HL Deb 14 June 1967 vol 283 cc923-37

3.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH rose to call attention to the administration of Government science and technology; the division of responsibility between the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology, and the Report of the Working Party on Liaison between the Universities and Government Research Establishments (Cmnd. 3222); and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for allowing this Motion to go forward on a day when so many noble Lords who are experts in these matters are able to speak.

When I first became Parliamentary Secretary for Science in 1963 I had perhaps been more concerned with the administration of the Arts than with that of the Sciences, although I had some knowledge of research in the electronic industry. And I was distressed, despite the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, not to take part in the debate on the Arts a few weeks ago. Some 20 speakers put down their names to speak then, and only about a dozen have done so this afternoon. Yet, as was pointed out by the noble Lord on that occasion, we are this year spending only some £15 million on the Arts, compared with some £1,000 million on research and development. I might point out here, too, that while only £14 million may be spent on the Arts, only about £11 million is spent on medical research.

However, in regard to the two cultures—if indeed there are two—I must continue this afternoon to perform my role as a kind of noble Lord, Lord Snow, in reverse. I am sorry that he is not with us this afternoon. Although I regret that I was never as successful a playwright as my noble friend is a novelist, and I am not now a chemist, I have in the past three and half years learned something about the organisation of science, or what we now call "the science of science".

Just before Christmas of last year we had a debate, intiated by my noble friend Lord Windlesham, on the subject of the brain drain, which according to some recent reports is getting worse. I think we all agreed during that debate that while the reasons for the brain drain were mostly concerned with money and facilities, they were also concerned with the general climate in this country—by which I mean not only unfavourable meteorological conditions but also the metaphorical climate engendered by the considerable bureaucracy which now controls the administration of science and technology in this country. I have often heard from those intending to emigrate of frustrations arising out of our bureaucratic processes and the obstruction which young scientists sometimes suffer at the hands of their superiors. I think, too, that our committee structure, running from top to bottom in Government and in the universities, increases frustration because of delays in taking decisions. Some complain that it takes too long to make certain university appointments; and, due to the delays, a man here may sometimes despair and look for another job. I may say that if the Public Accounts Committee are now to look at individual university accounts, this will further protract the work: additional staff will be required, and further committee discussions will ensue. Having to justify every penny of its expenditure would, in my view, be a considerable waste of time.

Look at the present committee structure in the administration of Government science and technology. We may be rationally organised—perhaps more rationally than some other countries; but are we not also perhaps over-organised? Some distinguished scientists say they are so busy attending top Committees and Councils that they have little time to do creative work of their own. This committee structure becomes more and more complex. Before the setting up of the Ministry of Technology we had at the apex only the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy of which my noble friend Lord Todd was the able Chairman. Now, in addition to the new Council for Scientific Policy, under Sir Harrie Massey, we have an Advisory Council on Technology under the Minister and Professor Blackett, as well as the new Central Committee on Scientific and Technological Resources, of which Sir Solly Zuckerman is Chairman.

We also have the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, on which I know there is good collaboration. I think we ought to congratulate the noble Lord on this, although I am sorry to say that at the last moment, due to indisposition, he is unable to be with us. Then we also have the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place, and we must all welcome its existence. But I wonder whether all these committees and their working parties and sub-committees make for decisive action. I will say more about this later.

I put down this Motion at a time when we were very much concerned about the problems facing both the Department of Education and Science and the new Ministry of Technology. At that time the Ministry of Technology had lost its first two Ministers—Mr. Frank Cousins and my noble friend Lord Snow, as well as its Permanent Under-Secretary, Sir Maurice Dean, and its more recently appointed part-time Controller, Professor J. B. Adams. At about that time, too, Professor Blackett, who is greatly respected by all your Lordships, became President of the Royal Society, which must mean, I think, that he can no longer give as much time to the work of the Advisory Council on Technology. Then, on the science side, my noble friend Lord Bowden, who is with us to-day, resigned as Minister of State, and the Deputy Under-Secretary concerned with these matters also retired. Things certainly did not seem to be going at all well, and science seemed to be out on an uncertain limb in Curzon Street. I was unhappy about the situation. Since then, new Ministers and officials have taken their places and settled into the two Depart- ments. And, in addition, the new Central Advisory Committee has been established in the Cabinet Office under the chairmanship of Sir Solly.

I would say immediately that I hope that the creation of that Committee, on the formation of which we should like to congratulate Sir Solly, may meet some—only some—of the criticisms which I might otherwise have made about the division of ministerial responsibility. Clearly, having set up an additional Advisory Council on Technology separate from the C.S.P., it was no doubt necessary to set up a central co-ordinating committee to co-ordinate them. I believe that the creation of the Zuckerman Committee was in a sense an admission by the Government that the set-up before its establishment was not satisfactory. But it is, of course, another committee of which we already have so many.

However this new Committee—and this is a good thing—appears to concern itself with the whole problem of allocating resources over the entire field of scientific and technological manpower, whether in defence, industry or civil science. I understand that it also concerns itself with the co-ordination of our space activities which have in the past been—and indeed still are to-day—the responsibility of many different departments.

May I ask the Government whether they consider that our separate space efforts are effectively co-ordinated by the new Committee? And is one United Kingdom Space Agency now likely to be established? Further, are we pressing ahead with the development of commercial communication satellites which, it seems to me, should at this time have priority over purely scientific satellites, good as they are.

The Prime Minister said in another place that, with the formation of Sir Solly's Committee, "the whole scientific strategy of the nation" could thus be reviewed by one body. May I ask whether it is now being so reviewed, and will its review be published? Personally, I would agree that defence should be included in the work of such a central Committee and that it was as wrong for civil and military research to be divided before the war, as it has been wrong for the present Government to separate basic and applied science. Central Committees in other countries are concerned with all three, and I am glad that Sir Solly's new Committee is too. I think it will play a most important role—I would judge the most important of all.

I would ask whether we still need a C.S.P. and an Advisory Council on Technology. The Government may say we do, but the result is a plethora of committees and councils. And the existence of all these committees and working parties means that we do not get positive decisions: we do not make up our minds. There seems to be no central point at which executive action is taken. We must somehow improve the speed and effectiveness of Government action. Foreigners, I know, are mystified. Since we all agree that in the development of big science and big technology we must go more and more into co-operative projects such as CERN, ELDO and ESRO and INTELSTAT, does the present organisation in which so many departments and committees concerned—not only in Education and Science and Technology, but also the Foreign Office—really facilitate the advancement of such wider collaborative projects with Europe, the Commonwealth and the United States?

For example, am I right in thinking that both the C.S.P. and the Zuckerman Committee are concerned with the question of our participation in the proposed giant 300 G.E.V. particle accelerator at CERN, which I understand is to cost some £148 million, with running costs of around £25 millions a year? What would be the position if these two bodies, the C.S.P. and the Zuckerman Committee, were to give conflicting evidence on the desirability of our participating in this scheme?

Whatever views we may hold about the recommendations of the Trend Committee, I ought to make it clear that a Conservative Government would not have set up a separate Ministry of Technology but would probably have established an Industrial Research and Development Authority which would have taken over the N.R.D.C. and the Research Stations and Associations of the D.S.I.R. Therefore, despite the formation of Sir Solly's new Central Committee, I still retain the view that the separation of science and technology is not satisfactory at a time when, for the sake of science and economic growth, it becomes more and more important to bring the work of basic and applied scientists closer together.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that pure science would be brought in entirely with technology and would be divorced from the universities, or not? I was not quite clear.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

No: the only point I am trying to make is that we should not have had the two Ministries. Of course, the Research Councils would have continued to operate in the same way, but in all probability there would not have been this channelling up to two Ministries rather than to one. This is supposition, but it is roughly what we had in mind. I recognise that it is very difficult to see where the seamless robe of education, science and technology should be divided. The Government may say that it is a robe too large for any one man to wear—even if he has, say, three or four Ministers of State and some Parliamentary Secretaries under him to share it.

One inconsistency in the present set-up seems to me to be that although science and technology have been in principle separated, the fundamental research at present undertaken by the Atomic Energy Authority and the Ministry of Aviation—now under Technology—is separately administered from the Research Councils which are doing mainly basic work under the Department of Education and Science. So much fundamental research is being undertaken by the universities there is certainly an overriding case for the universities to be administered by the same Department as the Research Councils. But I get the impression that during the past year the C.S.P., which is the parent body of the Research Councils, is operating in something of a vacuum; and I am not wholly persuaded that the C.S.P., the University Grants Committee and the Research Councils are pursuing a sufficiently strong policy in co-ordinating their grants for basic research.

I understand that the Science Research Council are at present renting research facilities from the Atomic Energy Authority. Do the Government think that this is a satisfactory arrangement? It may be necessary in the short term in view of the present separation, but surely this arrangement should be altered in the long term. It is surely a little absurd for one Government organisation to rent facilities from another. In 1966–67 approximately £70 millions is, I think, being spent by the five Research Councils, of which the C.S.P. and the Department of Education and Science are the parents—that is to say, the Medical, the Agricultural and the Natural Environment Councils; the Science Research Council (which concerns itself with big science and research grants to universities); and, lastly, the Social Sciences Research Council. I understand that this figure of £70 million also includes grants to the Royal Society and the Office of Scientific and Technological Information, whose services I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us are being extended. In addition, I understand that some £40 million is also being spent by the University Grants Committee on research grants. Then in addition the Defence Department, the Ministry of Technology and the Atomic Energy Authority award extra-mural degrees in order that work to a definite line of interest to a responsible Department should be carried out.

It was, I think, the original intention that the C.S.P., now under Sir Harrie Massey and concerning itself as it does with the work of these Research Councils, should have greater powers over a narrower range of research establishments than the previous Advisory Council under Lord Todd—narrower because, of course, large sections of the D.S.I.R. were hived off to the new Ministry of Technology. But I doubt whether it was possible for the C.S.P. to achieve these greater powers. My noble friend Lord Bowden will no doubt be able to enlighten us on this.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Is he suggesting that the D.S.I.R. was responsible to the A.C.S.P. in the past, because I did not quite understand what he was saying about the respective powers.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

No, my Lords. But it was under the same Minister. It was ultimately under the Minister for Science. My right honourable friend Mr. Hogg was, in fact, the sole Minister at that time. But I do not know how effective the C.S.P. is now, in determining the overall pattern of the distribution of the resources of these Councils, and on long-term policy. How far it does this effectively I am not in such a good position to know as the Government, and I ask the noble Lord who is to reply how effective the C.S.P. is in determining this overall pattern and the distribution of resources. Am I right in assuming that the job of the C.S.P. has not materially altered since the establishment of the new Zuckerman Committee?

I shall not this afternoon go into the recommendations of the interim Report of the Working Group on Manpower Parameters for Scientific Growth under the chairmanship of Professor Swann. We discussed this before Christmas, and I think we all realised what an excellent job it did. The Group seemed convinced that further attention should be given to meeting the demand in industry and schools, at least in part, by redeployment from other sectors, such as Government research establishments.

We also discussed at the end of last year the Tri-Annual Manpower Survey, and I shall not go into that again. But I should like to say, on the whole problem of relations with industry, that I think the industrial liaison officers—who have been considerably increased in number—are, within limits, doing an excellent job in establishing closer links between universities and industry. But no-one wants to remain a liaison officer indefinitely, and I think the establishment of the I.L.Os. was designed rather to ameliorate a situation which probably should not exist, than to solve a basic problem.

This vast and very important problem of relations between industry and the universities is not, of course, discussed in the excellent Report of Sir Gordon Sutherland, to which I refer in my Motion. That Report is concerned solely with liaison between the universities and Government research establishments, and not with industry itself. I think we should all very much like to thank Sir Gordon and the members of his Working Party for the work which they have done. As we know, Sir Gordon is himself one of the most notable examples of the brain drain' in reverse. His conclusions and recommendations on pages 56 to 60 certainly merit your Lordships' attention. They are concerned with closer staff relationships, with co-operative research projects, with the formal association of research establishments with universities, with the recognition of establishment research for higher degrees, as well as with mobility and transfer.

There are many good things in this Report, in particular the section on Sweden starting on page 48. I think it is the view of the Working Party that Sweden has solved some of these problems more effectively than any other country, and that relationships between teaching, Government research establishments and industry are closer and more integrated than in other countries. In Sweden there is, I think, a much greater degree of mobility between the three elements. This may be largely due to the fact that some common pension arrangements have been adopted in each sector. In this country, as Sir Gordon's Report says, pension arrangements for permanent employment are often quite different in the universities and Government research establishments, and of course we know how different they are in industry.

I hope, therefore, that the Government will look at the Swedish model, although I realise they are a smaller country and their problems are no doubt less complicated than ours. Other noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Windlesham, will, I know, wish to deal in greater detail with Sir Gordon's Report to-day. It is a most useful document, and I hope that the Government will see to what extent its recommendations can be implemented. I only hope that another Report will be forthcoming on relations with industry. May I ask the noble Lord whether we can expect this?

While links between Government and industry are certainly being built up in no uncertain way through the Ministry of Technology, links between universities and industry may not be as satisfactory as they should be, although in some cases they are certainly improving. But I was interested to read some recent remarks by the Director of the Rubber and Plastics Research Association. He referred to the reluctance of universities to release more than a mere trickle of good graduates to industry, adding that the universities tended to absorb the majority in their own expansion. They were, in his words, "gobbling up their young".

While I recognise that the universities must expand, this form of cannibalism (or do we call it anthropophagy?) is surely unhealthy, and I do not think we should expand the universities so fast that industry is liable to suffer seriously. They should expand at a steady rate, but not at the expense of other sectors in the economy. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Todd, as Chancellor of Strathclyde University, and my noble friends Lord Sherfield, Chairman of Imperial College, Lord Wynne-Jones and Lord Kings Norton, who have all studied these matters closely, will have something very interesting to say on this problem. Had Lord Jackson of Burnley been with us we should certainly have had a galaxy of talent from Imperial College here this afternoon.

There may be some merit in a system whereby Ph.Ds can be granted to those already in industry. London University is, I think, already ahead in granting external degrees, and Cambridge, too, has certain schemes which are worth looking at. But, above all, would not be the best plan be for Ph.Ds to be awarded for joint research work by universities and industry? This would certainly be an effective way of keeping the two closer together. I should like to mention, if I am not boring your Lordships for too long in this connection, the Science Research Council's admirable Science in Industry Award, in which the employer makes up the salary of those competing for it. Then, too, I.C.I. have a scheme of this kind whereby young engineers recruited from universities are permitted to return for a further period of research if they wish to do so, having worked in the company for a certain length of time. These seem to me excellent and enterprising schemes which should be encouraged and extended.

I am also interested to see that Sussex University is to open a Department of Operational Research in the autumn, and that this will work closely with a similar department at Lancaster University. I gather from Professor Rivett that £45,000 of the Lancaster Operational Research Department's budget of £70,000 is, in fact, earned, with only the remaining £25,000 coming from the University Grants Committee. This is an excellent example of co-operation between universities and industry, and I hope that other universities may be able to devise ways of achieving such co-operation in other disciplines, if they have not done so already.

I hope also that the Government will study the important efforts being made by Academician Lavrentiev, who was responsible for the establishment of the Science City of Novosibirsk in Siberia. There the teaching academy is particularly concerned with the application of science to industry, and I gather that they have now set up factories in close proximity to the academy to facilitate the exchange of pure and applied scientific developments. When I visited the Science City a year or two ago I was very much impressed by what they were doing, although they have a long way to go; and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who has also been there, has to say about this. I think the Government should look at what is going on there.

To return, at the end of my remarks, to the division of responsibility between the Ministries, should not the division have been made between higher education, science and technology, on the one side, and the schools, on the other? Clearly, each Government Department should have its own scientific advisers; and science, the scientific method and scientific management should undoubtedly pervade every Government Department. But at present such advisers are there to do specific jobs required by their Departments, and not the kind of basic or even applied research of which the practical results are not always immediately evident.

It would, in my view, be a mistake for the principal research establishments which I have mentioned—apart, perhaps, from building research and road research, which already come under the executive Departments concerned—themselves to be under the other executive Departments, such as the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Agriculture. This would certainly restrict unduly the freedom of the scientists in question. And although we should not perhaps exaggerate the importance of this freedom, I think we ought to respect the Haldane principle. But we are not going to get the best out of this country unless we get the best out of industry, and industry must not just be a "job shop" for the Government.

The Ministry of Technology is certainly holding out a number of carrots to indus- try, and no beneficiary in industry can be too critical of those who have a lot of carrots in their hands. I recognise in particular what the Ministry have done in keeping our computer industry alive, and what they have done in regard to machine tools and, perhaps, in rationalising the optical instruments industry. If we are to have a Ministry of Industry, which the Minister of Technology has described his Ministry as being, and including certain functions of the Board of Trade, then clearly it must have some kind of organisation. The present Ministry is a vast empire covering a very wide range of industry, and not only, I think, "the commanding heights", which were originally described by the Labour Party as being liable to be nationalised. It employs, according to one report, some 23,000 scientists, technologists, research workers and others, by no means all of whom were employed in the old D.S.I.R., the old office of the Minister for Science or the Ministry of Aviation. When there is a shortage of qualified scientists and engineers in industry, is it right to freeze so many in Government service? We must in this respect do everything we can to break Professor Parkinson's famous law.

In regard to the present structure of the Ministry of Technology, I think this is badly wrong. Too often the people in the most senior Civil Service positions are said to block sensible action both by the Ministers above them and by the more technically expert civil servants be-low them. I am not blaming officials, who are in fact doing their jobs and trying to make the unwieldy machine work, but I do blame Ministers who allow this kind of thing to happen. Industry will die if the Ministry's role is mainly telling it what to do and controlling the purse strings. Government must trust industry more and encourage its inventive skills. It must create incentives and rewards. How is the vast increase in civil servants consistent with encouraging inventiveness? More should be done in industry itself rather than in Government research establishments. For example, millions are being spent on biology, both in universities and the Agricultural Research Council. I believe that more of those employed in the latter should go into industry—provided, of course, the right sort of pension arrangements can be made.

LORD SHACKLETON

May I interrupt the noble Earl? Would he develop this particular point a little more? What are his reasons for saying that there should be fewer people working on biology, and that they should go into industry? He must give some criteria for the sweeping statements that he is making.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I do not think that these statements are at all sweeping. Indeed, I have heard some much more sweeping statements made, and I have tried to moderate my remarks so far as possible. But if the noble Lord will allow me to finish, and allow some other people to speak, I think he will find these views further developed. Undoubtedly there is a tendency—perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish—for a number of highly qualified scientists and engineers to be frozen, to some extent, in Government establishments.

LORD SHACKLETON

May I interrupt the noble Earl again? He specifically spoke about biologists. Would he tell me what criteria he is applying? It is no use his making sweeping statements that people are misemployed, and that they ought to be doing this or that, unless he gives some justification for saying so. I shall be very interested to hear his reasons.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I cannot go into them all this afternoon, although I shall certainly do so with the noble Lord afterwards. I do not want to specify exactly in which units, let us say, it seems that some of those employed might be more usefully employed in the chemical industry. I do not want to go into the detail of that. All I can say is that there is a point here which I hope the noble Lord will accept and look into.

I believe that the Government could encourage industry by helping new processes evolved by individual firms on a pound-for-pound basis and by ensuring collaboration with universities. The Research Association formula is all very well in its way, but much important research may still be conducted outside the Asociations. That is why I believe that individual firms should be assisted, so that industry itself, rather than the taxpayer, would be paying a larger share of the cost of research. We have to throw a larger competitive element into industry and the universities. In the United States, a considerably higher percentage of research work is carried out in the business enterprise sector, and I think this is very healthy.

It would, I think, be preferable to have only one Ministry responsible for research, both basic and applied. But if we are to continue, roughly speaking, with the present set-up and have a Secretary of State for, say, Industry and Trade, on the one side, and a Secretary of State for Education and Science, on the other, then I think it would be a good plan—this is a purely personal suggestion—for one of the existing Ministers of State to be responsible for both science and technology; that is to say, in the first instance for all basic and applied research, conducted not only by the universities and Research Councils but also by the old D.S.I.R. stations and R.A.s, and the Atomic Energy Authority. That Minister would refer only major contentious issues to the Secretaries of State concerned. He would not be extra to the present establishment, and would have no additional officials, but would, as I say, be one of the Ministers already functioning either from the Department of Education and Science or from the Ministry of Technology. He might be situated, if necessay, in the Cabinet Office, near Sir Solly's new Committee.

There is just one further question that I should like to ask the noble Lord, and that concerns the structure of the atomic energy industry. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, told me on May 4 that the Minister of Technology and the Minister of Power were discussing the whole question with the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority. I should like to know how far we have got on this. Your Lordships may have observed that Sir William Penney (to whom, I am sure, we shall all wish to extend a warm welcome when he joins us in this House) recently described the present overlap and replication of nuclear research and development in Europe as prodigiously wasteful. What was needed, he said, was a searching examination as to whether the structure of the industry was best suited to the future.

I hope that the noble Lords who are to speak for the Government will be able to give me replies to some of the questions that I have put to them to-day, of most of which I think I gave them prior notice. Whatever may be the results of the wars in Vietnam and the Middle East, and whether we go into the Common Market or not, the one vital element which can ensure our standing in the world is scientific and industrial strength. We must be determined to remain a scientific power. Have we the best organisation to keep it so? I have spoken of the Council for Scientific Policy, of the Advisory Council on Technology and of the new Central Zuckerman Committee. Are we in fact getting any nearer to unified scientific direction, or have we now merely a muddled and Unholy Trinity? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.