The Brain Drain (Hansard, 6 March 1991)

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have noted the views expressed in this and in letters putting forward similar views sent by the Chairman of British Scientists Abroad to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State whose responsibilities include science.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has agreed to meet a deputation of representatives from British Scientists Abroad to discuss the issues they have raised.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. As regards the brain drain, is the Minister aware that if the present cuts are carried out the nuclear structure facility based at Daresbury near Warrington may have to close in two years' time? That establishment is involved in the most 1388 advanced research on a wide variety of subjects including nuclear physics and Alzheimer's disease. Is the Minister further aware that over 500 letters have been received by Sir Mark Richmond, most of which have come from scientists overseas, pointing out that if this facility is closed we shall be losing probably the most advanced research development facility of its kind in the world? Does the noble Lord agree that we shall suffer terrible consequences in the future if we allow that to take place?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I understand that the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) has announced that the nuclear structure facility at its Daresbury laboratory near Warrington will probably be closing earlier than previously planned. It seems likely that it will close in 1993. I appreciate the great disappointment of those working in this field of science, but it is SERC's decision based on its assessment of scientific priorities in its programme. I further understand that SERC is setting up a study to look at the longer-term future role of nuclear structure physics in its overall programme. That would seem to be the right approach. The chairman of SERC, Sir Mark Richmond, emphasised that overall the great majority of the programme remains in place and that it is all of excellent quality.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, is the Minister aware that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology is presently engaged on a speedy inquiry into the crisis in science funding and hopes to report within a month? Therefore, I hope that more questions of this kind will be answered. Does the Minister feel that any part of the brain drain is due to serious underfunding for academic salaries due to government cuts?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, we look forward to receiving the findings of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. We refute the suggestion that there is a brain drain or that science has been affected by underfunding. The figures just published by the universities' statistical record reveal that for the seventh year in succession there has been a net inflow of academic staff from abroad.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the problems is that some of our older and more distinguished scientists emigrated a little while ago and that they then recruited a great number of the very bright young men whom they knew to be working in this country? Does the noble Lord agree that a difficulty arises in trying to get these young people back because we have not got the money to do so? Does he further agree that that will make for a very bleak future in the next 10 years or so, when we shall be very short of the more experienced scientists, and that their age range will be getting older and older?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I thought that I had investigated every area of the subject, but I 1389 have not studied the age breakdown. I shall he pleased to look into the point which the noble Baroness has raised and I shall write to her.

§ Baroness Lockwood
My Lords, the Minister referred to the closure as being likely to take place in 1993. Is he correct in saying that that is SERC's assessment on the basis of its programme? Would it be more correct to say that it is SERC's assessment on the basis of the budget within which it is having to work? Do the Government agree that national prestige is involved here? Does the noble Lord agree that we should do everything possible to ensure that these very prestigious projects are continued without phasing out the smaller and important projects?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, overall government support for science has increased in real terms by 23 per cent. since 1979–80. The underlying trend continues undiminished. SERC has been undertaking a thorough-going review of its forward programme. I do not think that it is for government to interfere with the individual decisions it makes.

§ Lord Morris of Castle Morris
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report in the Guardian that, President Bush has been telling US scientists that research and development will enjoy the largest increases in government spending"? In the light of that, can he tell the House how many centres of scientific research in the United Kingdom have publicly stated that their research programmes are in danger of closure because of underfunding and the brain drain?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, we maintain that they are not underfunded. Just two years ago the science budget had a stepped increase of 8 per cent. That uplift in real terms has been sustained through the planning period to 1993–94. The real measure of the state of British science can be assessed by the number of learned papers that are produced. This country produces the greatest number of learned papers with the single exception of the United States of America.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in spite of what he said about the real increase in science funding in this country, by comparison with other European countries the percentage of GDP spent on science research is very much lower? Does he not agree that, when deciding whether to return or to stay abroad, what young scientists as well as older scientists will look at is the relative position and not the absolute position in the United Kingdom? When his right honourable friend meets representatives of British scientists abroad, will he be able to say that there will be some increase in United Kingdom funding to enable us to catch up with our European and United States competitors?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, spending as a proportion of GDP, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is higher in this country than in either Japan or the United States, although similar comparisons with Germany and other European 1390 countries would not be favourable. I see no particular logic in the idea that spending on R&D should be tied to a certain percentage of GDP.

§ Lord Mulley
My Lords, can the noble Lord at least confirm that, in the event of atomic scientists being restricted in this country, we shall maintain our connection with the collective programme at CERN and that our scientists will maintain their connection with it?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I understand that that is the case.

§ Viscount Eccles
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with my experience that when 50 or more academics sign one letter to the newspapers they always get their facts wrong?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. In fact there were some 200 signatures to the letter.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, I agree that underfunding is a problem, but does the Minister accept that there is another problem which contributes towards the brain drain? I refer to the question of age discrimination in employment generally. That affects not only scientists but skilled craftsmen at all levels and in all industries. They are irreplaceable.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, the noble Lord's comments relate to a previous Question. I am afraid to say that I do not know about age discrimination.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, does the noble Lord—

Noble Lords
Next Question!
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord. Of course he is in order but most noble Lords seem to think that we have spent quite a long time on this Question and that it might be appropriate to move on to the next one. However, if the noble Lord wishes to put a question, he may do so.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. Does the Minister agree that his statement that there is no brain drain is most astonishing? There has been a brain drain for as long as I can remember. There was one in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. The question is whether the quality of those leaving the country is higher than the quality of those recruited from other countries to take their place. Will he ask Sir Mark Richmond to make an assessment of that factor?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, there is and there should be movement of academic staff. With regard to the brain drain, if it exists, far fewer people leave—a factor of 30 per cent.—than in the 1960s. The matter is largely in balance with an inflow of about a dozen. I shall certainly ask Sir Mark Richmond the question which the noble Lord asks.