subjects at which we ought to look in connection with science and technology is so vast that I do not think that any of us can hope to cope with it all.

One of the lectures which I most enjoyed reading was that given by Dr. B. V. Bowden, Principal of the Manchester College of Science and Technology, when he was speaking in Norwich in September to the Association for the Advancement of Science. He showed us what an appalling race is going on in the increase of scientific manpower. In fact, he went as far as to say that if the rate were to continue, and the population of the world were to grow in the next 250 years as it is now growing, not only would every man woman and child in the world be a scientist, but every horse every cow and every mule would be as well.

Our one hope is that such things as computers will save us from this ghastly prospect. As we go on we shall find ways of saving manpower, and therefore, whatever the estimates are, however accurately our statisticians may calculate, I am convinced that new inventions will throw their figures out sooner or later, and probably sooner than later.

The other thing which I should like to emphasise is this question of the utilisation of our manpower whom we have educated in scientific and technological subjects. In particular I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to a scheme which has been started in the three counties of Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire, and about which there was a very interesting article in the Daily Telegraph by Colin Mares headed, "Linking Education to Industry".

I happen to know Sir John Evetts, the chairman of the association of the three counties, and I have been in correspondence with him. I should like to touch on one or two of the matters which he has raised with me. There has been almost complete unanimity amongst those who are members of the Three Counties Industrial Education Association that the craft apprenticeship should be cut down from five years, which they regard as too long. Indeed, when Sir John put that to the West of England Employers' Association, they too fully agreed, and yet when it was put to the National Federation it was turned down.

It is important for the Government to give consideration to this as soon as possible and to let us know their views. I know that there are divided opinions, and I believe that they vary industry by industry, but certainly it is the unanimous wish of all the members of that Association that this should be done.

The second thing about which there was unanimity was that there ought to be some standard of inspection of all apprenticeship schemes, and I believe that this, too, is of great importance.

There were eleven conclusions, but I will deal with only three. The third was that there ought to be an industrial liaison officer in every county to strengthen the links between schools, technical colleges, and industry, and I am sure that this is something which ought to be done. Governments are renowned for indulging in almost complete bouleversement of military theory, and that is that Governments rarely consolidate success and nearly always try to bolster up the inefficient.

I am quite convinced that in this field the time is overdue for the Government to give some encouragement to those industries which are trying to put their own house in order in relation to matters such as we are now debating, and to be a little less generous in bolstering up those who have not done so, or are not prepared to do so. We have here an example of twenty-four companies getting together in three counties and promoting a scheme. Already the local education authority has agreed the terms of reference for the liaison officer that it is proposed to appoint, and also to pay one-third of the salary if the association will pay another one-third. Where the other third comes from is anybody's guess—perhaps from some great trust, or something of the kind.

But here is a field in which we can see the linking of governmental effort, local education authority effort, industrial effort, and the schools. If we can get something going in that way we shall see a better utilisation of our manpower. I do not think that any of us, however encouraged we are by the increasing numbers coming forward, ought to be at all complacent about the way in which we are utilising the manpower that we have trained.

The wastage figures at the end of the Report are rather startling. I will not go into them in detail, but they show that in various ways we lost 1,460 scientists and about 2,225 technologists in 1959. I do not know what each one costs the State, his parents or the University Grants Committee, but I am convinced that the cost would run into several thousands of pounds for each one. With the need for economy in every field that we can think of we should try to ensure that there is no unnecessary wastage, and that we get full value for every penny spent.

I am sorry that I have delayed the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson), who also desires to speak, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I entirely support the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) in saying that we should have opportunities to debate these matters more fully and more often.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson (Lewisham, South)

Although the Report on scientific manpower which is the subject of this short debate has been subjected to some critical comment, it has had at least two good results. First, it has confirmed that there is now a wide general public interest in scientific affairs, as is evidenced by the increasing space given to scientific matters in our national Press. Secondly, it has alerted the nation to the necessity for planning ahead and considering what our future industrial requirements will be, and also for our assuming public responsibility for ensuring that the necessary scientists and engineers are available.

Although, naturally, no reference is made in the Report to the Common Market, I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that this is likely to be an increasingly important factor. There is at least a possibility—and I believe it to be a strong probability—that in the near future we shall be moving into the Common Market. We shall then be faced with a degree of competition from our partners in the Community which is bound to present a challenge to our home industries. It will cause them, more than ever before, to have regard to the necessity for applying the latest scientific techniques. That, in itself, will provide a great stimulus to the demand for scientists and technologists in our affairs. This all confirms the view which many of us hold that it should be the duty and responsibility of the Minister for Science to look ahead in order to see how best we can meet these problems.

It is true that the Report includes a number of qualifications and conditions, but there is no doubt that the outstanding conclusion of the Report, upon which public attention has been riveted, is the simple statement that by 1965 supply and demand in manpower should not be much out of balance, and that a surplus may exist after that date. I think it is that statement which in the main has caused most of the concern which has been expressed. I need not go into all the figures on which that is based. That has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington).

This is not the first report on this subject. I think it was in 1956 that the Advisory Council issued a survey on the problem. This being so, I should have thought it would have been interesting if we could have had the views of the Advisory Council on the present report which, as I understand it, is based upon an analysis of the subject prepared by the Statistics Committee of the Council, with conclusions by the Manpower Committee, and presented through the Council; but to which the members of the Council, so far as I know, have not addressed themselves at all. In view of the comments and criticisms forthcoming since its publication, there might have been some advantage perhaps in the Council holding back the Report and considering it carefully before publication. In view of what my hon. Friend has said about the findings of the F.B.I.'s latest report, it is obvious that there is a good deal more information which has to be gathered.

There are one or two points arising from the report to which I should like to refer briefly. It is assumed in the report that the large industries have reached, or will shortly reach, saturation level in the absorption of scientists. I think that an arguable proposition. If the country is to have the economic developments essential for our survival, if we go into the Common Market and face the challenge there, obviously large organisations will require the additional help of scientists as much as the smaller ones.

Secondly, there is this question, which was referred to by my hon. Friend, of having available a pool of scientists and technologists to be used for international purposes and particularly for the development of the under-developed areas of the world. There is an urgent need for the men, and they will have largely to be provided through the great Powers like ourselves and the United States. There is, of course, the loss by migration to be considered. I do not think that it is always the narrow economic rewards which attract our scientists to other countries. Often they go because they have placed at their disposal facilities and resources which are much better than could be provided in this country. I echo the regret voiced by my hon. Friend that we do not have more frequent opportunities to ventilate these matters. I hope that the Advisory Council and the Manpower Committee will not feel that they have been hardly treated during our discussion. These discussions have the great advantage of attracting public attention to these momentous issues. It was the Advisory Committee which did much of the groundwork in this matter.

It is clear that a rather wider and more scientifically based survey is required, and this is a problem which merits our constant and regular attention. The industrial health of our country depends to a considerable degree on the adequate provision of scientists and technicians. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and his noble Friend will regard it as part of their job to see that these men are provided. I do not think that it required the debate today to bring to their notice the urgency of this matter, and I am sure that we shall all look forward with interest to what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about the points which have been raised.

4.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth)

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) for raising in our last debate before Christmas the subject of this Report on the Long-Term Demand for Scientific Manpower. This Report evoked widespread public comment when it was published, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) said, and has already been debated in another place. It is, therefore, right that this House should debate it before we rise for the Christmas Recess. So, in the Christmas spirit, I congratulate the hon. Member.

The Report of the Committee has been attacked, I believe wrongly, on the estimates it has made of the long-term demand for scientific manpower. I think it right to see what it set out to do, and not to criticise it because it was not asked to undertake a task which was entirely different. Some people think that it should have attempted to assess the numbers of qualified scientists and technologists which the various sectors in particular industries "ought" to need in an ideal world over the next ten or fifteen years, inside or outside the European Economic Community, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, South mentioned.

I suggest that such an attempt could have no statistical validity at all. Comparisons with other countries are at best unsatisfactory because of the differences in terminology and standards of academic attainment. Similarly, it is impossible to find an absolute standard in any industry by which it is possible to formulate the number of scientifically qualified personnel which it "ought" to employ. The Committee, therefore, attempted, as in its previous exercises, to estimate what would be the likely demands for qualified scientific and engineering manpower. These, I suggest, are the only possible estimates that could be made.

The private sector of industry in 1959 employed about 44 per cent. of qualified manpower compared with 41 per cent. in 1956. The Committee estimated that the proportion would rise to nearly 50 per cent. by 1970. It is, however, important to note that this sector employs less than half of the country's total qualified manpower, and will probably continue to do so for some years to come. Therefore, to alter the final demand forecast figures by 5 per cent., for example, the increase in forecast demand by private industry would have to be more than 10 per cent. above the figure in the Report.

Criticisms have been made of the way in which the estimates for demand by industry were forecast, and I should like to answer these criticisms. For the public sector, the Committee was in possession of such forecasts as are available. There would have to be quite major developments in Government policy before the figures could be altered sufficiently to make the Committee's final estimates wide of the mark. The relevant figures are in Table 5, on page 12 of the Report. This shows that two factors were involved in forecasting the qualified manpower demand for each industry, or group of industries.

These were, first, the probable increase in the so-called "qualified manpower ratio", that is, the percentage of qualified scientists and engineers to the total manpower employed by industry. The second factor was the forecast of how the total size of the industry, as expressed by the total numbers employed, was likely to increase. The estimated increase in the demand for qualified manpower is naturally a combination of these two factors.

Some critics have alleged that the Report is based on rather conservative figures obtained by Whitehall from industry and, so to speak, swallowed as a whole. I make it clear that while on these figures there has been considerable contact between the Departments concerned and experts in a number of industries, the forecasts are those of the Committee itself.

If hon. Members turn again to Table 5 of the Report they will see that the forecasts of demand allow for very significant increases. It was assumed that in most cases qualified manpower ratios would double between 1959 and 1970—a very striking change if it comes about, and involving in several cases, for example, the chemical industry, bringing the ratio of the industry as a whole up to the current ratio in the most progressive firms. This is rather different from what the hon. Member for Lewisham, South suggested because, if the average ratio rose to the current ratio in the best firms, the ratio in the best firms must be significantly higher than it is today. Quite apart from this, a considerably increased size was forecast for many industries, with the results given in the second column of the table.

Estimated demand for qualified manpower in 1970 is assumed to be much more than double the 1959 figures, as is shown by the striking total estimated increase from 68,000 in 1959 to 145,000 in 1970, both figures referring to firms employing 100 employees or more. This table of the Report also brings out, as has been mentioned this afternoon, that certain large and scientific industries—particularly chemicals, aircraft and certain sections of the electrical industry—account for a very large part of the present and forecast future demand. Of course, my noble Friend and I share the hope expressed in almost every speech this afternoon that there will be great transformations in the less scientific and advanced industries during the next decade.

As I have emphasised, the Report allows for considerable increases in practically the whole of industry. I would mention the fourfold increase expected in the qualified manpower ratio in the shipbuilding industry. In making these forecasts, however, which are intended to be realistic, the authors of the Report are probably wise in not assuming spectacular transformations which are not at present in prospect.

In past Reports on scientific manpower, both the supply and the demand have been underestimated, as was referred to by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I understand that the Committee was conscious of this fact when considering the estimates tendered to it, and it decided upon its own figures with this in mind. The fact remains that the effect of these assumptions and the Committee's consequent estimates has been to raise the demand for qualified manpower employed in the whole of industry by well over 100 per cent., from 76,200 in 1959 to 163,500 in 1970. That is, the calculations assumed that the demand would more than double.

Reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the introductory memorandum to the Report which refer to the possibility of there being a greater number of qualified scientists emerging from the universities and colleges of advanced technology after 1970 than are likely to be required for purely vocational occupations. That some people have misread these paragraphs in the way that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington described, with the result that they have been caused acute concern, I naturally regret.

I rather part company from the hon. Member for Lewisham, South, however, in suggesting that the Report should have been held up and not published. My noble Friend and I believe that as a general principle, it is usually better to publish things than not so to do.

Mr. C. Johnson

I was not suggesting that the Report should be held up indefinitely. I was suggesting that the Advisory Council, having the Report before it, might have considered it and that some of the criticisms which have been vouchsafed could well have occurred to the Council and have led to improvement in the Report.

Mr. Freeth

It is difficult to throw reports back to those who make them because one does not like the results. That is a rather thorny path upon which to embark.

The demand described in the Report is predominantly a demand for scientists as scientists or engineers as engineers occupying purely vocational posts. The Report does not attempt to estimate the additional demands for scientists and engineers in management, administration, sales, and so on, which would arise if employers could feel assured that there was a widespread availability of suitably educated scientists and engineers for these purposes. I believe that there is a growing requirement for such persons by industry for non-vocational occupations, and I should like to repeat what I said in the House on 5th December and what my noble Friend said in another place on 15th November, namely, that the prospects for any able young man or woman now about to set out on a scientific or technological career are, and will remain, wider and brighter than ever before. We can never have too many good brains trained in these fields.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely referred to the scheme in the three counties. The matter on which he touched is not the direct responsibility of my noble Friend, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Education and Labour to what he said. If we are to have more scientists and engineers than may be needed for purely vocational occupations, we shall have to develop fresh concepts on what scientific education should be to meet demands wider than the purely vocational, and I understand that the universities are devoting much attention to this matter. No doubt the Committee on Higher Education, under Lord Robbins, will take this aspect of the future pattern into account when it makes its report.

It is also worth remembering—and this deals with a point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—that the Report does not attempt to assess the numbers of graduates between different disciplines, either as a matter of demand or as a matter of supply. The question of mathematics and the shortage of mathematics teachers is serious, but I refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education said in the House on 10th July and I can assure him that progress is continuing to be made.

On the question of the supply of qualified manpower, the Report had to look beyond the period for which it is immediately necessary, or even desirable, to plan. Its assumptions are consistent with existing plans for the expansion of the universities and the technical colleges in the first half of the 1960s. These plans are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education respectively. So far as at present announced, they do not go beyond 1967, although buildings begun in this period will have their main effect after that date. The Government must take into account the next quinquennial settlement with the universities and also the conclusions of the Committee on Higher Education before final plans can be made for the 1970s. I can assure the House that this Report will not be pigeonholed, but will be used as one of the factors in making future plans.

Mention has been made of the recently published Survey of Industrial Research by the Federation of British Industries. There are one or two points worth making here. As with the Committee Report which we are discussing, the survey is based on 1959 data and conditions. The main conclusion which is relevant to this debate is that which has been quoted—namely, the 13 per cent. overall shortage in industries' research and development departments. This is not inconsistent with the conclusions of the Report which we are discussing.

I believe that the Report is a valuable document. A further census of demand for scientific manpower will be made next month. We intend to make these every three years. We shall look again at the estimates of long-term demands in the Report which we are discussing, and the assumptions upon which they are based, in the light of this fresh evidence, which will include evidence on migration.

Further, results of the sample survey of scientific qualifications on the 1961 Census of Population will become available as soon as the Registrar-General has completed his work. It will, therefore, always be possible to undertake a further and possibly an even more refined survey of the whole field.

The Report is, as I said, encouraging, but I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it gives no grounds for complacency. But it shows that the Government's plans in this field are on the right lines, and this surely is a thought which must rejoice us all at this Christmastide.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)

I intervene briefly because I think that the House would wish to place on record that this debate is also the last occasion on which our Clerk, Sir Edward Fellowes, will sit in his Chair at the Table of the House. Notwithstanding all the well-deserved tributes which have already been paid to him, I should like to cite one final example of his wise judgment and good taste.

Sir Edward and Lady Fellowes have chosen to live in my constituency. I am sure that the whole House wishes them a long and happy retirement. I shall welcome this most distinguished constituent. May his retirement begin with a happy Christmas.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

It being Five o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, till Tuesday, 23rd January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.