HC Deb 13 February 1964 vol 689 cc545-8
Q1. Mr. Dalyell

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the impending departure of Professor Bush and his colleagues for the United States of America, if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole problem of training, recruitment, and retention of scientific manpower for service in this country.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)

I have been asked to reply.

No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell

That reply was inaudible.

Mr. Lloyd

No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell

If a Royal Commission is unacceptable, what proposals do the Government have to alleviate the short-term, more simple—I repeat more simple—problems of secretarial assistance, laboratory assistance and the more prompt purchase of equipment?

Mr. Lloyd

I would not like the hon. Member to think that because my Answer was rather short I do not think this a real problem but I think it is one which should be kept in proper perspective. It does not affect only this country. In 1961, of those who went to the United States about 15 per cent. came from this country, 25 per cent. resale of electricity is being charged at as from Canada, and 25 per cent. from countries of Western Europe; so it is not a problem which concerns this country alone. The plain fact is that, so long as the United States has a gross national product eight times as great as ours, it will be natural for people to want to go there. That is one of the facts of the situation. The reason I said no to the suggestion of a Royal Commission was that the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, a body under the chairmanship of Lord Todd, which is a very distinguished body, made certain recommendations about this matter last May. The important thing is to get on with the task of implementing those recommendations.

Mr. Grimond

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that there will be considerable agreement with his Answer, because this matter has been examined by innumerable committees—going back to the Barlow Commission of 1946—but that makes it all the more necessary that the Government, whatever the difficulty of speed, should give some lead over scientific manpower, its use and prospects? Will he bear in mind that, apart from the lack of funds for major projects during the period of stringency in universities, many eminent men have been forced to waste hours and days arguing about small administrative details and that it is partly these pinpricks which have driven them to go to America?

Mr. Lloyd

Of course, these are matters for debate, and in answer to another Question I may have something to say about that, but I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important for action to be taken. In fact, in the last 12 years Government expenditure on scientific research and development has gone up from £30 million to £172 million and for research councils in the period 1952–3 to this next year it will have risen from about £10 million to £50 million. The recent increase of £20 million announced by my right hon. Friend was designed as to a substantial part to meet the recommendations of the Robbins Committee's Report and the Advisory Council. To give a direct answer to part of the right hon. Member's Question, although it may seem a small point to him, last July a decision was announced to give more than £200 per annum in respect of each research award. That would mean £800,000 additional revenue accruing this year to meet the point he has mentioned.

Mr. Longden

Is it not just as well—or is it?—that hon. Members of this House are not so fastidious about their facilities for research and conditions of work generally as these professors, or we should have to close down in London, England, and reopen in London, Arkansas?

Mr. Lloyd

I think that perhaps my hon. Friend has suggested an appropriate sense of balance. I am not certain, however, that geographically it was an appropriate sense of balance.

Mr. H. Wilson

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one of the big factors affecting university research workers and others was his own dismal record at the Treasury and the cuts in the University Grants Committee? Even in the euphoria of a pre-election period, will he cast a thought back occasionally to his own record on this? Is he not aware of figures which have been published only this morning, showing by categories the numbers of eminent scientists and, much more important in terms of numbers, engineers and technologists who are leaving the country? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we simply cannot afford a brain drain of one-eighth of our current output of Ph.D.s every year to another country?

Mr. Lloyd

I have certainly said that I think that this is a real problem. I suspect that, even if this country were ever to suffer the almost calamitous misfortune of the right hon. Gentleman being Prime Minister, he would find the problem a very real one for him also. He referred to what he described as my dismal record. I have looked up the figures. In the two years the money spent on the universities' current and capital account rose from £88 million to £122 million.

Mr. Wilson

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that on 5th April, 1962, when I think he was still Chancellor, his Government voted down the proposals of the U.G.C. for the very cautious and limited programme the Committee was then embarking on, which we now know from the Robbins Report is totally inadequate for the higher education needs of the country?

Mr. Lloyd

I do not think that the test is some debating point. The question is how much money has actually been spent.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Would my right hon. and learned friend agree that Professor Bush has had two activities—one under the Medical Research Council and the other as head of a faculty in Birmingham University? Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Professor Bush himself has said that he has no complaints over what the Medical Research Council has done? Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what will now happen to the department in Birmingham University for which Professor Bush was responsible, or has he left it in the lurch?

Mr. Lloyd

As to the figures, it is quite true that Professor Bush's research work was supported by the Medical Research Council. All his requests to the Council were met. In 1958 the sum of £3,000 was provided for him. In 1963–64 the figure was £38,000. There has never been any refusal to him, as I think he has frankly stated, of funds for his research work. With regard to his work as professor of physiology, all I can say is that the recurrent grant for Birmingham University rose from £2.2 million in 1960 to £3.3 million in 1963–64. That is designed in part to cover the kind of point which my hon. Friend put forward. I think had better not comment on the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.