University Physics Departments (Hansard, 19 February 1997)

§ The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)
My Lords, it is for individual universities to assess the viability of their own departments, in physics as in other subjects, in the light of demand from suitably qualified applicants and other factors. The Government attach high priority to science education and research. But it is not for the Government to dictate either to universities how they should organise their academic or financial affairs or to students which subjects they should study.

§ Baroness Lockwood
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and acknowledge the excellence of many of our physics departments, particularly in the area of research. However, despite the substantial increase in the participation rate of 18 year-olds in universities is it not a fact that that same increase has not taken place among applicants to physics departments, the numbers of whom have remained fairly constant over the past 20 years at about 2,900 per annum? Secondly, is it not a fact that even the largest and most successful physics departments still have difficulty in maintaining their financial viability without cross-subsidy from other departments? Does that not suggest that there is something radically wrong with the system? Do the Government agree that the time is opportune for a fundamental review of the country's needs in the whole area of physics, with a view to determining that there is a stable financial base to meet those needs?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I can give an assurance that just such a review is taking place under the chairmanship of Sir Ron Dearing. He is looking at the whole of the university sector. I should not wish to prejudge any of his 680 comments, but I doubt that central manpower planning would be the foremost review to come forward. That has always been fraught with difficulty.
Perhaps I may correct the impression given by the noble Baroness about declining numbers. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of students in higher education. We have also seen an increase in the numbers of those studying science and technology. The numbers of full-time first degree students on physics or science courses rose by 52 per cent. between 1990 and 1994. That is roughly the same as the 53 per cent. increase in student numbers over that period. Further, we are near the top of the OECD league for the proportion of new science and engineering graduates entering the workforce; and we are certainly well ahead of both the United States and Germany.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a principal reason for problems in physics departments is the low standard of mathematics of many of those who ask for places? Is the Minister able to give your Lordships some reason to hope that the A-level standard will be restored and that steps will be taken to improve the calibre of those teaching mathematics in school sixth forms and sixth form colleges?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the need to ensure that there is a supply of suitable applicants. I can assure him that the national curriculum now requires all young people to take science to the age of 16. That has led to a significant increase in the achievement of science GCSEs. For example, last year we saw the first ever signs since the introduction of GCSEs of an increase in the numbers of those taking single subject physics. I believe that that is to be welcomed.
My noble friend is also right to draw attention to the problems in mathematics and the need to maintain rigour in A-levels. That is a matter that we have addressed, as I think my noble friend is well aware.

§ Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, will the Minister answer the Question that is before him? Are the Government satisfied with the viability of physics departments, or not? Will he answer yes or no?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as I made absolutely clear, it is a matter for the individual institutions to look at their own subjects, whether physics or whatever. We do not believe it is a matter for us. I am sure that most of those involved in higher education would not want governments interfering in the internal affairs of their institutions.

§ Lord Haskel
My Lords, is the Minister aware that innovative manufacturing initiatives have successfully brought together government departments, university physics departments and research councils? They provide co-ordinated collaboration between industry and the science base. Those initiatives help a lot of manufacturing companies in this country. In view of 681 what my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, will the Minister ensure that physics departments are not the weak link in that chain?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as I said, it is a matter for the individual institutions to look at their own departments. I am sure that all are doing so. We are satisfied that a suitable number of physics and other science graduates are emerging from our universities. That is why I quoted a figure showing this country to be near the top of the league in terms of the numbers of new science and engineering graduates entering the workforce. I was also able to give an assurance that we had seen an increase in the number of those studying physical sciences in the universities. Whether individual universities are having problems is another matter. It is a matter for those institutions.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, to what extent does the Higher Education Funding Council advise universities on matters relating to the rationalisation of resources?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, it is open to the funding councils to offer advice to the universities, which can benefit from that advice should they so wish. We also offer advice to the funding councils: it is that science and engineering should remain priority areas.

§ Lord Morris of Castle Morris
My Lords, to follow up the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, can the Minister help me on two matters? Why is the Higher Education Funding Council unit of resource for physics lower than that for chemistry, biosciences or earth sciences? Will he tell the House the average cost to an English university of its department of physics as compared with its departments of chemistry and biology?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, without notice I cannot answer those questions. That is a matter for the funding council. I will certainly ask the council to write to the noble Lord explaining the reasons for the different units that are used for different subjects.

§ Lord Winston
My Lords, the Minister gave us assurances about undergraduate entry to education. Can he give similar assurances about postgraduate physics students, particularly PhD students? Have the numbers increased to the same extent? They contribute so much to our science and technology base.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as I understand it, the same figures are broadly true for postgraduates as for undergraduates, and science and technology continue to account for about one-third of all graduate output. A very high proportion of physics graduates go on to postgraduate study. I believe the figure is in the order of 43 per cent., compared with some 21 per cent. for all other subjects.

§ Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a disproportionate number of overseas students in the various physical science 682 departments? Will he furnish the House with some exact figures? I think they would tend to throw a different light on the figures that he gave originally.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the figures that the noble Viscount requires. I can only repeat that it is pretty clear that we turn out a fairly large number of physics and other science graduates. We have sufficient for the needs of the economy. We also heard only today from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the economy is in pretty good shape. That would seem to endorse the policies that we are pursuing.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
You must be joking!