HL Deb 11 March 1964 vol 256 cc419-32

2.48 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON rose to draw attention to the Trend Report (Cmnd. 2171) and to the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy 1962–63 (Cmnd. 2163) and the Report of the Committee on Scientific Manpower (Cmnd. 2146); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to three Reports—namely, the Trend Report, the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy and the Report of the Committee on Scientific Manpower. This sounds rather a mixed bag. I gave some consideration to whether I should drop this Motion and put one down which was more directed to some particular issue; but we have a tradition in this House, now well established over the last few years (by which we anticipated another place), that we have the equivalent of an annual debate on science, scientific policy and policy for science.

I think there is still a good deal to be said at this stage for leaving the Motion wide—and it could hardly be wider, with these various Reports, although they are all directed to similar objectives—so that we may call on the quite remarkable experience and distinction of noble Lords in this House. We are fortunate that the Addison Rules do not prevent the Chairman of the Government's Advisory Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Todd, from taking part in our debate. Other noble Lords have taken part in previous debates, and of course this year we have the reinforcement of three new Peers, two Life Peers and one hereditary Peer. There is my noble friend Lord Bowden, who had a particular experience in this field, the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford. Two of those noble Lords will be making their maiden speeches to-day.

Much of recent discussion and debate, especially in another place, has been devoted to the question of the organisation of science, both scientific policy and, indeed, a policy for science. In a recent debate in this House, when we debated the structure of Government, it was apparent from a number of speeches that science is greatly affecting the whole method and system of Government. But because we have to discuss the organisation of science, there is no reason, I think, why we should not continue to discuss some of the great scientific issues—matters on which, increasingly, Government is having to take decisions.

I think it must now be recognised among us all that we can no longer—it has not been possible for many years—insulate science as a remote research subject, in which it is better that Government should not get muddled up. In considering organisation, we now have the advantage of a number of Reports, the Trend Report and the Robbins Report, which is one of the most distinguished and valuable Reports that we have ever had and, if I may say so, a Report that is very much easier to judge than some of the the other Reports because of the immense background information and the immense documentation given to its arguments. If I have a criticism of Reports like Trend and the Slater Committee Report, for instance, it is that, inevitably, with the shorter time and the need to arrive at recommendations rather more quickly, we have not always been given time for sufficient argument and discussion to take up their conclusions.

One thing which strikes me very forcibly and, I am sure, strikes all your Lordships who have read these Reports, is how easy it is to arrive at different answers. What was at one time a dimly perceived idea is suddenly elevated to a fundamental principle, only to be discarded again. There are those who cry "Back to Haldane!", and it is a remarkable tribute to the extraordinary precipience of that great man that his principles are still being applied and discussed to-day. Of course, precipient though he was, the fact is that it is fifty years since he reported, and the sheet size of the problems of organising science really alters the nature of the problem.

None the less, we reckon that we have had a distinctively British approach to this problem and one that has served us well, and we need to judge how far we should interfere with that combination of Government support for, and not too much straightforward Government direction of, science. We now find that at last science fills the minds of politicians and, indeed, of Party politicians. It is not my object to-day to make this an occasion for a Party political exchange on the advantages of one system over another. The Conservative Party are hurrying to catch up with the lead which the Labour Party gave in this matter, but I think we must honestly admit that the debate has not yet gone far enough for these issues to be elevated to being matters of first-class Party political principle. I hope we acknowledge now that the development of science, and the way we allow it to develop, is fundamental to the whole progress of our civilisation. It advances at a fantastic speed, and it is in the light of this fantastic advance that we must plan our institutions.

Let me say right away that I do not regret in any way that science has now come into the field of Party politics. This is something of such importance that it is encouraging to think that the Parties are now prepared to argue and to battle on these matters. I remember, years ago, a discussion with a very farsighted friend who said that one day Party political issues might revolve around such questions as whether there should be more golf courses or more opera houses. As human progress advances, no doubt many of the great Party issues of the past will disappear. In saying this, let me not suggest that there are not fundamental differences in Party policy and principle. But that there should be differences is a good thing, and I would defend to your Lordships the fact that these are now becoming issues of major importance to our political leaders. It may be a little easier for us in this House to couch our remarks in somewhat less partisan terms, and after reading the debate in another place I must confess to some uncertainty as to where the policies of either of the principal Parties are leading them, or, indeed, whether they are frozen, and I hope that we can help to continue this debate.

The most important Report in this field is, of course, the Trend Report, and I hope that some of my noble friends, and some of your Lordships on the Government side of the House, will want to discuss this at greater length. Some hard things have been said about Trend. I think people expected some tremendous new theory, some clear-cut solution, which everybody could comprehend; and all they found was a series of pretty reasonable proposals in a very complex field, without a very clear-cut logical pattern binding them together. The more one studies the different solutions, the more one finds that there is a great deal of merit in the proposals of the Trend Report, at least as a basis of discussion. But, of course, in arriving at a tidy solution the most difficult obstacle to overcome is that of where responsibility should lie within the Government. It may be that in the past, the solution by which the Lord President of the Council has acted as, in effect, Minister for Science (even before he was called that) served us very well. I am not sure that it might not continue to serve us well in the future. We shall have an opportunity to-morrow, on the Order dealing with the creation of the new Secretary of State for Education and Science, to discuss this particular proposition. But I am very doubtful whether the right solution has yet been achieved.

It may be that, if you have a superman in the job, he can combine all these activities. It may be that Mr. Hogg is such a superman. He certainly shows tendencies and, indeed, I believe, at times, signs of a capacity for covering very many wide fields. But, my Lords, is it really going to be possible for the Minister for Education to be responsible for the whole field of technology in industry and its application and research?—because this is what is involved. Therefore, I think we ought not lightly to dismiss any proposals from wherever they come. The proposal for a Ministry of Technology which has been put forward by certain members of my own Party is one which at least repays study, and I hope that we shall consider this, especially if, as I hope, some of my noble friends, especially the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, are prepared to discuss this. Even within a particular ministerial set-up there is an infinite number of options, and I think that there is a real danger of a clash of direction of effort if we combine the Minister for Science with the Minister for Education. I shall not press that further to-day but, none the less, we are confronted with a particular difficulty at the moment because of the uncertainties about where this responsibility is to lie within the Government.

It is very tempting to parcel out science into different packets. The solutions which Trend has put forward, and which, on the whole, the Government have adopted, have certain disadvantages. There is the disadvantage of the separation of what is called the Science Research Council from the Industrial Research and Development Authority. Indeed, the title "Science Research Council" seems to me to be an unfortunate one. Would it not be better to achieve some more meaningful title than "Science Research Council"?—because other bodies are also engaged in science research. The other Research Councils are science research councils, and to call one the "Science Research Council" seems to me to be unfortunate. It has been suggested that we might choose a neutral name, such as one has in the United States, the National Science Foundation. I should be sorry to see that particular title used, but it is rather important and I feel that we should try to find another name, because research has to operate in a much wider field than pure science or technology. I think it was Trend or the Advisory Council which broke research up into five different categories, ranging from the extreme of the purist research, at one end to the most applied, at the other.

My Lords, whatever happens, we are likely to see more Research Councils and I certainly welcome the proposal to set up a Natural Resources Council to deal with a number of subjects which, if not logically, at least conveniently, fall together—subjects like geology, oceanography and hydrology; indeed, a number of subjects in the field of the earth sciences. I think it was quite astonishing that the Slater Committee seriously proposed to separate off the Nature Reserves from the study of ecology, and I hope that we shall hear no more of this particular proposal, which was objected to, quite rightly, by Sir Solly Zuckerman; and also, I think I am right in saying, by the Advisory Council, under the noble Lord, Lord Todd. To take the Nature Reserves away from this Council would be a mistake, because if there ever is a unifying series of activities it is this combination of the study of ecology and its being done in relation to the Nature Reserves.

This does, however, illustrate the difficulties we are in. There are certain activities which are so hybrid that they do not fit into any one field, and as an example I would refer to the study of geography, which ranges from the social sciences of demography, and so on, through economic geography, history and geomorphology; a whole range of activities. Clearly, there will be some of these groups of academic research that will, in fact, cross the frontiers; and this is unavoidable. But what is important, of course, is that the frontiers between these different groups of research and study are not drawn so strictly that it will be more difficult to have overlap. I think it is worth making those demarcations because they will make it easier to see where the line is drawn; but it must be made clear that the demarcation is made for convenience and that overlap will be necessary.

In passing, may I, since we are on the subject of natural resources, again make a plea—one that is very rarely heeded, either in academic or in Government circles—for more money for ecological research? This is, in the short run, one of the least rewarding of activities, and important discoveries are not likely to result; yet it is quite fundamental for a proper understanding of our environment. "Ecology" is a word that has now passed into popular language. We talk about the ecology of shops or the ecology of politicians. I should make it clear that I am talking about ecology only in regard to its original meaning: the study of population, of environment, of animals and plants; and at the moment I exclude human beings, because they are covered satisfactorily by other sciences such as anthropology, to which I shall refer later. But if we are to examine natural resources in this way, is there not a case for another style of Research Council to consider environment in regard to human beings, to their buildings, their railways and their roads? I think there is scope for some more original thinking in regard to these different research fields and Research Councils. I mention this particular point only because I know that my noble friend Lord Llewelyn-Davies has already had published some very interesting suggestions in this field.

My Lords, let me just touch briefly on the question of the social sciences. We have yet to have the Heyworth Committee Report. We do not know what it will propose, but most of us, I think, hope that there will be a proposal for a Social Sciences Research Council. However, this is a matter on which my noble friend Lord Taylor, who is himself a distinguished sociologist, like my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, will have a great deal more to say than I have. But I would urge that this again is something of more than short-term importance to us.

One particular proposal which has caused a good deal of discussion in the political dovecotes is the proposal for a mixed-manned force for NATO. One thing that nobody has done so far is to study the capacity for human beings of different cultures or different races to co-operate together. Indeed, I do not know that even the NATO psychologists have been invited to study this subject. This is a matter which I realise is perhaps more germane to a debate on science, when no doubt the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, would have some harsh things to say. But there is research of which we are hardly aware in this matter. There is research into the causes of conflict: there has been some quite important work started in Denmark. I mention these only as possible subjects; other noble Lords might even suggest that Beatlemania would be an important subject of study, for of its importance to the community there can be no doubt.

This question of research is something for which more resources will be needed, resources which are supported more effectively by a body like a Social Sciences Research Council, and of course into this will move the economists. It is conceivable also that this might be a home—and I shall be interested to know how far the noble Lord, Lord Todd, might consider this—for information research; and I would congratulate the Advisory Council on the amount of space they devoted to considering the problem of scientific documentation and information research. This is one of the subjects which very few people seem to be aware of. Indeed, I was hardly aware of it until by chance I was asked to become president of a body called Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureaux.

We know from the Report of the Advisory Council that the general picture in regard to scientific documentation and research into developing a more effective form of information documentation is not really satisfactory. As the Advisory Council said, information research is a comparatively new field of study in Britain, which, as yet, lacks the status of more generally familiar research activities, and there is a serious shortage of competent people to conduct research. The Advisory Council did in fact initiate a small inquiry, but something a great deal more fundamental than this is necessary, and the question regarding these rather specialised activities is where we are to put them in the structure of the organisation of science.

The Trend Committee, if I recall rightly, recommended that information research should come directly under the office of the Minister for Science. But I wonder whether the right place is not the new Research Council, and I would draw the Minister's attention and your Lordships' attention to paragraph 71 of the Trend Committee Report, which has some very interesting remarks to make. Having initially arrived at a number of divisions into which this pure higher research will be conducted, which they suggested should be six, they say that there will be a need to provide for the encouragement of the recently developed types of more general and wide-ranging activity devoted to the synthesis, rather than the analysis, of scientific experience. These often involve experimental techniques, particularly in such fields of general scientific theory as cybernetics, model systems, computer methods, etc. I should have thought this is a possible home for this information research, but that it must be given high priority I am quite certain, and there is need for a degree of co-ordination, which is completely lacking.

We have, to my mind, the absurd position that the National Lending Library for Science and Technology comes under, I believe, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; it is at Harrogate, and it is entirely separate from the National Reference Library for Science and Technology which will belong to the British Museum. We debated this previously and I mention it only to show there is no consistent thought of the kind that is going on particularly in America and in Russia in regard to this matter. Both in Russia and in America there are important coordinating bodies, and in America there is the Office of Science Information of the National Science Foundation. In the U.S.S.R. there is the All Union Institute of Scientific and Technical Information. I stress that I believe that this is an extraordinarily important subject which is apt to be overlooked.

When we debate science there are so many fields for consideration that it is very difficult to limit them. But I should like to turn briefly to the subject of international research. I think a particularly welcome development was the meeting last autumn of the Ministers for Science of different countries, which was attended by Mr. Quintin Hogg. Some form of increased international cooperation and co-ordination is necessary. One has only to look at the list of the international institutions and international bodies which are engaged in scientific research of one kind or another to realise that almost a jungle is growing up. I am not suggesting that these bodies are not all doing valuable work. But there was recently produced by the NATO scientists the most enormous document of scientific bodies, some of them clearly overlapping. Here some overlapping may be unavoidable, but equally some greater clarity, I think, will be necessary. And this is going to be specially so in the field of high energy particle research. The Advisory Council refer to this, and it was referred to on one or two previous occasions, including a fairly recent debate in your Lordships' House.

The fact is that in high energy physics research and research into particles size counts. The Advisory Council were recently asked to advise the Government on whether we should contribute a sum, which might run into a good many millions of pounds, for building a new proton synchrotron of up to 300 GeV (which I understand stands for giga electron volts, and the word "giga" is not the one most people know of; it is derived from the Greek word gigas which I recall as being larger than megas). The cost is quite staggering, and it is clear that this type of research into physics must be increasingly conducted on an international basis.

It may well be that we in Europe can maintain large enough installations for this purpose, and again I would stress—I hope I am correct—that in this matter size does count. But it will also be that scientists who wish to operate in this field may have to face the consequence that they will not be able to do it either in their own university or in a national institute, and they may have to face flying over to Geneva, to CERN, or wherever it may be, to use this highly expensive equipment. And as Lord Hailsham (as he was then) suggested, it may be that some of this equipment can be paid for only on a totally international, indeed almost a world, basis. At any rate, for the moment I believe it is essential that we in Europe should support this with all the resources we can bring to bear. Let me say that in this matter I think the British have fully met their proper contributions within Europe. We must ensure that there are available in Europe resources at least comparable to those in America or the Soviet Union, until such time as it is possible to develop a greater degree of international co-operation.

I should like to turn briefly to the subject of scientific manpower. This is a matter which again we have debated frequently. We had a full-scale debate on it in 1961, and the problem of the loss of scientific manpower, particularly to America, is no new one to this House. It has become exacerbated only since last year, when the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made his astonishing suggestion that the whole trouble was the American educational system. He has not repeated this. This had the effect of driving a number of scientists completely mad. I know one or two of my friends in Cambridge who otherwise were strong Conservatives but who were almost wild with fury in their determination to prevent the noble Viscount from getting an honorary degree. If the Government have been attacked on this matter, I would say that it is some measure of the success—or, shall we put it, the failure?—of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to appreciate the problem and its full nature.

I think we all agree that there is no easy solution to this problem, but I hope that the Government will press on with the quite reasonable proposals put forward in a special Report from the Royal Society. It was the Royal Society who drew attention to some of the more serious aspects of this problem of emigration, particularly of young Ph.D.s and others, and they made a number of sensible proposals which ought to be put into effect at once. Eight new Royal Society Professorships are not enough. We need more of these, and it may well be (this is something of which the Government have not complete control) that academic institutions themselves should think in rather broader terms. It is quite absurd to think that one professorship in the field of biology can cover the biological subjects of to-day; yet that is the position in one or two universities. There is, therefore, the need to increase the number of senior positions in the universities and a greater readiness to award research grants. One could go on at great length on this subject. I hope that we shall hear something from the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, as to what the Government propose to do.

That brings me to the greatest irritation of all, the one which was summed-up in Professor Bush's reference to typewriters. This is an old and a sore subject. It is one that I, and other noble Lords, have raised on previous occasions. It is the difficulty of a particular scientist, a particular member of a university department, conscious not only of the importance of his work but of the great cost involved in that work, being held up for comparatively small sums of money, even to getting a tap or a meter—something which should be more readily available. This is one of the consequences of any system of budgetary control. We all know that sometimes it is easier to do something in the more expensive way. For instance, during the war one could not get station transport in the Royal Air Force to go 50 miles to another airfield, a trip that would burn up three gallons of fuel, so one took an aeroplane which used up 100 gallons. This really is a foolish policy, and some more flexible solution—a more flexible way of handling this—must be found.

The other side of scientific manpower is the rather depressing nature of the Report in regard to the output of scientists and technologists. The recent Report avoided the mistakes of, I think, the 1960 Report, which, with certain qualifications, but with clearly misplaced optimism, said that by 1965, on the figures suggested, there would be a general balance between the supply and demand of scientists and technologists. Certainly that Report did a good deal of harm at the time, and although that statement was hedged around, it was misinterpreted. The more recent Report does not make the same mistake; in any event, it does not go beyond 1965, whereas the previous one went up to 1970. Those responsible for compiling it make clear that their more refined methods of inquiry, aided by rather fuller statistics from industry, show that we are not likely to achieve a balance—a balance which, anyway, is a purely notional balance—by 1965, and that in certain fields the situation is, if anything, getting worse.

It is an alarming thing that at the moment we find the output of technologists almost static. Table 4 of the Manpower Report gives a figure of 9,700 students qualifying in 1960, against a forecast of 9,910 in 1964: in other words, a practically static figure. And for certain fields, such as mechanical engineers, the numbers are quite seriously declining, by as much as 20 to 25 per cent. in those five years. Attention is drawn by the Advisory Council to this matter—and it is quite serious. Indeed, the whole of our efforts to retain scientists in this country, and to increase their numbers, will be defeated if the number of technologists is not also increased. I have no time to go more fully into this question, but I should like to hear from the Government what they hope will be done to reverse this unfortunate trend.

There is still, of course, the problem of bringing science into industry. The problem of the shipbuilding and machine-tool industries is one with which we have lived for so many years that we are almost tired of hearing about it. But I think it is clear that any Government in encouraging those parts of industry which may be backward, either in terms of their use of scientific manpower or in their willingness to spend money on research, should indulge in some form of direct intervention. I think this is going to be necessary. It will be really dodging the question if, in facing this problem, we seek to preserve the inviolability of certain industries. We can no longer afford to have technologically backward industries. This is something which, again, a Ministry of Technology might deal with.

I do not propose to go further into this; but clearly, the Government must intervene to see that more science and technology come into industry where that is required. That is not in any way to criticise those large areas of industry where a remarkable lead is already being given, and where they are carrying—I hope to their profit; certainly it is to the national advantage—a large part of the burden of developing new scientific methods and new methods of production. Whatever system of Government structure we have, there will certainly be a need to improve what might be called the higher command or the higher guidance Council of Science.

I should like to urge that the Advisory Council, which does a good but inevitably limited job, is strengthened so that it is enabled not only itself to do a great deal more investigation into problems to be looked at, but also to give us a clearer picture—the equivalent of an annual scientific budget. They cannot attempt it at the moment. I am sure that it is obvious (I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, will not misinterpret me when I say this) that they tend to operate from their "in" tray. We need a more positive lead in this matter, and they can help to push any Government there may be into doing the right and necessary things.

We shall still be confronted with all sorts of other problems. One is the problem of ensuring that men, whether they be politicians or Ministers or men-in-the-street, understand the potentialities and the various factors that arise out of the development of science. I think that the position is not discouraging, but the whole thing will fail—and one must stress this—if we do not maintain a steady increase in annual production. If the Government's policy has failed, particularly the policy of the present Minister for Science, I would not blame him so much as the failure of Government to achieve a steady economic increase and an increase in output—probably beyond the annual figure of 4 per cent. On our capacity to make full use of science and the power that it gives us will depend whether we can make the best use of it so as to bring benefit both to our country and to the world.

I beg to move for Papers.