HL Deb 28 February 1968 vol 289 cc783-805

2.55 p.m.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

rose to call attention to the Second Report on Science Policy (Cmnd. 3420) and the Reports of the Working Group on Migration (Cmnd. 3417) and the Proposed 300 GeV Accelerator (Cmnd. 3503); and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in June last year your Lordships were good enough to discuss a Motion which I had set down on the Order Paper concerning the organisation of science and technology in Britain. During that debate the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, thought that I was unduly Party-political in some of the points I made. I hope that I may not be so controversial this afternoon, since the structural points about the division of responsibility between the Ministry of Technology and the Department of Education and Science which I then made were generally accepted by nearly all except the two Government speakers in the debate.

On this occasion I propose to confine my remarks to the work of the Council for Scientific Policy and the Research Councils which come under the aegis of the Department of Education and Science, to the report of the Working Group, under Dr. Jones, on the "brain drain"; and to the recent White Paper on the proposed 300,000-million electron volt accelerator. This does not mean that I can withdraw the criticisms I made last year, particularly concerning the Ministry of Technology, though I must admit that the noble Lord gave me some very good replies to some of the points that I then raised.

I must first of all congratulate Sir Harry Massey and the Council of Scientific Policy on the marshalling of important material in this Second Report. We should also be grateful to Dr. Jones's Group for the clarity of their document. And we must acknowledge that the Paper on the 300 GeV machine, with its contributions by Dr. Swann's Group and by the Science Research Council, provides the fullest ventilation of one single scientific proposal that the taxpayers have yet been able to see. These three documents deal with the scientific texture of our times. Although in one or two of them there is a frank expression of regret that accurate figures are still difficult to come by, nevertheless they show a recognition that there is real public interest and that there is a need to justify publicly such very large expenditure. This is all to the good; and it links effectively with the welcome fact that the Research Councils, in their recent annual reports, have included some assessments of the economic value to the nation of particular ranges of research.

At one time, when the moneys involved were much smaller, these reports tended to be designed for fellow scientists only. But nowadays, for good housekeeping, all intelligent citizens must be interested in the scientific activities on which our future depends. More information—more systematic information—is still desirable. But I think that it is right this afternoon—as was done during the recent debate in this House on fuel policy—to acknowledge gratefully that there has been an advance in the matter of reporting.

Before I leave this point, I would draw attention to the welcome given by the Council for Scientific Policy, in its Report, to the formation of the Central Advisory Council on Science and Technology. This body is headed by Sir Solly Zuckerman, and it covers the entire field, including defence research—I sometimes feel that it should take over the whole Department of Economic Affairs. But this body is supposed to be issuing a report. I hope that it will do so. I appreciate that there may be some difficulty, and the C.S.P. Report itself is very wide in its scope. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to know from the noble Lord what is intended. It is not so much that we do not know Sir Solly's own views, which were well set out last year in his Science of Science Foundation Lecture, called "Scientists in the Arena", in which he described the limitations of advisory bodies; but I should be interested to know when his new Advisory Council is expected to report.

As for the C.S.P. Report itself, there are two points which it makes, which although of a general character, seem to me of particular value. They are, first, the emphasis which the Council places on the importance of the scientific environment. By this the Council means the physical circumstances and the atmosphere of encouragement within which our scientists need to work if they are to achieve success. Indeed, the Council says—and I quote from paragraph 4: If we could summarise the purpose of our existence … it would be to understand the scientific environment, to advise on its preservation in current difficult conditions, and to convince both scientific and lay opinion that the nation wills its proper support. The second point is the Council's emphasis on the need for longer-term planning. And I understand that this need is put forward not on any ideological basis or through any desire to provide a cotton-wool security for a large number of scientists. The Council remarks in paragraph 16: The requirements of 'big science' show that forward planning must be taken effectively much further ahead than hitherto. From the evidence of this and other Reports, it is clear that the Council do not have in mind solely the expensive nature of vast cyclotrons. There are, and there will be, other claimants for big money. In its following paragraph the Council adds: What can, however, we believe be predicted is the nature of the environment within which scientific advances will flourish and the scale of the resources needed for this in particular fields. Most activities require a critical or threshold investment without which the chances of success are negligible". Under its terms of reference the Council was not able to make budgetary suggestions other than for the Research Councils, and that only up to the spring of 1970; that is to say, looking ahead for only three years. Even so, for the Research Councils, which represent by no means the largest area of scientific expenditure, they foresee an increase from a total of some £70 million to £85 million—a 10 per cent, rate of growth. There are no cuts here, I am glad to say.

It is in this light that we must consider the C.S.P.'s main conclusion, which is clearly meant to cover a much wider spectrum than the Research Councils. They say in their final conclusion: Intrinsically our greatest problem is that more and more fields of science are becoming aware of the potential of massive 'sophistication' in terms both of equipment and techniques, at a time when there is a real problem of national resources to sustain this process. There is indeed a problem here, but it is not confined to Government science, and still less to that range of disciplines which come under the umbrella of the Department of Education and Science. The problem for us as a nation is to decide whether we can afford to remain in the forefront—that is to say, among the leading nations—across the whole field, or whether there are certain branches from which we must opt out; or, if we are not to opt out, with which other nations or groups of nations should we collaborate so as to stay in the running in all branches. Should we be more selective? Should we not create more of the kind of Centres of Excellence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has referred on more than one occasion?

Confidence and clear intention in these matters is, as the C.S.P. indicates, intimately bound up with the problem of the so-called "brain drain". I dislike referring to it as a "drain", but still I suppose we must accept this term for convenience. The issues on this subject are clearly set out in the Report of the Working Group on Migration, where they point out that the international mobility of qualified scientific manpower is one of the historical facts of life. This has been pointed out to your Lordships before. They rightly draw attention, however, to the serious imbalance that has occurred. I am sure after long reflection—and I have not always been so sure—that the Working Group are right on many grounds in recommending that there should be no attempts to control the drain by imposing restrictions on the freedom of individuals, and that they are right in rejecting financial controls. Similary, when they conclude that there should be no attempt to restrict the activities of foreign recruiting agencies in this country—and I know something of their work—I think we must remember that such action could easily become a two-edged weapon.

It is because of freedom of action that it has been possible for the Government to back what we we now call the "brain gain". This is an operation which is mainly conducted in North America, with the aid of Mr. Harry Hoff of the Civil Service Commission on behalf of the Government, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board, and of Management Selection Limited in New York, of whose work I have also made it my business to keep myself informed. And although these are early days, it seems clear from the interim announcements of those involved that there are numbers of qualified scientists and engineers who have spent a period in North America and who would be willing to come to this country if suitable employment were available. I am happy to learn, too, that these include Americans themselves, especially those who would work in close proximity to some of our best research facilities or institutions of higher learning. Although some of the reports are conflicting, I understand that the number of Americans and Canadians wishing to work here is, in fact, increasing, and I should be interested to know what the noble Lord has to say about this.

As Dr. Jones's Committee points out, this depends very largely on the scientific and technological climate within this country. It depends upon national attitudes to mobility and national attitudes to the granting of responsibilities at an early age. Other noble Lords will wish to say more to-day on this subject. Among a host of points which I should like to raise I will mention only two. The attraction of industry for a large number of our best brains is clearly bound up with the possibilities for close links with the research being conducted within the universities and Government research establishments. The Jones Report refers to the work of the Joint Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the C.B.I., which is at present studying the general problems of the relationship between the universities and industry. This consultation has been going on for some time, and I shall certainly be interested to hear from the Government what progress has been made.

I should also like to ask the noble Lord—and I do not think I gave him direct warning of this question—what progress is being made in extending contract research in industry. Incidentally, on this subject I have some interesting comments from the Director of the Director of the Ontario Research Foundation who read the whole of our last debate in Hansard from cover to cover, and has sent me some very interesting comments which I shall be glad to pass on to the noble Lord. When the nation is spending this year nearly £1,000 million on research and development, and within this Government civil scientific expenditure has reached nearly £300 million, we approach a situation in which serious decisions have to be taken. Decisions now can have effects many years ahead.

This afternoon I will mention only two instances where decisions now must have a ripple effect over the years. One is the question whether we do or do not decide to contribute to the 300 GeV Accelerator—the Report on which is the third Report mentioned in my Motion—to serve Europe on the frontiers of nuclear physics and where the pay-off may come only some fifty years hence. It may be in less time but it may be in more. The other is the question of what national effort we make to preserve our position in the field of micro-electronics.

To take the subject of this vast nuclear physics machine first, there is no doubt that the recent White Paper faces fairly and squarely the issues involved. We are talking of something which calls for the exercise of a range of the most advanced technologies, and I would calculate that this may well cost, in post-devaluation terms, some £170 million before it comes into operation nearly nine years from now. Although there may be comparatively little of the cost falling in the first three years, we should find ourselves contributing over the whole period something like £40 million; and thereafter our contribution to the running cost of £30 million a year would be considerable.

If the decision is to go ahead—and, if it is, I hope it will be on a site in this country; and I hope the noble Lord will have something to say on this subject, too, to-day—it will not be possible for anyone to claim that we went into it with our eyes closed. At the same time, we have to take note that in the very Report to which I have referred the Working Group under Professor Swann makes it perfectly clear that there are other claimants for large-scale funding. It refers specifically to oceanography and marine studies, to molecular biology and its relation to medicine, to animal breeding, to the synthetic production of enzymes and to computers in relation to brain studies.

Let us be under no misapprehension, my Lords, as to what this could mean in terms of allocating our national resources. For instance, the last report of the Natural Environment Research Council states that the Council plans to double its effort in the marine sciences in the next four years from about £1.5 million last year to perhaps £3.5 million by 1972. It indicates that this is, in those years, the maximum possible rate of growth, particularly because of the shortage of marine biologists. Perhaps I might interpolate here that if there is the problem of a shortage of manpower, could we not recruit more appropriate marine scientists from overseas—from the United States, from France or from Japan? I do not care what nationality they are. But these figures for oceanography of £1.5 million running up to, perhaps, £3.5 million, are minimal figures, not only in comparison with what may be required in the future but even in comparison with what we are currently spending on space research, where the figure for scientific effort alone is already of the order of £7 million a year out of a total of some £30 million on space activities as a whole.

The second subject to which I would refer is the field of micro-electronics. This clearly affects not only the work of the fundamental researchers but also a whole range of industry. If we look over the next ten or fifteen years, it is obvious that in many fields where control systems of increasing sophistication will be used we shall either become dependent upon the United States for licences or for specific components or we shall have to maintain our own indigenous industry with an adequate basis of advanced research. It is generally understood that, largely as a result of their space and defence programmes, the America as are well in advance of us in some branches of this subject. Nevertheless, I am glad that leading firms in British industry who have fostered relevant research have been able to secure important contracts against international competition. But to stay in this field involves investment—large-scale investment over a long period of time.

The principal point I wish to make on the basis of these three Reports is the following. Are we satisfied—and I should like to ask the Government directly this question—that sufficient information is being made available from Government, from the universities, to the higher echelons of industry to assist them in their forward thinking? From our best available scientists we have a range of indication that the calls upon our national resources are increasing, and will increase. We have indications of specific fields in which expenditure on research could increase, perhaps should increase, and about which fundamental decisions of policy have to be taken which will have repercussions years ahead. I appreciate the work that has been undertaken to ensure that, in computers and machine tools, the industries concerned are in closer liaison with Government and may have a better understanding of Government policy. But is this true across the wider field? If not, it is clear that problems of investment will keep on catching up with us and forcing critical situations. In other words, we shall tend to be at the mercy of events.

I would not for a moment suggest that we are alone in having problems related to scientific research and development. Indeed, we should remind ourselves that we have these problems only because of our greatness—and, my Lords, I believe we are still a great country despite three years of Labour rule. I smile with the noble Lord about this; I am not being very Party political on this occasion. But America, with two-thirds of its research and development expenditure provided by Government, largely in connection with space and defence programmes, certainly has its problems. Why, otherwise, would the Department of Commerce have commissioned their report on technological innovation in industry—the Hollomon Report, otherwise known as the Charpie Report? The French, at full stretch to maintain a "do-it-yourself" policy in so many directions (which is now expanded to what they describe as an "all azimuths" policy for intercontinental ballistic missiles; that is to say, intercontinental ballistic missiles which can go in all directions and on all curves), certainly have problems at least as great as ours. And the Japanese, who started from a much lower point but now have the fastest-rising rate of research and development expenditure in the world, will inevitably have very serious problems if they are to attempt to cover the whole field.

In drawing your Lordships' attention to these Reports, and discussing specific points emerging from them, there is one final observation to which I should like to return. That is that, in making and taking these great decisions, it is but common fairness to our productive industry, on which we all ultimately depend, to ensure that its leaders are adequately informed, and at an early stage, of the developments which may lie ahead and which arise from the nature of the sciences themselves. I would not deny that one of the features of this Administration has been the production of reports—and very good reports. Not a month passes but some document appears. Where these are the considered views of eminent scientists they are, of course, of great value; as, for example, the three mentioned this afternoon. But we have also had the Bosworth Report on Industry and Universities, the Manpower Report and the Sutherland Report. What is being done about them? They all make admirable recommendations, but what has happened to them? Have they been lost between the Millbank Tower and Curzon Street? Or have they bought new filing cabinets at No. 10?

My Lords, I do not want to end on a sharpish note. This country has always been one for adventures, sometimes very costly adventures, as have also been the Americans, and I am sure that many of your Lordships have from time to time wondered whether it was worth while spending such vast sums on space research other than for the military or commercial purposes of satellite communications or as an aid to navigation and meteorology. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has in the past explained this—and who better than he could explain it?—on the grounds that mankind takes part in such adventures for the same motives as we explore the Polar regions or climb the highest mountains. But I must admit that, having visited the spacecraft centres at Houston and Cape Kennedy on more than one occasion, I have myself wondered whether the Americans and the Russians were right in spending such vast sums on this kind of exploration. Should we not put a much greater effort—and I am sure my noble friend Lord Jellicoe would agree with this—into oceanography and into exploring the mineral and nutrient wealth of the oceans which are so much nearer to hand?

I have said that our total expenditure on space amounts this year to over £30 million (and I still think this could be increased); but our expenditure on the marine sciences amounts only to £1.5 million, due to rise to £3.5 million only in four years' time. I feel, however, that I may begin to see one of the points of space exploration in reading Nigel Balchin's recent novel, Kings of Infinite Space, which gives an effective description of the environment of American space activities. And although I have myself been one of the principal advocates of increased expenditure in this field—as indeed is the aero-space industry itself—I agree with Nigel Balchin that to try to consider certain aspects of it in scientific or engineering terms seems a ridiculous impertinence and by far the most colossal example of materialistic conceit since the Babylonians tried to build a tower that would reach to heaven: For God's sake"— he says— let us realise that whereas we can play with space in this sort of way, we can only think about it at the metaphysical and transcendental level". And the only person who can perhaps begin to comprehend it is the artist. He quotes the words of Stephen Vincent Benet: With a host of furious fancies, Whereof I am commander, With a spear of fire, And a horse of air, To the wilderness I wander. Noble Lords may not wish to wander into this wilderness of space, but I think Mr. Balchin gives one of the true reasons why the Americans, without perhaps their knowing it and despite the vast cost of the Vietnam war and of the demands at home and in the developing countries, are none the less still determined to reach for Mars. Fear of what the Soviet Union may achieve and competition with them is, of course, a powerful spur; and technological spin-off is another, if secondary, justification. But looking further ahead there seems little doubt that unless we can, in coming centuries, colonise other planets or check the population explosion in some other way, as by birth control, we may have to remove all other forms of life from earth.

Mr. Desmond Morris, in his extraordinary book The Naked Ape, gives the figures in his last chapter. He is not, I think, the first to do so. At the end of the 17th century the world population was only 500 million. Now it is 3,000 million. In 260 years, at this rate, there will be a seething mass of 400,000 million hairless apes crowding the face of the earth, or 11,000 individuals to every square mile. And the densities we now experience in major cities would exist in every corner of the globe. The Social Sciences Research Council will have some problems then! But by then, perhaps, in 260 years time, we shall have colonised the moon and—who knows?—some distant planet, not only with geologists but with scientists and others of our species working in environmental domes. So we should not, I think, altogether ignore the wider realms of space exploration. At the same time, let us not forget the depths of ocean if we are to feed these seething millions before they emigrate to a new earth. I beg to move for Papers.

3.25 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, not only for arranging for us to have this debate but also, if I may say so, for a most interesting speech—one which must commend itself to me more than the one that he made last year. My noble friends and I are quite happy to allow him the very minor Party political "cracks" that he produced. Most of what I have to say will, I think, have really no Party political content. One of the particular virtues of the debates in your Lordships' House is the expertise that we can bring to bear on them. I have not quite completed analysing the list of speakers, though I may do so by the time I come to wind up, but I find that there is a great range of experience evident in the contributions that noble Lords will make. It will, I am sure, be impossible for me to reply to them all, but, of course, it is far more important that they should say what they say rather than that I should reply to it; and this seems to me to be inherent in the nature of this debate.

The noble Earl has given us a very wide area for discussion. Indeed, the time may be coming when, as we continue these debates, we may need to focus rather more on particular areas and, possibly, even on the particular Reports of the particular research councils. But I think there is great virtue in having a general debate because it provides maximum scope for individual members of this House to make a contribution on anything to do with the vast subject of science and technology.

My Lords, the three Reports to which the noble Earl has referred have all appeared since we discussed science and technology last June. We are debating this subject now in an area of greater knowledge and greater public understanding of the various issues. Indeed, science is increasingly gaining popular appeal by the sheer interest that is contained in what is published. Here I should pay a tribute to the science correspondents. I have before referred to the New Scientist, and now we see the "top people's newspaper ", aided by Nature, producing a most informative daily science column which I think adds to our interest and, I hope, a little to our wisdom.

As the noble Earl said, in our last debate I devoted a considerable amount of time, as did other noble Lords, to matters of pure organisation and administration. I am grateful that the noble Earl himself moved on, for this enables me to move on so as not to present the same sort of arguments that were used on the last occasion. None the less, I should like to say a few words about the Council for Scientific Policy, because their Second Report is one of those that we are discussing to-day. It may be of interest to know that the Final Report of the old A.C.S.P. sold some 1,600 copies, while the First Report of the Council for Scientific Policy sold 4,100; and, so far, over 3,000 copies of the Second Report have been sold. I hope that our debate to-day (although for this we shall be dependent up on the Press reports), may well increase this total.

I have been interested to inquire into the work of the Council for Scientific Policy. In the past, we had criticisms of the old Advisory Council—but not because of its membership or, indeed, because of the manful way it tackled the various problems. For instance, it made some very apt and highly relevant remarks some years ago on the 300 GeV accelerator. But there is a sophistication, a concentration, a degree of working, a method of working, which is being built up in these basically new institutions. I think that what is rather exciting is that there is no loss of enthusiasm, or, indeed, of capacity. Their Reports are anything but purely dull bureaucratic ones.

The Council for Scientific Policy meets, on an average, once a fortnight, and the working groups and committees, of which there is a formidable list of examples in the Appendix to the Report, meet even more frequently, so placing further burden upon the members. This is not all talk. There are solid results to show for it, as the Second Report on Science Policy and the Report on the 300 GeV Accelerator show. Nor is the advice of the Council divorced from reality. Its members are all distinguished scientists and men of affairs. They include two Vice-Chancellors. It has the benefit of the industrial experience of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, who is such an ornament to your Lordships' House; the advice of Dr. F. E. Jones, another eminent industrialist, and of Dr. J. B. Adams—and I could go on at some length to describe the high qualifications of the members of this body.

The former Minister for Science, Mr. Hogg, when he was more happily, from our point of view anyway, a Member of your Lordships' House as Viscount Hailsham, used to boast that the staff of his Office for Science could be transported conveniently in one double-decker bus. It is perhaps one justification of the integration of that Office with the Department of Education, with all the resources that a Department of State possesses, that the Council for Scientific Policy and the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology should be able to produce the Reports which have emerged since 1965 on the topics we are discussing to-day, some of which we have been discussing over the past two years. We had an interesting debate on computers. There has been the Sutherland Report on liaison between the universities and Government research establishments, which we have debated. They have all added—I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is important—to the public interest in and public understanding of science. I may inform your Lordships (and this touches on some of the points the noble Earl has been making) that liaison between the universities and Government research establishments is increasing as a result of action by both sides, and the U.G.C. have asked universities for a progress report this spring on the action taken since the Sutherland Report was published.

The Council for Scientific Policy meets with assessors from the four Research Councils with whose Votes it is concerned, as well as with an assessor from the University Grants Committee. The Council does not ride on the necks of the Research Councils. It is their responsibility to exercise scientific judgment within their own field. The quality and work of each Council can be safeguarded only if they are left with this measure of autonomy and responsibility. The task of the C.S.P. is to advise the Secretary of State, to investigate the growth and balance of the programmes of research projects collectively, to weigh up the case for the total resources needed for the civil science which comes within the Secretary of State's responsibility—this is an important point and one of the major developments that has come about almost insensibly, at least without great public controversy—and to undertake the delicate and important task, which can be damaging if clumsily done, of assessing how resources can be allocated within the total available for the programmes before it. Again the distribution of science in relation to Government Departments is a subject for fascinating argument.

In their Second Report, the Council drew attention to some of the practical results achieved by the Research Councils. Some of these which have easily recognisable benefits are striking, and examples of them are to be found in the annual reports of the four Research Councils. I should have liked to pick out various items that have struck me as being of particular interest, but many of your Lordships will have read these reports. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, referred to oceanography. The work of the Natural Environment Research Council on coastal oceanography and on the geology of the Continental Shelf, especially where the discovery of hydrocarbons under the North Sea is concerned, and on the hydrology of inland waters in relation to our water resources, are examples of research with an obvious economic application. Oceanography is an area where co-ordination is very much better. This is a matter on which I know that the noble Earl and I will press hard, whenever we are on the other side, for more and more expenditure, because we agree that this is one of the fields which offers some ex- citing prospects, though of course expenditure here will have to be set against such expenditure as would be suggested for this great new international accelerator.

It would be rash to suggest that your Lordships were not interested in or derive no benefits from the practical results of the Work of the Medical Research Council. There are many examples which I could mention, but I think one of the most interesting parts of the Report is the justification by the Council for the different kinds of research. They make clear that applied research of the kind of which I have given examples could not possibly remain of high quality and effectiveness without an intimate association with and support from relevant basic research. The Council have sought—I think very successfully, and it is important that the world at large should appreciate this—to justify expenditure on science as a cultural activity, as part of the educational system and as a prime mover in economic growth and development, for which basic science as well as applied science contribute.

The Council recognise the need to state in terms which I believe are significant for public policy the arguments which are taken for granted by scientists and of which unfortunately laymen are too often unaware. It was common in the last century to talk of the utility of scientific discovery as one of its major justifications. More recently, it has been less common to use this type of argument, but it is now being repeated in a very forceful way. Although there are those who argue that basic science is purely and simply a closed shop, accessible only to a few privileged people who are well enough educated to understand its arcana, and that a society can afford this sort of expenditure only if it is really wealthy, I believe that an awareness of the potential benefits of scientific discovery increases the chance of scientific innovations being put to good use and developed more speedily than has been the case in the past. We all know and at times have lamented that in certain areas of scientfic discovery we in Britain have not been as successful as some of our competitors in applying basic scientific discoveries, but the increasing attention which is being paid to science and to research and development will, I hope, make us more conscious of the benefits of the application of scientific discovery than we have been in the past.

All this must surely imply that there should be a full acceptance by society of the need for basic research, which may not appear at present or in the foreseeable future to have any practical application. All your Lordships who have been involved in this will not, I am sure, dispute this. It in no way weakens the case that you may need in certain fields to give your effort and resources a shove in a particular direction for economic purposes: it does not weaken the basic argument.

I should like to turn, briefly, to the 300 GeV Accelerator. High energy nuclear physics is one of the best examples of fundamental research which may not appear to have any pay-off in the near future, or even in the more distant future. The cost of the proposed accelerator is so great that it would have to be borne by a consortium of European nations drawn from the members of CERN. Whether the machine should go ahead depends on there being sufficient European nations willing to participate. The publication to which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has drawn attention to-day is an interesting example of the publication by the Government of advice they have received for participation in this project, before the Government have reached their final decision. More than this, the publication is something of a new departure in another way. It is an outstanding example of how an important issue of this kind can be exhaustively and expertly examined, and how the results of such examination can be presented to the nation for all to see. I was impressed by the great readability of the Report, and how well its authors convey to the layman the substance of the justification for the accelerator in terms that are readily understood. It is really a model of the sort of communication and explanation, in the importance of which I know the noble Earl is interested. It shows the justification for a very expensive machine designed for fundamental research, and perhaps the way in which this has been done may be taken as a model on some other occasions in the future.

The Council for Scientific Policy established a Working Group under the chairmanship of Professor Swann, who is so well-known to us all, to examine the implications of the accelerator. They decided to recommend to the Council, which endorsed their advice, that a project could be accommodated in a budget for nuclear physics, rising on average 7 per cent. a year over the next decade. The Science Research Council, whose advice has also been published, intended that if the costs rose, as they might well, they should be met by savings from the budget for nuclear physics. Some reservations, not surprisingly, were expressed about the proposal, and there was a Minority Report by two members of the Science Research Council, both of them chemists. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, may have something to say on this; and we shall be interested to hear your Lordships' views, because it is a difficult issue.

It is a matter of a good deal of interest that this wealth of advice, including the negative advice, should have been published before a final decision has been reached either by the Government or by CERN. As the Secretary of State has said in his foreword to the publication, devaluation and other matters make us look with particular care at all public expenditure. But this again is essentially long term. The Government will announce their decision, but I say, frankly, that they have not yet come to it. No doubt when we appreciate the size of the cost we can all make comparisons. It is not a question of dividing up the cake. I notice that there are rather more physicists taking part in the debate than there are chemists or biologists. But the present expenditure on nuclear physics is greater than that spent on the Agricultural Research Council or the Medical Research Council, and to add a further £10 million a year to the 300 GeV Accelerator would be equivalent to the current U.G.C. grant for about six new universities. Such other expenditure must be assessed. If I may add one factor which it is right to remember (not to discourage the physicists; perhaps they will even say this strengthens their case), of the 16 United Kingdom Nobel Prizewinners since 1952 only one has been a physicist. The majority have been biologists. And I think we have one biologist taking part in the debate to-day.

My Lords, I think I have said enough to indicate that the Government have not taken up a position, and all I want to do is to make it clear how we are thinking. This is a matter where clearly a lot of hard thinking still needs to be done. Of course, the expenditure would not be felt immediately, but it was right to take it into account now. The Council believe it is necessary—and here again I think we shall agree—to develop longer-term programmes for scientific research than have sometimes been formulated in the past. Advance planning is obviously necessary for large-scale capital developments which take several years and need the assurance of resources, and to provide for new needs of a more immediate character which may become apparent only as time goes by. We shall watch with interest when they bring the intersecting storage rings into play at Meyrin, which will have the effect of upgrading and greatly increasing the accelerator. I think it increases it from 300 to 1,400 GeV; but there are also losses as a result of this technique. None the less, it may be interesting to see what emerges when these are operational.

It is, I think, vital that the scientists themselves should have confidence that the Government and, indeed, the community recognise the value of the contribution which science has to make to society, and some indication of the past scale of this contribution is contained in the Council's Report. But recognition of the value of science is best shown by the assurance of future support related to the growth of scientific opportunity, the development of the educational system and the position of the national economy.

My Lords, the Second Report gives an account of the discussions by the Council and the Research Councils of their forward programmes, and I would only say that it is the Government's intention that resources will be made available to ensure the growth of scientific activity in real terms. A philosophy about science and financial provision is, of course, quite useless without a continuing supply of graduates trained in scientific and technological methods and a growing awareness among those leaving schools, universities and other institutions of the importance of science in everyday life. That is why I think we are all bound to feel some real concern at the reported swing away from science among children still at school.

We are, unfortunately, in some difficulty here, because I understand it is to-morrow that the Report of the Working Party under Dr. Dainton will be published which deals with the problem of the flow of candidates in terms of technology and higher education. We have seen the Interim Report, and if there has been a swing away from science we shall need to know what has caused it. I think we could all speculate as to what it is. We should all have our pet ideas why science may be unattractive—whether it is, perhaps, that the arts subjects or economics are thought to provide a better pathway to higher management or higher positions in the Civil Service, or whatever it may be. These may be real difficulties; they may, as I hope, be imaginary ones. It may even be an argument that science is too materialistic or that it poses too many genuine ethical problems. The noble Lord, Lord Snow, has graphically described the sort of ethical problem that confronts a sensitive scientist. It may even be that the work is too arduous; and, let us face it, a great deal of the work of a young student of science can be very arduous indeed. But there are popular misconceptions, and some of these may be exploded, and some of these the Dainton Report will comment on.

I should like now to turn briefly to the brain-drain. There is a good deal I could say on this, but I should like to say straight away to the noble Earl that I was encouraged to find out how much in fact had gone on since the Report produced under Dr. F. E. Jones on this Committee. Of course, one of the members was again the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley. I am quite sure that your Lordships would not wish him to feel handicapped if, towards the end of the debate, with his great knowledge, if any of us stimulate him too much into disagreement, despite his membership if the C.S.P., he wishes to intervene. Certainly I would tell him that the Addison Rules do not directly apply to him. I should like to pay tribute to the enthusiasm he brings to this work which is so striking and so important in all matters of science and technology.

We debated the brain-drain previously. I think most of us will have read the arguments and findings of the Jones Report, and the fact that it bore more heavily on engineers and technologists than on scientists; that these engineers were mainly young men from industry who went to work in competitive industries abroad, and that the loss showed no sign of abating. This is a situation which is extremely important and, at the same time, extremely complex. The Committee found that the basic reason was not so much money as the lack of atmosphere of challenge; but I would not dream of arguing with noble Lords who point to the difference in both salary and take home pay. But, as in many of these matters, there is a complex of reasons, some real, some even imaginary. At least, when I say "imaginary", I mean more existing in the minds of the individuals than being the reality in either country.

It has been suggested that we do not stretch our young men and women of talent enough, and that if this call for challenge is denied at home they will go and satisfy it abroad. This Report gives a clear indication of the danger and of a need to change our attitudes in Government, in industry and in the universities. And this is a Report which, like the others, is not addressed just to the Government or to Parliament; it is addressed as much to the country. Here, the Report also makes clear the great importance of this in terms of our basic economic problems, and in this field we must be at least as good as our main competitors. I think this Report has done service. I am only sorry it was not possible for the Committee to make comparative studies of the brain-drain in other countries, and I must say that I would hope that at some stage there will be some further work in this field—not that it was within their terms of reference.

There were, as I say, a number of recommendations, and I do not want to discuss them in detail. Certainly they have been taken up in the appropriate areas. My right honourable friend has discussed them with the C.B.I., and there are some useful ideas on how to implement the recommendations. There is to be a conference, held by the C.B.I., next month; and there has been from the C.B.I., in particular, an entirely positive and constructive approach. Then, the recommendations which were addressed to the Government have affected the work of many Departments, and some, of course, cut across these delicate fiscal areas: questions of economics and pensions policies, all of which it would be impossible for me to go into detail about to-day, and to which there is no easy solution. But they provide areas where solutions will have to be found sooner or later. So far as the universities are concerned, here again both the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors have examined these recommendations and are discussing them with industry by an appropriate sub-committee. We also have to see what effect on the brain-drain the U.S. Immigration Act of 1965 will have. But I do not think we ought necessarily to expect some dramatic result.

The Working Group also made a number of recommendations on the emphasis of courses at university in science and technology, and more positively towards the mood of manufacturing industries. The Memorandum of Guidance, which the University Grants Committee issued at the end of 1967, dealt at length with collaboration with industry, and urged a further deliberate and determined effort to gear a larger part of their output to the economic and industrial needs of the nation". A number of specific steps are referred to, including training methods designed to ease the transition from the academic to the industrial world, along the lines of the 'Bosworth matching courses'"— I think this was one of the Reports which the noble Earl thought might have been lost in No. 10 Downing Street. One example of potentially fruitful collaboration—and this is indeed another example—between universities and industry is the running of a "matching section" course designed to meet the needs of industry which will begin at Southampton University this year, when some two dozen students are due to start a course in soniconductor technology.

So the Bosworth Report has obviously been busily read by quite a number of people—and, indeed, acted upon. This is not to suggest, of course, that there are not large areas where more needs to be done; but I had been impressed, in my studies before this debate, and rather encouraged, to find out how much has been done. Again, it is the intention that courses of the kind I have just referred to should become an attractive alternative to the Ph.D. degree for the most able graduates. The Southampton course, which, I repeat again for the noble Earl, stems from the Bosworth Report, has aroused great interest in the micro-electronics industry. It will deal with the fabrication and assembly of semi-conductor devices important in micro-circuitry. The Government recognise that micro-electronics is a technology of vital interest, not only to the electronics industry, but also to industry in general. Consideration has been given, in consultation with the N.R.D.C. and the industry, to the steps that need to be taken to develop a strong indigenous industry. The Government welcome, too, the recent moves by major electronic equipment companies with micro-electronics interests towards the rationalisation of their activities.

My Lords, I have already said that I think this debate will be very widespread, and although I hope, with the leave of the House, to say a few words at the end, it is essentially to the contributions of noble Lords that we look. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, who I know is prone to great flights of imagination, quoted Stephen Vincent Benet, and of course I share emotionally his interests in space research, as well as in oceanography. I do not propose to deal with this subject to-day, however, and I hope he will forgive me if I now use a quotation of a different kind. Your Lordships used to use classical quotations. Unfortunately, I find that my brief has not taken account of the fact that Lucretius wrote in hexameters, but I will try to rescan the lines: "hunc igitur terrorem animi tenebrasque necessest non radii solis neque lucida tela diei discutiant, sed naturae species ratioque". If I may take Mr. Latham's translation, since the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is not here to translate it for us, this debate, I hope, will fulfil the requirement that: This dread and darkness of the mind cannot be dispelled by the sunbeams, the shining shafts of day"— or, indeed, as we might say, political Party manifestos— but only an understanding of the outward form and inner workings of nature".