HL Deb 23 February 1965 vol 263 cc766-94

7.2 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Snow.)

On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord Merthyr in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Expenses, accounts etc. of Research Councils]:

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BRIDGES

I wish to speak on Clause 2 of the Bill, and I have two points to which I would draw attention. They are both points of practical administration and, I believe, of considerable importance to the working of the new organisation, and particularly to the part of it concerned with nuclear physics. I am, and have been since its inception eight years ago, Chairman of the Governing Body of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science, a body which is to be absorbed into the new organisation. But I do not believe that the fact that I have held this position need deter me from drawing attention to two points which I think are of real practical significance, although they have no Party political connotation. The first point concerns the arrangements for financial control and delegation, and this arises on Clause 2 (1) of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will allow me for a few minutes to sketch in the background of what I have to say.

The National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science—called, in short, by the horrid title of NIRNS—was set up in 1957 for two reasons. The first and much the more important reason was that the increasing size and cost of the apparatus needed in nuclear research made it quite impossible to supply the larger and major types of such apparatus to individual universities. In future the universities would have to share these larger appliances, and a new organisation was needed to supply such facilities for British universities generally. The second reason was that it was thought the time had come when the main responsibility for fundamental research into nuclear physics could with advantage be removed from the Atomic Energy Authority, which has a very wide ambit of duties, and placed in a separate organisation. NIRNS thus had two parents—the universities and the Atomic Energy Authority; and both parents were represented on the Governing Body.

This parentage had two consequences. The first is that the senior and larger of the two NIRNS laboratories—the Rutherford Laboratory—is very closely connected with the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell. It is next door to it, and all the original staff of NIRNS came from the A.E.R.E. The second consequence is much more important, but it is also much more difficult to describe briefly. The NIRNS laboratories are not just Government research establishments: they are establishments set up to provide univer- sity scientists with the sort of facilities, the sort of background and conditions for work which they would expect to find in their own university, but for the fact that the facilities in question are so big and so expensive that they have to be provided centrally.

The NIRNS laboratories are thus inter-penetrated with university staff working on their own research problems, alongside staff from NIRNS and from the Atomic Energy Authority. University physicists take part in the work of NIRNS laboratories at all levels. They are instrumental in deciding which experiment should be undertaken; they helped in the design of NIRNS; and, indeed, the Director of the laboratory in the North is on leave from his university and is continuing to teach there. This kind of close connection between the universities and a central research establishment is crucial to the success of NIRNS—it is, indeed, the essence of its nature.

This close linkage between the universities and an important research establishment financed by central Government is clearly of great value, more particularly in these days when universities are expanding rapidly and the volume of scientific research is also expanding. I believe that this linkage has been achieved in the NIRNS laboratories to a far greater extent than in any other comparable institution in this country This is something which I am sure gladdens the heart of the Minister for Education and Science, who commands both sides covered in the linkage.

From all this, your Lordships will see that one of the chief tasks of the NIRNS board and staff has been to devise and administer an organisation which is accepted by university scientists as a place in which they can do their work in the same sort of way as they would carry out research in their own universities. It has been our duty to see that their work is not impeded or frustrated by unnecessary difficulties, and I believe that that has been accomplished with considerable success. The NIRNS staff are entitled to great credit for what has been done.

But this result could not have been achieved if the conditions for financial and administrative control of the NIRNS establishments had not been very flexible and unfussy. Of course, NIRNS, like every other body which depends on public finance, has its annual tussle with the Treasury as to how much money it is going to get in the ensuing year and in the year after. And of course NIRNS, like other people, rarely gets what it hopes for; but that is the common fate of all mankind. But after the yearly tussle was over, NIRNS was left with quite considerable freedom as to the details of the way in which the year's money was spent.

From the inception of NIRNS until to-day, the A.E.A. has been the body which has played the major part in giving NIRNS such authorities for finance and administration as we needed. The A.E.A., of course, understood our problems very well, and they have kept in close touch with us on all matters with which we needed help and guidance. Our lines of communication were short and decisions could be obtained easily.

Of course one feels personal regret at having to part from an overlord who has been as helpful as the A.E.A. has been, but I accept entirely the logic of the argument implicit in the Bill which puts nuclear physics under the Science Research Council. It is obviously right that research into nuclear physics would be grouped with the other branches of scientific research for the assessment of the global needs of all forms of scientific research taken together, and for the subsequent, and no doubt painful, process of deciding how that global sum should be divided up among the various claimants. That is the principle embodied in the Trend Report and in this Bill, and I accept it wholeheartedly.

But the point on which I feel some anxiety and concern—and I think many members of the governing body of NIRNS share my feelings—is the procedure and processes of administrative and financial control under the new set-up. It is clear that the lines of communication will be much longer than they are to-day. After April 1 the NIRNS laboratories will come under a Nuclear Physics Board which will report to the Science Research Council; the Science Research Council will report to the Minister of Education and Science, and the Ministry of Education and Science has to report to the Treasury. That is a long line: and if the people forming each link in the chain show only a modicum of intelligent curiosity about the proposals submitted, it may take a long time before action can be started. I rather distrust these long lines of communication, which often result in delays and a certain remoteness between the operating people and the high-ups who give the authority, all of which leads to frustration.

My Lords, may I quote one line of poetry? It is the first line of Oliver Goldsmith's poem The Traveller. Remote, unfriended, melancholy, slow "Remote"—well, that is obvious. "Slow"—that is the time taken to get the answers. "Unfriended" is the feeling that you do not know the people you are dealing with, and "melancholy" would be described in our modern phraseology as "loss of morale". I hope, my Lords, you will not think this too frivolous, but it does express the type of administration which we all want to avoid.

Your Lordships will ask, "What remedy do you produce?" I will venture to suggest one. The first essential is that the Science Research Council should be sufficiently strongly staffed to be given very wide delegated powers to settle day-to-day questions of finance and administration, and particularly, perhaps, authority to appoint staff without all these questions having to drift right up the line and the answers to come down again.

We have made enquiries as to what the position will be after April 1 about delegated authorities. The answers which we have been given are not very precise, but they fill some of us with a good deal of despondency. It seems it is intended to administer both NIRNS and the other research establishments on a pretty tight rein. If that is done, I am afraid it will go far to destroy the method of working which has been established in the NIRNS laboratory, which has had so much to do with establishing the right relationship with university scientists. As I see it, these laboratories to-day are in essence, and they will remain, an extension of university work, and I really see no reason why the mere transfer of NIRNS's staff from the A.E.A. to the Science Research Council should involve any lessening of the powers which NIRNS has hitherto enjoyed in these matters. There is no need to fear extravagance and waste. The demands on the manpower and funds available will always be so great as to induce a very real sense of responsibility in those charged with spending the money.

My Lords, I hope I have not spent too long in making this point, but I believe that the tendency to impose a rather rigid and detailed control on scientific research establishments, and in particular the NIRNS laboratory, is wrong and would do considerable damage. It is true that Clause 2 (1) of the Bill does not specify the manner in which the Secretary of State is to exercise his financial and administrative control—it leaves him quite free—but I do ask the noble Lord who is to reply, most urgently to give a clear assurance that placing NIRNS under the Science Research Council will not be used to impose a more rigid bureaucratic system of control in finance and administration.

7.16 p.m.

LORD SHERFIELD

My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two, but I wish to say a few words in support of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I have an interest in this matter, and I feel a certain responsibility about it, though I am talking from a different standpoint from that of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—one might say from the position which I used to occupy on the other side of the fence at Harwell. When I was Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority I was a strong advocate of the view that the National Institute—the "NIRNS" as it is called—should cease to be financed through the Authority.

Research in high energy physics, although it makes use of complicated and expensive machines, is essentially basic research, and has ceased to have a direct application to the work of the Authority. It belongs much more to the ambit of a Scientific Research Council, which has long been advocated by many people, including myself, and which is now being set up. So I urged before the Trend Committee, and through other channels, that NIRNS should be taken off the Atomic Energy vote and put on the vote of whatever Department became responsible for the Science Research Council. This is now being done and I still support this solution.

But the link between the Atomic Energy Authority and its offspring, the Rutherford Laboratory, has been and will remain very close, and as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges has suggested, there is an exciting prospect of the closest working collaboration between the various organisations which now form a complex around Oxford. This includes, of course, the Physics Department of Oxford University. It includes the Research Group of the A.E. Authority with its three laboratories, one at Harwell for nuclear physics, chemistry, and so on; one at Culham for plasma physics, and the other at Wantage for isotope research, and it includes the Rutherford Laboratory. The successful collaboration among these institutions of pure and applied physics in related, but distinct, fields requires great flexibility and a certain parity in conditions of service between the scientists and their supporting staff who, one would hope, will move freely within this complex.

If I had felt that the transfer of the NIRNS away from the Atomic Energy Authority to other administrative and financial control would involve comparative disadvantages of any kind, administrative or financial, for the staff of the National Institute, I should have qualified my support for the transfer. Therefore, even at what is in every sense a very late hour, I want to support the two propositions which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has put forward.

7.20 p.m.

The Earl of BESSBOROUGH

I should like, with the Committee's permission, to say something by way of support of my noble friend Lord Bridges and my noble friend Lord Sherfield. But, first of all, may I say that I hope Members of the Committee will forgive me for not having been present at the Second Reading debate on February 4. This was for medical—or, rather, for surgical—reasons. I might add that if your Lord-ships are concerned with any undue movement at this Box, this is due to the fact that my surgeon tells me that, if I am unable to sit down, then I must take as much exercise as possible—that is to say, walk or jump up and down; at any rate, not to stand still. On this Bill I am not standing still, and I should like to take this opportunity of endorsing generally what my noble friend Lord Caldecote said at the time of Second Reading; and also, as I say, to support my noble friends on the Cross-Benches. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Snow, will bear with me for one moment. I think, incidentally, that we should to-day take this opportunity of congratulating him on his imaginative use of heraldry in the design of his Coat of Arms—which, with its cats as supporters, will, I am sure, greatly please the colleges of advanced technology.

With regard to Clause 2, I should like to say this. Having learnt something of the work of the Atomic Energy Authority and the National Institute for Research and Nuclear Science during my year as Parliamentary Secretary, and while certainly I am in favour of the Bill as a whole—I welcomed it generally when, last December, we had our debate on Technological Development—none the less I think there is a great deal in the plea by my noble friend Lord Bridges that the placing of NIRNS under the Science Research Council should not lead to too rigid a bureaucratic control over the Institute's finances and administration. Personally, I am doubtful whether this kind of establishment should be impeded at all in its work by what is sometimes described as the straitjacket of the Civil Service.

There is much in what the noble Lord has said, too, in regard to the very close relations between NIRNS and its two parents, the universities and the Atomic Energy Authority, both of which are represented on its Governing Body. The coming and going and transfer of staff between the Rutherford Laboratory, the Atomic Energy Authority and the universities means, I think, that the people concerned should not be considered purely as civil servants. The NIRNS laboratories are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, just Government research establishments. They must be closely allied to the universities, whose staffs have indeed penetrated into them. Undoubtedly the excellent work accomplished by NIRNS could not have been achieved if the conditions for its finance and administrative control had not been reasonably flexible.

Hitherto, as Members of the Committee have heard, the A.E.A. has been the body which has played the major part in this control, and there may well be some cause for—I would not say alarm, but certainly for concern, at the some-what elaborate new chain of command running through the Nuclear Physics Board to the new Science Research Council and eventually to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, while the Atomic Energy Authority itself, which is so closely concerned with the work of the Institute and is physically so close to it, is responsible to quite another Ministry—that is to say, the Ministry of Technology. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to give an assurance that the Institute, and perhaps even certain similar research establishments, will not be administered on too tight a rein. Some research establishments, it is true, are happy to function within the Civil Service, but I am doubtful whether these establishments would be. I may say just a further word about this when we come to one of the Schedules to the Bill, but those, at any rate, briefly, are the reasons why I should like to support my noble friends in regard to Clause 2. As I say, I shall probably make certain related and perhaps slightly more detailed comments when we come to Schedule 3.

7.25 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of TECHNOLOGY (Lord Snow)

I have listened with great attention to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Sherfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborougb. I find it one of my more unpleasant duties as a Minister not to accept at once any recommendation proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, unpleasant partly because anything he says always has much substance, and partly because any person in public service of my generation holds him in esteem as a kind of hero, as one of the great public servants of our time. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has been Chairman of the National Institute for Research and Nuclear Science (that is the real title of this horrible abbreviation known as NIRNS) since its inauguration in 1956. He has presided over its affairs with great distinction, and if anyone needs justification for that, then what he described as "one of these curious happenings", his tenure of office as Chairman of the Board of Governors of NIRNS, provides complete justification for it. I want first of all to thank him publicly, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, for what he has done in that capacity.

I think the noble Lord said—at least, he implied—that he was a supporter of the Bill. That gives us great cheer; and I gather (I think that in saying this I am not taking his words in vain) that we have his agreement to the two main purposes of the Bill. The first of those two main purposes is to make possible the transfer to the Ministry of Technology of the industrial functions of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I think this is now common ground. The other is, in accordance with the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Reorganisation of the Civil Service—that is, the Trend Report—to make possible the creation of two new Research Councils, to bring within their authority certain specialised scientific research institutions now outside the Research Council system, and to place all the Research Councils under the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who will finance them in the light of the advice of a Council for Scientific Policy. NIRNS is one of the specialised institutions which is thus brought within the Research Council system. There are others, like the Royal Observatory and the National Oceanographic Institute.

Reorganisation on these lines, with the exception of the creation of the Ministry of Technology, about which some words have been exchanged across the Floor of this House, was the declared policy of the present Opposition, before they left office. The reason for making these changes is that up to now we have had an organisation which has grown up piecemeal and haphazard. Research Councils were entitled to go to the Treasury for their money. They did not receive it through the Lord President, who had only general political responsibility for their affairs. NIRNS got its money through the Atomic Energy Authority, though its main purpose was, and is, to provide facilities for university research workers. No one authority was charged to consider how funds should be distributed among all these research institutions, and this was determined in actual practice by the outcome of separate decisions, taken in different parts of Government, without any collective assessment of the relative scientific importance of the subjects concerned.

This system, I think, could not be seriously justified. It worked when the total expenditure was small, but the expenditure of the present Research Councils alone has grown from £3 million in 1945-46 to £38 million in 1963-64. There has been a real difference in scale. It is the main purpose of this Bill to alter this system, and to have four Research Councils, which together cover all these activities, and to have one Minister who is responsible for the whole four—and, since their research is closely related to that of the universities, it is natural that this Minister should be the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

We believe that these changes are desirable and necessary, but they cannot be made without some alteration in the status and powers of existing authorities. Some of these changes may be inconvenient; and we know just as well as do noble Lords who have spoken that it is extremely difficult to make absolutely satisfactory decisions on all these matters. It is one of those horrible decisions of administration where no one solution is absolutely right and where you can argue quite strongly for one of three or four. By putting the work of NIRNS under the Science Research Council we not only bring together nuclear physics and other scientific research in universities but we unify the control of support for nuclear physics itself. Responsibility at the moment is divided between NIRNS and the D.S.I.R., which gives large grants to universities and is also responsible for our relations with CERN, which is at Geneva and is another of these alphabetical institutions.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked that I should assure him that the absorption of NIRNS into the Science Research Council would not be used to impose a more rigid bureaucratic system of control in finance and administration, including the power to make appointments. I will say a word about finance. The present position is that NIRNS have delegated powers (within their annual estimated provision) up to £25,000 for capital expenditure; the A.E.A. have powers for up to £100,000; and above that figure my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Treasury must authorise new capital schemes. The Finance Member of the A.E.A. is a member of the NIRNS board, with the result that consultation with A.E.A. on sums between £25,000 and £100,000 has in most cases been formal.

D.S.I.R. has delegated powers, up to £50,000 only, for capital schemes. The S.R.C.'s powers will not be less than that. The Government are considering the level of financial delegation for the S.R.C. I will convey to my right honourable friend the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other noble Lords on this point, and these views will clearly command great respect. It is partly on the level of that delegation that easy administration will rest. But I think it reasonable to point out that, in practice, the difference between these two levels of delegation is not in reality very great. In 1963-64 the capital expenditure of NIRNS amounted to £1-6 million. Of this, about £1 million was on schemes over the £100,000 limit. These required Treasury approval. The remainder, all schemes except four, fell below the £50,000 limit. The four schemes which cost below £100,000 and more than £50,000 amounted in total to £250,000. We do not think a change in procedure relating to this small proportion, some 15 per cent. or 16 per cent., of the Institute's expenditure would make any serious difference in the relation of NIRNS to the Universities, or to the effectiveness of their work. Many large Departments carry on their work successfully with delegated powers of less than £50,000 for capital items.

Whatever the limit of delegation may be—and I repeat that the noble Lord's representations will be carried at once to my right honourable friend—it is certainly the case that the Science Research Council will wish to consider the scientific merits of the large capital schemes of one part of nuclear physics in relation to the rest of nuclear physics and the requirements of other fields of science. This, I am sure, is good administration. To have various bodies supporting different bits of nuclear physics cannot be right. That is what we are seeking to secure by this reorganisation. It is an inevitable consequence, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of all people, will understand this; but it will slightly reduce the independence of one part of the existing somewhat chaotic system for supporting nuclear physics research.

Now, my Lords, I will say a word about staff. NIRNS has enjoyed a degree of freedom up to now not enjoyed by the Research Councils. These powers were given after long argument with the Atomic Energy Authority, which has much bigger responsibilities and, in general, functions on a commercial basis in large parts of its organisation. Here I cannot assure the noble Lord that similar powers to those of the Atomic Energy Authority will be given to the Science Research Council. But let me try to give a little encouragement and refer to the example of the Scientific Civil Service. Specific approval is needed for the creation of posts in the top ranks of the Scientific Civil Service. I remember having mild disputes with Lord Bridges's former Department over just this matter. It seems to me a pleasing, poetic irony that we somehow appear to have changed points of view.

I do not believe that with sensible persons trying to reach agreement this necessarily has in practice inhibited the work of the Research Councils or led to fussy and bureaucratic control. My impression is that the Civil Service Commission is in many ways more flexible in these matters than most large employers or large organisations, and it has become more flexible since I left it—although, I hope, not as a consequence. I sometimes think that many scientists—and I agree with this—are frightened of the words "Civil Service". If we called it "Anti-Civil Service" or "Un-Civil Service" they would probably be much happier. I think that with good will and sense there will be no substantial loss in flexibility; and it is with regret, therefore, that I am afraid I must, on behalf of the Government, resist the Amendment.

7.37 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I do not think at the moment we are discussing any Amendment at all. We are debating whether the clause stand part. The noble Lord started his speech by paying a great and well-deserved tribute to my noble friend Lord Bridges, who, as he said, spoke with great authority and whose views command great respect. I listened with the closest attention to the speech of the noble Lord, as, indeed, to earlier speeches made in this debate; and I must say, having heard only this debate on this matter, I cannot regard the noble Lord's answer as in the least degree satisfactory. He told us a great deal about how this Bill was intended to operate, and at one moment I began to wonder whether he thought we were again back on the Second Reading debate. The point is this: the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has stressed the need for conditions of financial control over the National Institute to be both flexible and not fussy.

I am not going to discuss the question of how much money should be made available to this Institute in the course of a particular year—different views may be taken on that by different people; one recognises that with regard to the allocation of funds it is perfectly possible to have different points of view. I am concerned, in view of what my noble friend Lord Bridges has said, that the National Institute should have a very considerable degree of freedom in the use of the funds which it has been decided to allocate to the Institute. Having listened to what the noble Lord has said, I must confess that I am by no means satisfied that that will be the case. Nor, indeed, has the noble Lord, Lord Snow, met the point which I thought was very powerfully put by my noble friend Lord Bridges, that it will take, because of the number of people who have to be consulted, a great deal longer to get decisions. He gave no assurance of any kind with regard to that. So far as the staff is concerned, it may be that that can operate despite the new restrictions imposed. But in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has said I would ask the noble Lord to undertake to give further consideration to this matter and make a further statement about it at a later stage of the Bill.

If it is really certain—and we have the noble Lord's authority for believing it is—that the good results achieved by this Institute will not continue to be achieved if the financial control does not remain flexible and not fussy, then I regard this as most serious. I assure the noble Lord that I listened to every word he said, and the fears raised in my mind by what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said have in no way been allayed. I do not think that we want to pursue this matter to-night, but I hope that, with the leave of the Committee, the noble Lord will say that he will give further consideration to this and make a statement with regard to it at a later stage of the measure. Because, if not, it may be necessary for us to consider whether we should table an Amendment to try to preserve the efficiency of this Institute which depends, so we are told, on its having a considerable degree of flexibility with regard to its financial control.

LORD SNOW

I will promise to bring the representations made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and other noble Lords to the attention of my right honourable friend and I will undertake that I or my noble friend Lord Bowden will make a further statement on the matter at a later stage of the Bill.

7.43 p.m.

THE MINISTER of STATE for EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Bowden)

May I add one point which may relieve some of the anxiety which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges and the noble and learned Viscount? The proposals for the administration of NIRNS have by no means been definitely settled. The only thing which is clear is that a direct link between NIRNS and the Treasury or between NIRNS and the A.E.A. must be severed, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has so lucidly explained to us. The decision as to whether NIRNS and the A.E.A. should come under the main Science Research Council was taken after very considerable debate. We decided that the Bill allowed us sufficient flexibility in the way it was phrased to enable us, if it proved that this proposal was unworkable, to make a change by administrative action without seeking further legislative powers. To my mind, this is an important safeguard.

The particular questions to which our attention has been drawn have been very much in the minds of all of us. So far as I can see, a degree of flexibility in the administration of funds can certainly be left with NIRNS. The total sums which are at their absolute discretion are likely to be insignificantly changed, if changed at all. Clearly, in the minds of all of us, the success of this Institute depends upon a degree of autonomy which has not been currently or commonly available to Government establishments. I should like to take the opportunity of assuring noble Lords that we shall make certain that the affairs of the establishment are in no way impeded by administrative red tape if we can possible help it.

I have known NIRNS for many years; I know its directors and have worked at Harwell, and I have a personal knowledge of the difficulties with which research people have to struggle if they are constrained within a financial strait-jacket which the Treasury and the Civil Service as a whole are apt to regard as normal. The efficiency of the establishment and the morale of the staff must obviously be more important to us than anything else, and I assure noble Lords that this particular matter is one to which our attention will be directed almost continuously.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

With the leave of the Committee, I would express my gratitude to the noble Lord for his useful support for the case ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. What we should like to know is the decision of the Government, in the light of the need, which the noble Lord has said he recognises, for the independence of this body. I am not asking for it now, because the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has said that he would give it to us and I do not want to pursue the matter. I only hope that, when we get the statement, it will show not only that these facts are recognised and acknowledged, but also the way in which this flexibility and freedom from control in the conduct of their own affairs will be preserved to the Institute.

LORD SNOW

I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount will wish me to go beyond the undertaking I have already given.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3:

Transitional Provisions on Redistribution of Activities of Existing Organisations

4.—(1) Section 2 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1959 (which enables pension schemes of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to extend to staff of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science), and, without prejudice to any power to amend the scheme, any provision included in a scheme by virtue of that section, shall continue to apply to officers and other persons employed by the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science who on the transfer date are by paragraph 1 above transferred to the employment of the Science Research Council, and shall have effect in relation to them as if their employment with the Council were employment with the Institute.

7.47 p.m.

LORD BRIDGES had given Notice of two Amendments to paragraph 4 (1), the first being after "apply to" to insert "(a)," and the second, after "Science Research Council," to insert: and (b) officers and other persons taken into the employment of the Science Research Council within two years after the transfer date and employed by them on activities taken over from the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science".

The noble Lord said: When I spoke a few minutes ago, I said that one of the parents of NIRNS was the A.E.A. Many of the NIRNS staff were recruited from A.E.A. Indeed, unless that fund of experience had been drawn from, I do not think that NIRNS could ever have been set up. Not unnaturally the staff arrangements at NIRNS, as regards both pay and pensions, were copied from A.E.A., and until now have been negotiated by a machinery parallel to that which exists at A.E.A. Given the fact that the Rutherford Laboratory was built on a site adjoining Harwell and took over many of its staff from the A.E.R.E. at Harwell and shared, and still shares, many of its common services, any other arrangement would have been unworkable.

Under paragraph 4 (1) of the Schedule, it is laid down that any officer of NIRNS who is serving NIRNS on April 1, 1965, and belongs to the A.E.A. pensions scheme may continue to be a member of this scheme; but no person recruited after April 1 to the Science Research Council or to one of the bodies which is under it may join the A.E.A. pension scheme. These new entrants will have to belong to a scheme which will apply to all new recruits of the S.R.C., and which is affiliated to the Civil Service superannuation scheme, although the individuals will not themselves be civil servants. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the comparative merits of the A.E.A. scheme and the Civil Service superannuation scheme for a body like NIRNS. I think that if one takes transferability to universities, perhaps there is not much in it, but when one takes transferability to industry or to and from the A.E.A. then there is no doubt that the A.E.A. pension scheme is very much more suitable. But I do not wish to argue this point in detail because, like so many pension points, it is extremely abstruse and it is apt to make people angry without their ever coming to any agreement on it.

I will confine myself to one simple practical point. The Rutherford Laboratory at Chilton, which is next door to Harwell, recruits many of the same type of staff as the Harwell staff. To give one example, the Rutherford Laboratory employs several hundred technicians known as experimental assistants, skilled men who install, handle and maintain the very complicated machinery. North Berkshire is not a predominantly industrial area, and recruitment to these grades is not easy. It is estimated that, allowing for wastage and turnover, it may be necessary for the Rutherford Laboratory to recruit about 50 of these technicians and other supporting staff each year. The Atomic Research Establishment next door may recruit about 300 each year of the same type. Obviously the two establishments ought to continue to be able to recruit on the same terms. But under the Bill they will not be able to do so, and therefore the Rutherford Laboratory will be at a serious handicap in recruiting.

We have pressed to be allowed to continue the A.E.A. pension scheme. I am bound to say that there has been no real discussion on the point. I do not say that there have not been cases where the matter was talked about at meetings, but I do not think the NIRNS staff or the NIRNS Board have ever known the conclusive reasons why this cannot be done. The line of argument has rather been that this has been settled, and that it is absolutely impossible. Indeed, one gets the impression in certain quarters that the A.E.A. pension scheme is regarded and treated as though it were a sort of contagious plague to be kept at a distance at all costs. I find it difficult to see how this makes sense. The A.E.A., which until April 1 is our immediate overlord, is going to keep its existing pension scheme. True enough, it is going to be put under another Ministry, the Ministry of Technology, while the existing NIRNS staff go to the Ministry of Education and Science. But is there any real reason why the change in overlordship to a different Ministry should mean in one case that the pension can remain unaltered, and in the other case that it has to be through another Board?

The group of staff associations which represent all the staffs coming under the S.R.C. have given their views. They would like the NIRNS staff to keep the A.E.A. pension scheme, both for existing staff and new entrants. They would like the other staffs in the Scientific Research Council to keep their existing scheme, which is the Civil Service type. So they would not object to the scheme being allowed to continue. In my previous incarnations I have not always found myself agreeing with the staff associations. It is pleasant to-day to find myself agreeing with them, and I can see no convincing reason why it should be regarded as essential that all the staffs under the S.R.C. should have the same pension scheme. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that of the staffs of the S.R.C, as they will be set up on April 1, two-thirds will be NIRNS staff and one-third will come from other quarters. So that the majority will be made to transfer to the pension scheme of the minority.

I should like to mention one other point. I had a strong impression when Her Majesty's Ministers took office last October that they had a desire to facilitate transfers between industry, the Civil Service and other public services and the universities. Indeed, many people were brought into the Civil Service from other places, and I think difficulties were found in bringing about these exchanges because of difficulties in pension. It is all to the good to bring these people in, and it is quite wrong that the pension should be an obstacle. I had a sort of impression that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to make things easier in this respect. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Snow, speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, said that he could hold out only one ray of hope, and that was that he was hoping to iron out some of these difficulties between pension schemes within a year or so. Therefore, one hopes that this difficulty might be overcome in a year or two. That is something, of course. But what about the immediate future? How are we going to face, or how are the NIRNS Laboratories going to face, these difficulties owing to the different standards of remuneration?

I hope that I have not spoken too strongly about this point, but I feel it is a very odd position that we are being driven into, and for the life of me I cannot see why it is necessary. I am essentially a person who, because of the previous life I have led and the jobs I have filled, has always looked to find ways of solving difficulties without making it too awkward for those with whom I have a temporary difference of view to accept the proposal I am putting forward.

I have a suggestion to put forward which seems to me very moderate, and indeed, sensible, and which I hope may be accepted. This suggestion, which is embodied in the Amendment, is that the Bill should be modified to include an interim period of two years—which corresponds with the period during which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, hopes to bring about an alteration to the general pension schemes—during which it should be possible to recruit new entrants to the Nuclear Physics Division of the S.R.C. on existing NIRNS terms and on existing AEA pension terms. This would provide for further thought to be given to a problem which no doubt has many complexities and perplexities. I hope that this will also avoid the absurd situation and the unnecessary difficulties which would otherwise arise at Harwell, where two large Government Departments, living cheek by jowl, and having hitherto enjoyed the same conditions of service, and, moreover, competing for the same type of staff, would be forced as a result of the Bill now before the House, as from April 1, to abandon their practice of recruitment on common terms and be compelled to recruit staff of the same qualifications and similar duties, but on different terms. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 28, after second ("to") insert "(a)") .— (Lord Bridges.)

LORD SHERFIELD

I rise to support this Amendment. As I said earlier, I should have been less enthusiastic about the transfer of the NIRNS from the Atomic Energy Authority to other control if I had thought that this transfer would bring any financial disadvantage to the staff of the National Institute. It is true, of course, that the pension rights of the existing staff will be preserved; but for the new entrants a disparity will be created. I can well guess at the reasons for this. I think I know tolerably well the point of view of what perhaps I may loosely call "the authorities", and, of course, it is inspired by a laudable concern for the public purse: that where disparity exists you should never lift up the worse off, but should always drag down the better off, even though the advantages which are to be taken away were given for good reasons and are well justified. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has proposed a reasonable compromise in this particular case, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.

7.59 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

I should like to say a few words on the problem of the staff, which is obviously most important, because the new arrangements will not work unless there is the greatest good will on the part of all the people who are actually working in the laboratories and doing the research about which we are all so concerned. I am interested in this because my own Association, the Association of University Teachers, has among its members some of those who work in these laboratories. My Association also has close ties with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, and from that point of view, too, I get some sort of inkling of the situation, which obviously, from some points of view, is a rather sticky one and will call for a great deal of sympathy and understanding—which I am sure it will get from my noble friend Lord Snow and my noble friend Lord Bowden. But it is not always quite easy to carry the administrators below with you on occasions of this sort, and I hope that there will be a great deal of energy and determination in carrying that out.

The business of the pension is typical of this sort of trouble. It is obvious that if you keep two different classes of people working in NIRNS, one of them with rather more favourable conditions than the new entrants, you are not likely to get the harmony which you need. I therefore support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, which will at any rate give a period of time in which conciliation can take place and people will be able to turn round. Actually, there is not a great deal of difference, when one considers the expenditure involved, because the contributory scheme under which the NIRNS people get their pension covers a longer period of time than the period which covers Civil Service salaries. So the additional benefit which the NIRNS people get through the Authority paying into the fund something extra, which the ordinary civil servants do not get, is to some extent equalised. I do not think that there is as much difference here as has been made out.

There are quite a number of aspects of this matter which need to be looked at rather carefully. The NIRNS people are not civil servants. Many of the scientists who work in some of the other Departments are civil servants. Some of them, as in the Nature Conservancy, who are not civil servants, nevertheless have many of the rights and privileges of the Civil Service. It seems to me important that the whole of this business should be kept as flexible as possible.

The problem has been raised as to how recruitment should take place. There has been a suggestion that recruitment should take place through the Civil Service Commission. Obviously—and I think there has been a ruling on this—the new Research Departments must be given the right to recruit their own staff. On the other hand, there are great advantages in recruiting through the Civil Service Commissioners, particularly from the point of view of interchangeability and movement inside the whole organisation. So obviously there is a great deal to be said for using the Civil Service Commission for recruitment. The staff business is just one of the matters which arises in this connection, and it needs to be looked at very carefully and very sympathetically. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that the organisations which enrol these civil servants among their membership, like the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, are anxious to be helpful in regard to these matters, and I trust the necessary atmosphere of sympathy and understanding will pervade the discussions which clearly will have to take place.

8.4 p.m.

The Earl of BESSBOROUGH

I should again like to support my noble friend on the Cross-Bench on this point, and particularly on the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has put before us. The reasons, as we have heard, are similar to those which were given in discussing Clause 2, but on this occasion the noble Lord has put down an Amendment, and I think it is a very reasonable one. Indeed, in a way I am sorry that the noble Lord did not go further, and that he has made the compromise which he has. I should have thought that if he really believed that the staff of NIRNS should benefit from the rather looser pension rights of the A.E.A. in order to enable an easier transfer from the Institute to the Authority and, maybe, back and forth from the universities and industry, then he ought not to have advocated, as he does in this Amendment, that the present employees of NIRNS, and those recruited in the future, should be allowed to continue with the A.E.A. pension scheme for only two years.

A very good case for permitting NIRNS to continue to benefit indefinitely from the A.E.A. pension scheme was made in another place, where the Bill was rushed through with somewhat undue haste, and certain honourable Members protested about that. As was stated there, it was agreed, I think, in 1958 that the A.E.A. conditions of service should apply to the Institute, which has in fact adopted the A.E.A. conditions, except that it has a separate Whitley Council. On this point, I do not consider that the Under-Secretary in another place really gave a very adequate answer. He said—I think it is in column 366, Commons Official Report of the Committee stage on January 20—that the difficulty was that if the Government endorsed for new entrants the particular conditions appertaining at the moment to the Institute they would in fact be perpetuating an anomaly. My Lords, I wonder where in fact the anomaly really lies? It might equally be possible to say that the anomaly lay in the fact that the Institute was not being treated as generously as its sister establishment across the way. Personally, I think that there lies the anomaly.

The Minister in another place also said that the Government were anxious to have transferability all the way through between the Research Councils and Government Departments. But, surely, in this case it is just as important, if not considerably more important, that there should be ease of transferability between the A.E.A., the NIRNS and the universities, to say nothing of industry, rather than purely as between Government Departments. As I think I said in regard to Clause 2, the people in some research stations (for example, those of the D.S.I.R.) like to think of themselves as civil servants. But this certainly does not apply to those employed by the A.E.A., by NIRNS, by the universities or, of course, by industry.

In the debate on Technological Development on December 2, it was generally agreed (I think the noble Lord, Lord Snow, was with us on this, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Todd) on both sides of your Lordships' House that everything possible should be done to bring Government stations, universities and industry even closer together, and that this would pay dividends. But personally, I do not think that dropping this favourable pensions scheme in respect of NIRNS alone would have this effect. It might bring NIRNS closer to other Government Departments and Research Councils, but I do not think it would keep them as close to the A.E.A., the universities, and to industry, as they are at present. This really is the old problem as to who should be in step with whom.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has made his point, and was ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept his modified and very moderate proposal. I cannot believe that it would be impossible for the Government to meet him on this point. The A.E.A., which will continue its close association with NIRNS until April 1, is going to keep its existing pensions scheme; and even if it is now to go under another Ministry, why should the fact that the two organisations will now come under different Ministries mean that in one case the pensions scheme should be retained and in the other, next door, it should not? This does not seem to me to make any sense at all, and I am in- terested to hear that the staff associations agree on this point.

I am therefore very glad to support my noble friend in his Amendment and that the Amendment should include this reference to an interim period of at least two years, during which it would be possible to recruit new entrants under existing conditions, so that there may be time for further thought to be given to a problem which, in its way, is quite complex and, in my view, very important.

8.10 p.m.

LORD SNOW

As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, this is a problem of bewildering complexity. If you keep NIRNS in step with the A.E.A. you automatically get it out of step with the Science Research Council. The Government have agreed that existing members of NIRNS shall continue on their existing contracts of service, and the point at issue is the question of newly recruited staff appointed by the Science Research Council as soon as it comes into being. The terms of service in the A.E.A. are in fact very similar to those of the Civil Service, except at the highest levels. The A.E.A. pension scheme is contributory and the staff contribute 6 per cent. of salary. To compensate this they get 7 per cent. more pay which, after tax, produces net pay substantially the same as in the Civil Service. Your Lordships must not have the idea that there are gigantic disparities, however these things are arranged. Because the gross pay is 7 per cent. more, the pensions, based on terminal salary, are higher, too, by that proportion. This will be the only substantial difference as regards salary or pension between A.E.A. and the Science Research Council, which will offer terms in fact closely aligned to those in the Civil Service.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, argues that because of this difference the Science Research Council will find it difficult to recruit in competition with the A.E.A. at Harwell. There is force in that, but the other side is this: the Science Research Council will have an integrated staff. Though this staff will not be within the Civil Service, its pay and conditions will be broadly aligned with those of the Civil Service and the other Research Councils. If we take the two new Research Councils together, we find that half their staff are now on Civil Service terms. We find it hard to see justification for giving to a proportion of new entrants to the Council's staff pension terms which are better than those of other entrants at the same date. To do so would make a disparity with other new entrants to Research Councils and would be difficult to justify on the doctrine of fair comparison with outside employment established by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service.

When we consider recruitment in competition with Harwell, I think that here, since the real difference in terms relates to pension only, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science considers that it will be possible to demonstrate that net remuneration is no different from that at Harwell. Harwell is not now expanding, and there is no obvious reason to think that it offers better prospects or greater scientific attraction than those at the Rutherford Laboratory.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to transferability. There will be no pension obstacles to transfers between the Science Research Council and A.E.A. or other parts of the public sector. Service with the former will count under the new employer. As regards transfers from the A.E.A. to the Civil Service and the Research Councils, experience over the past two years is that over 150 staff have transferred from the A.E.A. to the Civil Service, of whom 66 were scientists or engineers. This does not suggest that Civil Service terms are relatively unattractive at the present time. Transfers from the A.E.A. to industry from among those entitled to carry their pension with them are relatively few in number. As I said in the debate on Second Reading, the whole question of pension rights as they affect mobility between Government service, industry, universities, and within industry between one firm and another, is at the moment being actively considered by the Government. I do not think we shall find a good solution until we have gone into the matter much more deeply than any of us has at the moment; but for the present I much regret that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I must say I think the noble Lord's reply to this is even more unsatisfactory than his reply was to the debate we have just had on the clause stand part. I really am very astonished by the content of this reply. We are all familiar with the phrase, "The whole matter is under active consideration". That affords no consolation to any of us who have heard it so many times, and have said it on occasions. It is a very familiar phrase. It holds out very little hope for the future, I have found in the light of considerable experience. There surely is here an extraordinary passion for uniformity in relation to the staff of the Science Research Council. That is what we are asked to justify: that really you cannot, under these Councils, make any exception at all. The point I want to stress is that apparently everyone, except the Government, agrees that you can make an exception from the general rule for people who are recruited to NIRNS.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges told us that for other entrants into other branches everyone is content for the Civil Service scheme to operate. But what the Government are doing under this Bill—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for drawing attention to it—is themselves creating an anomaly within the very same establishment. You will have two people doing identical jobs, joining at different dates on different terms of service and in different pension schemes. I cannot believe that that will redound to the efficiency of the establishment. I can see its being a considerable source of friction and discontent.

There is the point to which it does not seem to me the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has paid much attention—he recognises there is the difficulty, but he provided no solution—the difficulty of recruitment with Harwell absolutely next door. Does he really suggest the Institute will be able to get the recruits it wants—it is true they are fewer in number—when Harwell is wanting recruits of the very same type and is able to offer better terms? I must say this seems to me to be a nonsense. Again I would press the noble Lord to say that he will give further consideration to it. There cannot be much money involved; I should have thought it was very little. I am quite certain that if the Government adhere to this decision it will give the gravest dissatisfaction.

The noble Lord must bear in mind the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said; that this part of Berkshire is not thickly populated. It is not as if you have a great number of people from whom to recruit these technicians and assistants on whom so much depends. I am addressing the noble Lord, Lord Snow. I see Lord Shepherd is also doing so. If the noble Lord, Lord Sheperd, can be more effective than I am in persuading the noble Lord, Lord Snow, to change the attitude he has just announced, then I welcome his assistance. In all seriousness, there cannot be much money involved in this. Why should we have this passion for uniformity? It is a nonparty political question, and it seems to me to the highest degree common sense, if you are recruiting people as technicians and assistants to one establishment, that they at least ought to have the same terms of service and pension.

I have only one other point. I really dissent from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, here. I think it would be a pity to make this Amendment apply for a limited time of only two years. I think it should be made to apply until there is introduced some new scheme applicable to all the entrants, getting the degree of uniformity or flexibility that the noble Lord is aiming for in the long run, because to say that it is only for two years merely means that one will have the same problem arising at the end of those two years.

I do not want to take up any more time at this hour of night. I have spoken as shortly as I can. But I must say that I thought the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, extremely powerful and worthy of more consideration. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will say that he will give it that consideration, and take rather the line that we did on the last debate. If not, I must say that I think that we shall have to put down an Amendment and be quite firm about it. I will not say more at the present time.

LORD SNOW

There is an Amendment before us now. The noble and learned Viscount has asked me to give an undertaking that we will have another look. I have to say that this has been looked at extremely carefully, and with a good deal of agony on the part of a good many persons. However, I am prepared to say that we will have yet another look. I think it would be wrong for me to hold out extravagant hopes, because the arguments are exceedingly difficult and complicated. The noble and learned Viscount accuses us of having a passion for uniformity in the broad; but he himself seems to have a passion for uniformity in one corner of Berkshire. Whatever you do you are going to find some difficulty. However, we will give an undertaking to have another look, and that I am afraid we must do without commitment.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

In that event I suppose my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD BRIDGES

Yes. I wish first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Snow, as I ought to have done when I rose previously, for the kind things he said about me in relation to the first matter put forward. In the light of the undertaking he has given, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

Forward to