UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 250-i
House of COMMONS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
OST Scrutiny
2005
Wednesday 2 March 2005
LORD SAINSBURY OF TURVILLE
Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 43
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
|
1.
|
This is an uncorrected and unpublished
transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House
|
|
2.
|
The transcript is not yet an approved
formal record of these proceedings. Any public use of, or reference to the
contents should make clear that neither Members nor witnesses have had the
opportunity to correct the record. If in doubt as to the propriety of using
the transcript, please contact the Clerk to the Committee.
|
|
3.
|
Members
who receive this for the purpose of correcting
questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the
Committee Assistant.
|
|
4.
|
Prospective
witnesses may receive this in preparation for any
written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
|
Oral Evidence
Taken
before the Science and Technology Committee
on
Wednesday 2 March 2005
Members present
Dr Ian Gibson, in the Chair
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Mr Robert Key
Mr Tony McWalter
Dr Desmond Turner
________________
Witness:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville, a Member of the House of Lords,
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Science and Innovation, Department of
Trade and Industry, examined.
Q1 Chairman:
Lord
Sainsbury, thank you very, very much for coming again. We will try and sharpen it up to 30 minutes
and the best way we can do that is that you know the questions and the areas
and if you can just reply, like you do in the Chamber to questions that are
written down, then somebody will reply from our side and will ask a
supplementary question. I will try and
restrict each question to about five minutes.
Question 1?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I share the Committee's concern about the need to show that we
have proper teaching facilities in key areas/strategic areas for the economy
and that in fact is why, long before there was the Exeter situation, in the ten
year framework, the science innovation, we set out what we would do in this
area in terms of HEFCE taking an interest in the regional balance looking at
the funding of teaching in chemistry departments and the whole area of
encouraging more chemistry students to come forward.
Q2 Dr
Iddon: One of the biggest problems appears to be the size of the cliff
between five-rated departments, rated according to the RAE, and four-star
departments. It is becoming rapidly
clear that four departments, certainly in my subject, chemistry, are not
sustainable with the size of this cliff.
Once a department drops from five to four, God help it, it has great
difficulty surviving. Are the
Government going to address this problem?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I agree with you that that is a problem but I would put it in a
slightly different way, which is that I think we have set up a system where
essentially, though this is debatable on the facts, we use research money to
fund the teaching side in these areas.
I think we have to get this sorted out.
People have come forward saying, "We run a four chemistry department and
it is fine, we do not lose money on it", but I think there are cases where that
is so and I think the requirement is that, if you have a teaching department,
whatever the level of research, it should pay for itself. So, if there are more or less good research
universities, that does not affect the amount of teaching in chemistry. So, I think there is a big issue around
getting the funding right at the teaching side of chemistry.
Q3 Dr
Iddon: Even on the teaching side there is a problem in that science and
engineering of course is extremely expensive to put on in terms of laboratory
accommodation. Fume cupboards are very
expensive these days, for example. Even
in the engineering workshop provision, that is very expensive. If you just want a teaching only department,
the costs proportionally do rise because at least you have the opportunity of
bringing research money in to refurbish your laboratories for research
purposes. To keep a laboratory running
for teaching only purposes would be extremely expensive and I am hearing
rumours that the TRAC exercise is showing that there is not a sustainable
chemistry department, including Oxford I have to say and Oxford have made that
completely well known, with the current dual funding system.
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I think that getting the information of TRAC is the absolute key
to this because, as I say, there is wide disagreement about what the costs of
doing these things are. My instinct
says that you are absolutely right, that this is much more expensive than we
think, and that HEFCE's claim that they fund it on the basis of what
information comes from the universities I am not certain is very good
information or necessarily on comparable basis. I think getting the TRAC information right, in order that we know
what the situation is, is the first step in trying to achieve what I said which
is, how do we make certain that the teaching side of this can stand on its own?
Q4 Mr McWalter: Professor Keith O'Nions,
Director General of the Research Councils, came before us and afterwards he
specifically expressed to me the view that actually you probably need a new
University Grants Committee, a new UGC, because they actually have within their
brief the welfare of the subject at a national level and the only way of doing
things like preserving mathematics at Hull, which is not a particular expensive
department, nevertheless maths is perceived as difficult, students will vote
with their feet to go into subjects which are perceived by them to be easier
and we end up losing a critical mass of capacity on the part of young people
for the future welfare of our economy.
Surely we must revisit the argument as to whether the role of the UGC
should be in place because clearly neither HEFCE nor the Research Councils are
capable of fulfilling the function which directs students to subjects other
than those to which they feel driven by some kind of market.
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I think there are three different issues here. One is the number of students and that, to
me, in most of these instances, is the biggest area. The system is that if there are the students there, then usually
the system will respond to it. I think
the first thing that we have to do - and this is about the quality of the
teaching, the qualifications and the pay of teachers in science subjects and
indeed communicating to young people the importance of these subjects ---
Q5 Mr
McWalter: Which we do not do.
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: Which I do not think we do nearly well enough and I think we have
a lot more to do on that. So, we have
to make certain that the numbers are there.
There is a second issue which is the number of departments. Certainly in chemistry - and I think for
most others - there is no problem in terms of the numbers of departments to
cover the students who want to do the subject.
The third issue is the regional balance of departments across the
country and there HEFCE are now taking much more interest in that and looking
at whether they should do things to make certain that there is a regional
balance. I have to say that the main issue
is the numbers of students. As far as
departments are concerned, I think this is about incentives and I think that
the system responds pretty quickly to incentives. If we say that we are really keen to have more chemistry students
or that there is not enough provision for chemistry students, so we need more
provision for chemistry students and we will pay at a very good rate, then I
think the system is quite responsive to that.
Q6 Chairman:
Question 2?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: We are very supportive of the ITER project and developing fusion. The EU Competition Council has given the
Commission a mandate to negotiate a six party ITER site sited in France and the
Council has also given the Commission a mandate to conclude a deal with less
than the six partners if necessary. I
should say that we are also very keen that facilities such as IFMIF should also
be included in this because, if we want to have the fast TRAC, it is important
that we have IFMIF being done alongside ITER.
The EU is currently negotiating with Japan which will be on the basis of
the main ITER site being in France but there will be some facilities also in
Japan. We are waiting a response from
Japan but I think it is clearly clear that we will have to start making
decisions fairly soon and we cannot prolong these negotiations
indefinitely. It would be by far the
best solution if we could have a negotiated settlement with ITER in Cadarache
and some other facilities like IFMIF in Japan.
Q7 Dr
Harris: What is the deadline for agreement and what role do you see the UK
presidency of the EU play in this?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I do not think that we have a firm deadline but I think, as I
said, we are coming up rapidly to decision time on this. There is a Competition Council coming up
which will have a report on this and, if there is no sign of movement in the
negotiations, then, before we get to the presidency, we will have to start
taking action.
Q8 Dr
Harris: Before?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: Yes, before our presidency.
Q9 Dr
Harris: What are the cost implications of going it alone? Obviously we hope that would not apply but,
if that is the intention of the EU, are there cost implications to the EU and
specifically to the UK?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: There are cost implications for the EU. There would be obviously very serious cost implications for
France as the host country on this. Of
course, it very much depends on who else comes in. If we go it alone, it is quite likely that five of the six
players will still come in. We have to
work through that, so that we know that, if we do have to go along with that,
we can do it within the kind of sensible budgets of the EU plus higher
contribution from France.
Q10 Dr
Harris: Would Japan be the sixth one that would not come in?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: Yes and even they might come in if the alternative was to do
nothing.
Q11 Dr
Harris: It is disappointing that the United States is not
shoulder-to-shoulder with the UK on this!
Do you know why that is? Are you
disappointed that our American allies are not persuaded by our strong advocacy
of the European alternative/European solution here?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: Yes. It would be clearly
very helpful if they were because that would make it four-two.
Q12 Dr
Harris: Why do you think they are not?
Is it because they do not like the French or is there a scientific
reason that they cite?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: They say that they think on balance the Japanese site and
proposition is a better one. We have
failed to move them from that position.
Chairman: Well, they have French fries
back on the menu in American, so things are looking up!
Q13 Dr
Turner: There is a great concern over the time surely because the process of
negotiation over ITER has been going on for years already. For years, we have all been saying or have
all been told - I am listening increasingly hopefully now - that fusion is
25 years away now from commercial application. At the current rate of negotiations on ITER, it took them 25
years of negotiation before anyone actually starts building the machine and,
given the increasing urgency in response to climate change and the great
potential that fusion could deliver towards that, can we get some greater
urgency into this whole business, please, because it seems to me that this is
one of the most important things that anyone could hope to achieve.
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I totally agree and that is why I said that I think we are getting
to the point where certainly the UK position will be that we have to get on
with this and, if we cannot do it on a totally negotiated basis, then we have
to say that we will go alone and seek to bring in everyone else.
Q14 Dr
Turner: When are you going to get to the point of saying, "Right, that is
it"?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I think we have to wait until we hear more from the Commission
about how things are progressing with the Japanese.
Q15 Dr
Harris: It will be a better use of money than the Millennium Dome, will it
not?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: Some people are divided on this issue! I support all science projects enormously enthusiastically.
Q16 Chairman:
Well
said! Question 3, the Asian Tsunami and
no domes!
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I think we have done quite a lot of useful work because of our
very good research in this area. We
knew relatively quickly through the British geological survey work about what
had happened and we supplied quite a lot of data on this, but there are a whole
series of things that we are now doing in the science field to help. We sent out British Geological Service
scientists who have gone out to help train Thai scientists. HMS Gott(?) is assigned to undertake a
survey of the Indian Ocean earthquake disaster epicentre, that is to help a
further understanding of the earthquakes and assist prediction of such events
in the future. The Metrological Office
is playing a role in improving the global telecommunication system to enable
tsunami early warning to be distributed effectively within the area and the Met
Office is assisting in the reconstruction of the Maldives and Seychelles
metrological services which were particularly affected by the tsunami. We are undertaking a very interesting
project between the Thai Government, Bangkok University and a British NGO,
Coralcave(?) Conservation, which is looking into the damage of the reefs in the
Surin Marine Park in Thailand. Coming
closer to home, the Prime Minister asked Sir David King, the Government Chief
Scientific Adviser, to consider and advise on the mechanisms that could and
should be established for the detection and early warning of global physical
natural hazards. So, I think we are
both helping in a very practical way to the particular short-term situation but
also we are looking ahead to see whether there are other things we should do on
a more long-term basis.
Q17 Dr
Turner: Is it true to say that there is was not enough British expertise
that will be contributed towards the development of an early warning system
and, if so, what role is DfID playing in this?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: In fact, as you probably know, there has been a huge rush of
people offering to provide early warning systems and I think we can probably do
more about the communication links and how we actually get this working
practically in the countries. That is
where we are more focusing our efforts in this.
Q18 Dr
Turner: How have the Government responded to UNESCO's request to provide
scientists to support the sea level monitoring stations in the western Indian
Ocean? You clearly had discussions with
Sir David King about the role of the British Geological survey in this as
well. Will we be partaking in this?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I, frankly, do not know.
If I may, I will write to you specifically on that particular
question. We are involved in a whole
series of these working parties in different areas. What is specifically happening on that I am not certain but I
will come back to you.
Dr Turner: It is also
true that there is a potential tsunami waiting to happen that would engulf the
eastern seaboard of the United States and also affect our own shores. Are you satisfied that we will be prepared
if that were to happen?
Chairman: What do you know about
tectonic plates that John Prescott does not?
Q19 Dr
Turner: There is a bit of the (?) islands that is about to fall into the
sea!
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: There are some issues here and Defra are doing some rather quick
studies on that to see whether we should be doing more in terms of the entire
UK position on this.
Q20 Chairman:
Question 4, scientific publications and access.
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I have not specifically talked of Research Councils, that has been
done through Keith O'Nions who has been talking to Ian Diamond, who is the
Chair of Research Councils UK, on this issue.
I personally saw three groups of people on this. First of all Harold Varmus, who is of course
the former Head of the National Institute of Health, who was over in this
country and who has of course been the biggest proponent of open access
publishing in the United States. As I
knew him, I arranged to see him because he seemed to be the clearest advocate
on this case. I saw Elsevier Science to
get the publisher's view and then I saw the Association of Learned Publishers
because the learned societies are one of the people who have strong views on
that. As I say, Keith O'Nions has been
talking to Professor Ian Diamond on Research Councils.
Q21 Chairman:
As
regards the role of the RCUK in trying to bring the Research Councils together
and coming up with a common policy, will the DTI interfere with their
independence on this decision?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: No. We of course have
discussions with them but it is for them to decide what ---
Q22 Chairman:
Are
the discussions heated or agreeable?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I think they have now come to a position and I am waiting for them
to come forward with a statement of their views on this subject and that will
be fairly soon, I think.
Q23 Chairman:
And
the rumour is ...?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: We do not listen to rumours.
Q24 Chairman:
The
truth?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: What I can say is that we think it is not very different from our
own position on this.
Q25 Dr
Harris: How independent are the Research Councils in respect of their
policy on this?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: Of course they all are.
This needs to be said. They all
have their own charters; they are totally independent; they have independent
chairmen. Equally, I think one should
say that the money comes from the Government which fund them and so inevitably
there is some influence in terms of their performance and we have a
responsibility to monitor that performance.
They are independent. They take
that independence very seriously and, if we overstep the mark, they tell us to
go away, basically.
Q26 Dr
Harris: If they came up with a policy of saying that they wanted to see
research they had funded made available in some form in a repository, for
example, then what is there for the DTI to discuss with them if that is their
view?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I suspect it would come down to the question of where the money for
that came from but if they said, "This is such an important priority to us that
we will provide the money for it", then I think that is probably their choice.
Q27 Chairman:
Are
you aware that some universities in this country are now setting up such
repositories or even investigating setting them up? They are ahead of the game while you are dithering.
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: We are not against universities setting up repositories. If that is what they feel is in their
interests to do and is valuable to their scientists, then we have no reason or
desire to stop them. If it comes to a
question of where money comes, we have to ask the question, "Do we think this
is the best use of money we have?" but if universities want to, I think that is
fine.
Q28 Dr
Harris: In answer to my question, you said that it would not be an issue
for you unless it involved the spending of money but then, if they decided that
it was a priority, that would be okay.
As I say, I thought that if they were independent in the use and the
spending of money, according to their priorities, then I still do not
understand what the role of the DTI and the OST is in respect of that policy.
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I need to look rather carefully at what are the terms on which we
give them money. I think it would be
the case - and I would be sympathetic to the view - that if they said, "We have
given money from this and we think this has an important priority, so we will
give some of our money, as Research Councils, to universities to do that", then
I am not certain that we would be in a position to say "no" to them. I would need to look at that question
because I am not certain that, in giving the money, how closely we specify how
it should be used. It may be that we
say that this can only be used for research grants.
Q29 Dr
Harris: But you can clarify that?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I will clarify that point.
Q30 Chairman:
Question 5, which is about the ten year science and investment
framework?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: This has been coordinated in two ways. First of all, the ministerial group on science innovation
knowledge economy has a brief to look at this.
I am meeting with Kim Howells, who is the Minister in charge of
universities and further education in DfES, and we are having quarterly
meetings to review it and of course we said that we would have a stock take and
publish it in July and we will do that.
Q31 Mr
Key: How are the different roles and interests of the departments
involved being coordinated?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: Through the ministerial group but, before we get to the
ministerial group, Kim Howells and I are having these quarterly meetings to
review progress on this in order that we make certain that we are working
together in pushing it forward.
Q32 Mr
Key: Clearly the Research Councils are going to have an important role
in delivery. Will the Research Councils
have a real terms budget increase to increase their research volume as well
under the new settlement?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: The amount of money going to them will be a substantial real term
increase. It is an increase of 5.8 per
cent per annum in real terms. The main
part of that, or a chunk of it anyway, will go towards making certain that the
projects they fund are more fully funded than they were before. That does not mean that there will be less
research or the same amount of research because that will free up other money
that universities were using to cover these projects and they can use that in
other ways.
Q33 Mr
Key: Obviously, full economic costs will have a big impact and so will
salary increases have a big impact. Are
there any Research Councils that really can look forward to a real terms
increase to allow them to expand research?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: There is no question.
Salary increases in the Research Council area and universities are going
up by 5.8 per cent annum in real terms.
That is a very substantial increase.
In real terms, it is 5.8 per cent per annum and of course that will mean
there will be more research done.
Q34 Dr
Iddon: How do we involve other stakeholders to ensure that we have
maximum efficiency of this very welcome increased expenditure in this area?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I think there are two areas.
I actually think that the Research Councils do a pretty good job in
terms of the way they allocate this money.
This in fact goes back to the innovation report because, in the report,
we said we will agree knowledge transfer objectives with Research Councils as
well and that has been done, and of course we review very carefully the way
that that money is allocated by the Research Councils. Finally of course, we have a project to
improve the administrative efficiency of Research Councils and the way they
work together and we are proceeding on that as well.
Q35 Chairman:
Question 6, the last question, which is to do with the staff
numbers and the Gershon review in your department?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: The DTI's SR for target staff reductions is 1010 is that about
20 per cent of the baseline for the core groups including the Small
Business Service but not UKTI. Within
that total, the number of OST staff is planned by just four, that is from 149
on 1 April 2005 to 145 on 31 March 2006.
That is a very small cut compared to the other cuts across the DTI and
reflects the fact that science and engineering, along with knowledge transfer
and innovation, are key DTI priorities which were clearly set out in the ten
year investment framework.
Q36 Chairman:
Are
you saying that having the ten-year plan saved their bacon?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I also think it was a recognition of how hard people in the OST
work.
Q37 Chairman:
There is another way of looking at that: it could have increased
as well to recognise the heightened interest in science and technology within
Government.
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: Yes but even I do not have the nerve, while the rest of the
department has been cut by 20 per cent, to say, "We should now have a 10 per
cent increase." I think people do have
to work very hard in this part of the DTI but I think that, with those numbers,
we can do a first-class job.
Q38 Chairman:
Are
you saying that here has been some degree of ring-fencing against this?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: In a situation like this where one is cutting by 20 per cent,
which is really very substantial, then I think we have to ask where the
priorities are and, as the DTI's five-year plan makes very clear, science and
innovation is not just a priority for the OST, it is now the number one
priority really for the DTI itself.
Q39 Chairman:
After
5 May - and none of us know what is really going to happen including anyone
sitting around here, for example - do you think that the OST will be
moved? What have you picked up? I see some of your officials smiling behind
you.
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: As far as I know, not if the Labour Government ---
Q40 Chairman:
Not
even a rumour? We have picked up
rumours or is it just fluff?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I do not know. Even my
special adviser has not come up with a good rumour in this area and, if special
advisers are not on to it ...
Q41 Chairman:
Maybe they are one of the four, of course!
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: That is true!
Q42 Chairman:
The
Chief Scientific Adviser has often spoken in different environments about the
number of people he has under his control going to other departments,
Government Departments, to see how they are operating and indeed has said that
they have to use consultants at goodness knows what cost. I think he sent something like one person
into a department amplified by such consultants. Is finding out how departments do it a good thing for the
recognition of science? Is this the
best way to get information? He has
done a report in DCMS and you will know of the difficulties in others. Is that not caused by the fact that you do
not have enough people - a team/taskforce going in?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I think it is always the question of whether you need people as
permanent staff or whether you need them for one-off assignments to do
particular things. In this case, I
think that, given the pressures, we have taken the view that it has to be
one-off: this is considered as essentially one-off assignments for particular
areas. I have to say that my own
particular view is that we too often use consultants in these areas and we
should push the balance a little further back towards permanent people, but it
is a difficult thing where you have lumpy assignments, of course.
Q43 Chairman:
Is
it not really a permanent revolution going into these departments and finding
out? It is not just a one-off thing and
that is it forever. In the same way as
this Committee has looked at and scrutinised Research Councils which many
people have valued and some have not.
It would not be something where you would do it once and that is it forever,
would it? Your scrutiny of Government
Departments would not be just a one-off either, would it? It would be a permanent revolution, would it
not?
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: Of course, you would want to come back and do more scrutinies of
the Research Council, but if you could give us a short break before you do the
next lot, that would be appreciated!
The odd moment when we were not under scrutiny might be helpful.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Can I
say personally that it has been a pleasure that you have reacted to our request
that you come and answer questions and you have done that very openly and in a
most friendly fashion with the Committee and it has been very welcome. I hope the scientific and technology
community out there value this new enterprise.
Thank you very much, David. I
hope to see you back on 6 May! That was
not a question, David, you do not have to answer!
Lord Sainsbury of
Turville: I was going to tell you about a meeting I had with the Japanese
Science Minister when I said to him, "In the UK, we have an expression that a
week is a long time in politics" and he said, "In Japan, we also have a phrase
like that. We say, 'Three centimetres
ahead and all is darkness.'" That is
the basis I am working on at the moment!
Chairman: I am sure that your support
will see you home again! Thank you very
much.
