|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 903-i House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COmmittee
FUNDING OF SCIENCE AND DISCOVERY CENTRES
WEDNESDAY 11 JUly 2007 MS LINDA CONLON, MR COLIN BROWN, MR PHIL WINFIELD and MR ALEC COLES
MS CLARE MATTERSON, MR RICHARD HALKETT and DR PETER ANDERSON
JIM KNIGHT MP, IAN PEARSON MP and THE RT HON MARGARET HODGE MBE MP Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 107
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Science and Technology Committee on Wednesday 11 July 2007 Members present Mr Phil Willis, in the Chair Adam Afriyie Linda Gilroy Dr Evan Harris Dr Brian Iddon Dr Desmond Turner ________________
Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Ms Linda Conlon, Chair, Ecsite-uk; Director, Centre for Life, Mr Colin Brown, Chief Executive, The Deep, Mr Phil Winfield, Director, INTECH, and Mr Alec Coles, Director, Tyne & Wear Museums, gave evidence.
Chairman: Good morning, everyone. I welcome you to this one-off session on science and discovery centres. We are very, very tight on time this morning; we have roughly 35-40 minutes to each of our three panels. I will move on without further ado to introduce our first panel for the record. Linda Conlon, the Chairman of Ecsite-uk and Director for the Centre for Life, good morning again, Linda; Colin Brown, Chief Executive of The Deep, good morning, Colin; Phil Winfield is the Director of INTECH, good morning to you; and Alec Coles is the Director of Tyne & Wear Museums. Linda, would you be the sub-chair of your panel and, if there any questions that you think should be deflected to your colleagues, then, please, do so, but we will try and direct questions to individual members. Dr Iddon: I have to declare two interests: I am Chairman of the Board that runs the Bolton Technical Innovation Centre Limited and I am patron of the Catalyst Science Discovery Centre although I receive no remuneration from either of those organisations. Linda Gilroy: I am a member of the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth and I do a lot of work with them. Q1 Chairman: Thank you very much, indeed. I would like to begin with you, Linda: would you tell us very, very briefly what a science and discovery centre is. Ms Conlon: I knew that I would get this as a first question and there is not a single definitive answer but I will try to paint you a picture. A science and discovery centre typically is a science-based institution which deals with a range of science subjects. If you think about a map of the UK, you might have been to science centres in Bristol, Newcastle, Rotherham, Manchester and Birmingham. They are large institutions which typically at their heart have a collection of interactive exhibits. By "interactive", I mean an exhibit with which you as a person or the member of your family will interact with the intention of sparking curiosity and trying to help you to understand scientific phenomena. Q2 Chairman: How do they differ from museums then? Ms Conlon: The one principal difference is that, in order to qualify as a museum, you need a collection, but that does not mean to say - and I am sure my colleague Alec Coles would agree with me - that museums are purely collections-based institutions. Science centres and museums often use similar techniques to communicate to the public and to help interpret what they do, but I think that the single clearest definition which I can offer you is that museums do have a collection that they need to look after and, with science centres, I suppose that their collection is their interactive exhibits. Q3 Chairman: Alec, in terms of their role in society, what sort of valuable roles do they play? What would we miss if we were not there? Mr Coles: Science centres specifically? Q4 Chairman: Yes. Mr Coles: We are all aware of a dearth of science expertise coming through at exactly the time when we need it most probably in terms of nature's development and what science centres are clearly doing is foregrounding science as something that is acceptable, that is interesting and is a desirable occupation, hopefully inspiring people to consider it as a career in the future. I think that they have a long-term impact not only on people's lives but also on the health of the nation. Q5 Chairman: Colin, if you were not there, would we miss you? Mr Brown: Personally, yes, you would certainly miss us. I would like to try and describe what it is like to actually be at The Deep when we have a school party in. Hull is one of the most deprived cities in the country and it has the lowest educational standards in the country. We have a lot of local schools and 14 to 15 year olds who come in as a rabble and I have seen their faces change as they have really stared in wonder at the sort of exhibits that we have and have worked our interactives and you can almost see them being in a position where they are learning. When we were building The Deep, we began by saying that our children do not have the lowest educational standards because they lack information, what they lack is inspiration and I think that the science centres give that inspiration to our youngsters to learn about science. Q6 Chairman: Is their primary role to turn young people on to education or is it a broader public engagement role? What is your priority? Mr Brown: It may be different in different science centres. Our priority is to try and change people's attitudes to science and to try and engage them in issues such as biodiversity, in our case global warming because, if we can actually change people's attitudes and educate them in those issues, we can have a genuine democratic debate about them. We have seen with things like vaccination, BSC, the whole democratic debate gets skewered towards emotion and what somebody's aunty said or whether I am born under the sign of Aquarius and what we need is for people to understand the basics of those quite complex scientific arguments in order that we can actually engage with the community. Q7 Chairman: Phil, that all sounds very plausible to me, so I have bought into that, but we are a committee that is interested in evidence. Where is the evidence to say that what your three colleagues have spoken about so eloquently so far is actually true and it makes a blind bit of difference? Where is the evaluation? Mr Winfield: I think that education centres is the primary function of most of my colleagues and that education can be formal or informal. Certainly from the formal education point of view, we engage, for instance, with the local authority, we understand where their educational issues are in terms of the objectives they need to meet and where there are issues and we have designed our educational programme around correcting some of those areas of downfall, if you like, by the local authority. For instance, our local authority in Hampshire noticed that there was a problem in the transition between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 where children were turned off science, if you like, and we developed programmes to bridge that gap and keep the inspiration going. We will monitor that and we continue to monitor that to see if we have that necessary improvement to that education service. Q8 Chairman: When you saying that you are monitoring it, what does that mean? Mr Winfield: We can only do that by looking at the standards achieved and because we are tightly bound with our local authority, we will work with them to understand if those standards have improved as a result of a combination of what they have done and what we have done. Q9 Chairman: Is there a blind bit of evidence to say that the science centres across England have actually turned people on to careers in science, for instance? Mr Winfield: There is no one piece of evidence. Q10 Chairman: Is there any evidence? Mr Winfield: I think there is evidence. I think that colleagues here could point to evidence. Certainly in the education field, I think that there is clear evidence and that would depend on centre to centre and different education programmes that they run to achieve that. In terms of whether you have actually inspired somebody about science, clearly that is a very, very difficult thing to measure. Q11 Chairman: Yes, of course it is. Mr Winfield: Because there are so many influences and variables in a child's development. Q12 Chairman: Linda, is there any evidence? Ms Conlon: Yes. I think that it is very, very difficult indeed to claim that someone has won a Nobel Prize because they went to a science centre when they were 12. That would be grossly simplistic. I think that those of us who have managed to work with schools over a sustained period of time find it easier to evaluate than simply to look at a single visit in isolation. Certainly there are a number of science centres that have worked for a term, for example, with socially disadvantaged schools and have been able to measure at the outset attitudes to science, take-up of science, interest in science, understanding of science and, over a term, have been able to see an appreciative difference and an increase of interest in science. What is good for the school is that then you can leave a model behind which the school can use and sustain those results over a period of time. My colleagues would like to add to that. Mr Coles: Obviously you will aware that the museum sector has been doing a lot of evaluation in terms of impact: social impact, educational impact, cultural impact. I want to point to something in particular which is a project with which we were involved with the Natural History Museum, the Museum of Zoology and the Manchester Museum which is funded through something called Strategic Commissioning which was DCMS and DfES funded and it was called Real World Science, which was a series of life science base particularly looking at not only life science of chemistry but very much related to the Key Stage 3, 4 and 5 curricula. As a result of those sessions, the testimony - and I appreciate that it is testimony and Linda's point is right, that we have not tracked those kids through to what they did but what they said they were interested in - revealed that 20/25 per cent across all the programmes and something like 40 per cent in the Natural History Museum actually said that, as a result of that engagement, they were more interested in science and more likely to pursue a career in science. Mr Brown: Slightly more than a pot-full perhaps but, since we opened in Hull, the under of undergraduates studying marine biology has tripled and our education sessions have now reached capacity, we are full up, and we monitor the teachers' reactions and they tell us that there is a definite change in their children's attitude. Q13 Dr Turner: Linda, the body which you chair, Ecsite-uk, is conducting a review on behalf of the Government demonstrating the impact of science centres and the added value that they deliver. Is there not a risk - you obviously are not a disinterested body and it would be a matter of great surprise if you did not conclude that they had an enormous impact and delivered a lot of added value - of people saying, "Well, they would say that, would they not?" Do you not think that it might have been helpful to your case - you want more status with the Government and you want all the funding and support that you can get - if that message had been delivered, as presumably it would in any event, by some independent reviewer? Ms Conlon: Yes, you are absolutely right, we would say that, would we not, but we have to start somewhere. Science centres have been around for some time but I think that the advent of the millennium science centres which were large physically impressive buildings certainly did put the spotlight on science centres in a way that had not happened before then. Science centres themselves have been collecting data. We need robust data in order to fulfil our business plans and run ourselves as efficiently and as effectively as we need to. Science centres are collecting data but I do not think that we are collecting it consistently at present. We have been very busy trying to establish our businesses, trying to improve things, trying to introduce new exhibits, trying to get on with the minutia of running the science centre and there has not been a huge amount of money available to us to actually carry out research in a systematic, robust and consistent way. We are now addressing that. We have received money, you are absolutely right, and we have carried out the first stage in our research which admittedly is quantitative. We do need to look at more qualitative measures, we do need to be more consistent and we will be commissioning the second stage of study and it will be an independent study because I think, as in Scotland for example, the Scottish Executive made available money to four science centres there but it was based upon independent assessment by independent economic consultants and that money is only released on a quarter-by-quarter basis against stipulated criteria which all science centres adhere to. We are getting there but we are not there yet. Q14 Dr Turner: But an independent review would strengthen your case. Ms Conlon: It would indeed, absolutely. Q15 Dr Harris: Mr Brown, would you say that the management in your science centre from the Chief Executive downwards is heavy handed and hierarchical? Mr Brown: No. Q16 Dr Harris: But in your evidence, you said that you thought that this was quite common in science centres. Mr Brown: I did not use the words "heavy handed". Q17 Dr Harris: I am sorry, top heavy and inward looking. Is that your science centre or is that other people's? Mr Brown: I used the words "some science centres" and I believe that that is true and I believe that the evidence supports that. Q18 Dr Harris: How do you know? Mr Brown: To give you some examples, The Deep's marketing salaries are £65,000. We have 400,000 people pass through a year. A similar attraction gets about £280,000 and spends three times as much as we do. We have one operations manager who deals with not only operational things but also health and safety and personnel. There are other science centres that employ a personnel director, a personnel manager and a health and safety coordinator. There may be reasons for that. It may be that they have specific problems or specific issues that they need that structure for. My main point was that nobody knows that and, without any peer group review, there is no way of shining a light on to that. Q19 Dr Harris: Do any of you recognise yourselves in what has just been said? Ms Conlon: I do not recognise myself. Mr Brown: It was not you, Linda. Ms Conlon: Thank you! Science centres are very different. Colin runs an aquarium which has its own special requirements and needs. Science centres deal with a multiplicity of science topics and employ typically large education teams and large teams of science explainers and it costs money. You cannot do it on a shoestring. I think that it would be foolish to read too much into looking at one operation without really drilling down into the detail and looking and seeing what you get for your money. It might be that it is necessary to spend several hundred thousand pounds on staffing because we pride ourselves on engagement with qualified science explainers. That is one of our USP. It costs money. Mr Coles: I want to agree with that and say that I do not recognise myself, I hope, and I do not recognise others. The fact is that quality engagement comes at a price and we really should not just be talking about a numbers game, we should be talking about the experience and the way that actually changes the outlook of the person who engages and that costs money and certainly my experience in the science centres I know is that there is an awful lot invested at that contact level which is where the difference gets made. Q20 Linda Gilroy: Colin, in connection with what you were saying about the visitor numbers, what is the breakdown as between what you would classify as tourist visitors and educational visitors? Presumably, the educational visits are subsidised in some way or paid for in some way perhaps and could you describe what that consists of. Mr Brown: With our educational programme, we subsidise the entry ticket for children so that it is cheaper than a normal visit and then all of the educational input is free of charge; we do not make any additional charge for the educational input. Q21 Linda Gilroy: What is the range of your charges? Mr Brown: The education fee is £5 per child and that includes obviously the visit but a session with a qualified teacher as well for 40 minutes. In terms of the first part of it, the vast majority of our customers come from within a one-and-a-half-hour drive time. So, they basically come from the Yorkshire conurbation: Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and as far as York and Lincoln. So, inasmuch as they are tourists, they are only day tourists, they come for the afternoon, and I would find it difficult to draw a distinction between who comes as a tourist and who does not. I did have a complaint from one tourist once that they wanted their money back because it was too educational and I apologised if they had accidentally learned anything! Q22 Chairman: The children I taught at school said the same! Mr Brown: The point of course is that we try and teach everybody who comes in through osmosis even if there is not a conventional teacher/pupil relationship there. Q23 Dr Harris: Linda, is your review going to look into whether there is best practice in terms of the correct investment in marketing and the best way of slim lining, if you like, and getting efficient management or is that outside the terms of the review you have been asked to do and is there another way in which you are going to try and identify and spread best practice? Ms Conlon: Ecsite-uk already does try to exchange best practice; it does collaborate; it does hold master classes in several topic areas which are of interest to all science centres such as marketing and such as human resources, for example. I think that you have to allow science centres the discretion to understand their local contexts and to run their businesses as they think fit, but I think that it is useful to look at best practice and to share it, so, yes. Q24 Chairman: I would like to follow on from that very briefly to say that, in terms of Scotland, they have a different model whereby it is a much more collaborative model. Have you looked at that within the regions, say, or within other parts of the UK? Ms Conlon: The situation varies throughout the UK. In Scotland, the Scottish Executive supports more science centres in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow, Glasgow being by far the largest. Each of those centres receives money from the Scottish Executive which it uses against a set of criteria. It also works collaboratively on initiatives such as human resources and such as marketing, so it works together on areas where it is sensible and economical to work together and share best practice and then it responds to its local context and runs its business as it needs to. Q25 Chairman: Is it a model that we should look at? Ms Conlon: I think it most certainly is. Q26 Dr Harris: If outside funding came let us say from Government, but a condition was that there was going to be a chief executive for all centres and that they would all come under a management structure and maybe even nationalised to make sure that they were not overlapping and best practice was identified and applied, would that be acceptable or would some seek to go it alone in your view? Ms Conlon: I think that is a huge question to answer simplistically with a "yes" or a "no". I think that obviously we would welcome any opportunities to secure funding but, at the same time, I think that I would be speaking for my colleagues by saying that I am the Chief Executive of the Centre for Life and I am very happy to work and receive any funding I might get and to demonstrate and I am giving outputs, but I think to have one chief executive directing all science centres might just be a step too far although I certainly would not rule it out and we would talk. Mr Coles: That is not mirrored in any way in the museums or art centres and we would like to think that one of the strengths of that sector is, if you like, the regionalism and the fact that you have regional centres and that we do not in fact have a director of national museums who is a director of all museums. I think that it would not necessarily be a sensible step. You would lose some of that regional identity. Q27 Dr Iddon: It occurs to me that quite a number of science centres in the broader sense are now in financial difficulty, particularly some of those set up by the Millennium Commission. Whose fault is that and why are they in difficulty? Ms Conlon: It is a big question to answer. I think that millennium centres are struggling to a greater or lesser degree. They do very well to bring in around 80 per cent of their operating costs. That is largely made up from ticket sales, shop, café and from ancillary income related to possibly hiring out of space, venues, income from property and whatever else they can raise through grants. Yes, I think that they are struggling. Whose fault is it? I think that the business plans of a number of millennium science centres were unrealistic. They were based upon high visitor numbers sustained over a period of time which was not realistic. Those business plans were approved by Government, they were looked at by independent consultants and the money was made available. So, whose fault is it? I am not so sure that it is helpful to talk about whose fault it is at this stage. Half-a-billion pounds worth of investment has gone into these centres, they are doing a good job but they could do much better with a little extra funding. I find it difficult to apportion blame but I think that Government must ask the question, why did Government approve such unrealistic plans when it was given independent advice? Q28 Dr Iddon: What about non-Millennium Commission buildings and centres? I have had to struggle with the Catalyst, for example. There are so many of those; I think there are 83 of these altogether across the country that I counted the other day and is it 12 millennium centres? Ms Conlon: Yes. Q29 Dr Iddon: So, there are an awful lot outside the millennium ring that are in difficulty as well. Why are they in difficulty? Ms Conlon: I think that they struggled quietly for many years and I think that they have been particularly entrepreneurial and imaginative in securing funding. I think it is also worth pointing out that, when you think of the millennium centres, they are big. At that time, we were all encouraged to think big. So, they are expensive buildings to run. Colin was making the point when we were talking earlier that actually you have very small to medium size businesses with turnovers typically of maybe £2/£3 million operating in buildings which would suggest that they are medium to large size. They have energy issues; they have replenishment issues; they have building maintenance issues. I think that the problem has been highlighted with the arrival of the millennium centres. I think that a number of the smaller centres have done jolly well, but I think it is fair to say that they too have struggled but perhaps on a smaller scale and on not such a noticeable scale. Q30 Dr Iddon: What do they need, capital funding or revenue funding? Ms Conlon: They need both. Unless you are a centre in a tourist destination like Edinburgh or York or London for example, typically you will depend upon local people; you will depend upon people who are coming from about 45 minutes to an hour's drive time and they will only come back if there are new things. New things means replenishment. Ideally, a centre should totally replenish within a ten year timeframe. We are talking about exhibits which are expensive and we are talking about a lot of money, but we are also talking about a real desire in the sector to be able to provide educational experiences free of charge so that every child has an entitlement, a science enrichment entitlement, and, if we could receive funding to offer that entitlement to children, then that would be wonderful. So, it is a balance: it is a balance of capital and, curiously, it is probably slightly easier to get one's hands on capital than it is on revenue because revenue is never quite so exciting a case to make as for capital. However, in answer to your question, we need both. Q31 Dr Iddon: May I bring our other three witnesses in as perhaps they want to comment on this question. Mr Winfield: I would like to fly the flag for a self-sufficient science centre. I agree with everything that Linda has said and we do have the same challenges as all the other science centres and generally we have the situation where admissions income and all the ancillary income from things like the shop, cafeteria and so are subsidising our education provision. So, in order to do more education, which is our aim and our main focus - all our goals and objectives which are all around education - and do it well and do more of it, we need to ensure that we get good income from the other areas. That means that it is okay to survive but survival is not enough because, as Linda said, there is refreshment of the exhibition or development of the exhibition or other features in the science centre and, if you do not do those sorts of things, then your income drops off, you cannot then subsidise your education provision and, as a result, the outcomes drop off as well. My science centre is self sufficient, we break even, but we do not have enough money to be able to do lots of development that we would like to do to improve our education provision and the demand for our education services is greater than what we can supply at the moment. Q32 Dr Iddon: If the Government took over all the funding that comes from so many different sources at the moment and there was core funding available for all 83 science centres in the broader sense, do you think that there would be room for the entrepreneurs to develop something different? In its time, Eureka at Halifax was different, for example. With the greatest of respect, there are a lot of aquariums, not quite like The Deep, I admit, or the one at Plymouth but they are exceptional, but a lot of towns have aquariums. If somebody wanted to go in a different direction and create something quite different in this broad remit of science centres, do you think that if there were core funding available that could happen? Ms Conlon: Yes, I do. If you look at the situation in the States, for example, there is a national science foundation. I do not think that any of us in the science centre world are expecting to get an automatic and regular handout. We are prepared to work hard for any money that comes to us and we are prepared to have any of our proposals peer reviewed. I think that actually stimulates new ideas and new thinking. Yes, it is very important to have some core funding pinned against education initiatives but, in the science centres today, we are living in a very fast moving world, controversial, sensitive, cutting-edge, scary science, and we are always looking for innovative ways of engaging with the public and I think that any proposal for money should be peer reviewed and we should only receive that money if our proposals are robust, if they stand up to scrutiny and, in turn, we can learn from some of the good projects and proposals and that in turn can be disseminated throughout the science centre sector. Q33 Dr Iddon: Is there room for failure? Ms Conlon: Is there room for failure? Q34 Dr Iddon: If somebody wanted to try something rather special? Ms Conlon: Yes. If the money is there, of course, yes. It depends on priorities. Do you want to play it safe or is there some money available to try and be entrepreneurial and to think outside the box? That would be wonderful. We would welcome that. Q35 Linda Gilroy: Has the science enrichment entitlement idea that you mentioned been worked up into a proposal at all and costed? Ms Conlon: Not one single proposal. I think it is something that we do all of the time. We recognise that we are centres to try and help and sustain the formal learning environment and so the packages and proposals that we put together on a regular basis, sometimes single science centres, sometimes working in partnership with others --- Q36 Linda Gilroy: I was thinking more like the books for babies entitlement that the Government fund. Ms Conlon: I see what you mean. Q37 Linda Gilroy: Has Ecsite and others together lobbied to try and obtain funding perhaps for doing this at each relevant stage of the curriculum? Ms Conlon: Some of us have been doing some early work on this, particularly linked to the science city initiative. Newcastle and Birmingham, for example, have been looking at science enrichment as part of an overall package of measures to promote science in our respective cities but not sector wide yet. Q38 Linda Gilroy: What about any specialist schools, science and technology status schools outside of science cities because they are few and far between at the moment? Ms Conlon: Yes, indeed. Q39 Dr Iddon: My final question is, if we were to set up the perfect model of funding for the 83 science centres, what would it be? Would it be the Scottish model or is there another preference? Mr Brown: Firstly, I do not think that it would be 83 science centres. I think that we need to be clear that some of the organisations being spoken about as science centres are already national institutions. I think that any organisation which already receives money from national or local government should be excluded from this process, so the number is smaller. Speaking for myself, I think it would be a mistake to consider two options, one of status quo or of some sort of Government takeover because the fact that we do generate over 85 per cent of our own income is a testament to the amount of entrepreneurism that is there. We need to encourage that rather than it becoming a government department. Personally, I am not looking for either revenue funding or capital funding; I would like the Government to stop taking as much money as it does away from me in terms of VAT. We pay 15 per cent VAT. Q40 Dr Iddon: Do you pay business rates? Mr Brown: We do; we pay 20 per cent. Dr Iddon: Business rates is an important point because if you are arguing that you are an educational centre, I would argue back that educational centres, like you are, should not be paying business rates. What do you say about that? Schools do not pay business rates. Q41 Chairman: This is called leading a witness! Mr Brown: I think that is true and we have approached our council about it. I think what would be useful is if Government were to make some concession available, for example VAT, but that was dependent upon the local authority also making an input in terms of waiving its business rates. I would like to see the VAT and I would like to see a peer group review in order that the Government could be assured that we are pushing forward on the excellent programme and spreading best practice. Mr Coles: On that particular point, I think there is definitely some merit in looking at incentives of that kind. We talk a lot about it in the arts field and I think there is no reason why we should not talk about it in the sciences. From the point of view of funding, obviously I come from a particular perspective: I run a museum service which has a substantial amount of local authority funding, but it is very much plurally funded with national government funding as well and, as you will be aware - and I think that the point about the 83 centres is well made - we have the Renaissance in the Regions programme for museums through DCMS and through MLA. The point has already been made not only about revenue support but about renewals and that applies to science centres, discovery centres and museums. That is the thing that maybe they do not forget but which is never built in because there is huge incentive to build new things but never such huge incentive to put things right and, ironically, the more successful they are, the quicker they need putting right because they get such a hammering, as it were. The point I made in my submission was about the museum accreditation programme because you asked the question, what is a science centre, but what is a museum and we have a definition of what a museum is and museums have to meet a certain level of standards or collections care to qualify for designation challenge funds or for Government funding through various sources or indeed heritage lottery funding, so it may be that that is something which needs looking at in terms of definition and then maybe there could be some sort of parallel programme through the Department of Science and Innovation which recognised that. Mr Winfield: I like a lot of the elements of the Scottish model in that I think there is still a lot of mileage to get leverage from collaboration of science and discovery centres. A lot of good things happen and, when my education team develop a properties and materials workshop for Hampshire, there is no reason why it would not run in Yorkshire or anywhere else for that matter. So, absolutely, there is a lot of collaboration that can be done and also on some of the functions that we have talked about like marketing and so on, but I do believe that you still need to leave some independence for the science centres because they are all very different: some are themed, some are not and so on and they know their own local needs. I think that collaboration would be high on the agenda for me. Chairman: Thank you very much, indeed. With that, I call to end this first session. Thank you very much to Linda Conlon, Colin Brown, Phil Winfield and Alec Coles. Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Ms Clare Matterson, Director of Medicine, Society and History, The Wellcome Trust, Mr Richard Halkett, Executive Director, Policy & Research Unit, NESTA, and Dr Peter Anderson, Museum Consultant, gave evidence.
Chairman: We welcome our second panel for this morning: Clare Matterson, the Director of Medicine, Society and History at The Wellcome Trust, welcome to you, Clare; Richard Halkett, the Executive Director of Policy & Research Unit at NESTA, welcome to you, Richard; and Dr Peter Anderson, Museum Consultant, welcome to you, Peter. I am going to ask Dr Turner to begin this session. Q42 Dr Turner: I would like to ask Clare and Richard to expand a little on the role of both your organisations in supporting science centres. Ms Matterson: The Wellcome Trust has a strong commitment to public engagement with science and gives a significant amount every year to that, and what we aim to do is actually look to see what are the most effective ways by which we think we can help the public to engage with science, science development, science innovation and debate and discuss issues that science raises. The extent to which our future relationship involves science centres is the extent to which we believe science centres are successful in helping us achieve that aim. Mr Halkett: NESTA's role has been in funding at the very early stage to a much smaller degree than the Wellcome Trust in two science related centres, specifically Bolton being one of them and Centre of the Cell being the other. Our role is to get involved at that very early stage; we see NESTA's role as an endowment in reaching across science technology and the arts to use that position to fund experimental high-risk projects to help them get over those initial hurdles. We try to spot high potential projects and fund them very early on and we are pleased so far. Q43 Dr Turner: You represent organisations which have quite different primary remits. Yours is a cross-cutting cultural remit essentially and the Wellcome Trust puts most of its force behind medical research, which is wonderful and which we applaud. The question is, are you both in your different ways expressing altruism in the work that you do with science centres or are you specifically focusing on achieving through science centres in the case of Wellcome greater public understanding and involvement particularly with medical science and promoting scientific careers to young people, and to what extent do you think your aims are being achieved whatever they are and perhaps you could be highly specific about your aims. Ms Matterson: Our aims are twofold around young people and science. We do specifically want to encourage more people to go into science careers, but we also believe that if the UK is to be a place where the Wellcome Trust wants to continue to invest, it has to be a society within which other people want to come, young people coming through want to be scientists and the technologies and developments that science produces are actually embraced and taken up by the society and, with the scientific issues that are raised, there is a society which is actually able to have some informed debate and make democratic decisions around that science. It is actually therefore a very broad agenda and we try to look at the activities that we fund in relation to which ones support whether it is greater scientific literacy or whether it is pulling people up through into the science arena. Our experience of science centres and the external impact assessment that we carried out from our initial investment into some of the millennium centres has shown that the science centres - and this is five science centres that we looked at in great depth, an external evaluation - have been successful particularly at the primary level, particularly when there has been a good link in with the curriculum and there have been good links with the schools ahead of time and the assessors went back and spoke to children who had been to science centres three months after they had made their visit to actually find out whether they had learned anything and whether they had retained it and, when those things were in place, the children could remember what they had done and could explain what the learning was. So, I think that there was some very direct evidence that, when all those things are in place, there is some real learning going on. When those things are not in place, I think that it is just a fun day out. Sometimes a fun day out is fine but we are not really there for fun days out. We want to encourage those links to be made. I think that where a lot more work needs to be done - and therefore the question is, do the science centres have a role here, and I think that they do but I think that there is more work to be done with the centres that we looked at - is around secondary education. Whether that is because with young people it is harder to get out of school during school time, whether it is that the science centres are not quite catering as well as they could, I think there is an awful lot of work to be done to understand that but, from our evaluation of the five centres, it has not been so successful at secondary level. Q44 Dr Turner: Richard, obviously you have a slightly different approach. Can you tell us what your experience has been? Mr Halkett: NESTA's broad mission is to transform the UK's capacity for innovation and we see a good pipeline of people with STEM skills as being important to that but also, reaching beyond that, being inspired by science and being people who are creative in science. Creativity seems to be confined to other areas of the curriculum at the moment and one thing that we see with science and discovery centres is that they are able to teach the more creative aspects of science as well through hands-on ways. That is the reason we are interested in this part of our overall portfolio which includes investment at early stage companies and the other activities of NESTA. In terms of their success, we have been very pleased with the ones we have been involved with. We are seeing in Bolton TIC, for instance, that there is high participation amongst both primary and secondary schools and indeed there is not enough capacity to meet that among students. I certainly think that more could be done more broadly when I have been looking at this, and the work of the Wellcome Trust in the impact analysis has been very good but I think that more needs to be done there. We are dealing with very long-term aims and therefore it is going to be important to establish proxy indicators along the way to see if we are on the right path before you can see much later impacts in terms of STEM careers and greater achievement further down the track, but that should not be an excuse for not doing it. Q45 Dr Turner: To what extent do you try to exercise control over the way that both your institutions fund science centres or how they use your money? Ms Matterson: I think that the early investments were around the business plans that have been described previously and I think that a lot of people have learnt from that that money was put in and then I think funders stood back and I am not sure that that is necessarily the best way forward. With the later investments, we have been more rigorous in terms of the contracts that we have set up in terms of the data that we want back and a very recent investment was where we really believed there was a real need in the UK for a good touring exhibition around genomics and genetics because there has not been one in the UK, bizarrely; given the huge investment that the UK has made in that subject; there has not been a very high quality touring exhibition that has gone around. We worked very closely and we suggested the idea, gave a development grant to the science centres and they responded extremely positively and we gave them some development grant, they came back, put in a proposal which was very rigorously peer reviewed and went through two rounds of committee where we very intensively interrogated the science centres and, in November, that touring exhibition will open and Bristol has been coordinating it on behalf of all the science centres. That is a different type of collaboration where we have had much more involvement and it has been very positive from our perspective and we still obviously do not know what the outcomes of the exhibition will be because it has not opened yet. I think that answer is that, increasingly, as the funders have learned about the centres and the centres have learned about themselves, the way in which we work together has changed, I think for the better, with more collaboration and I think more expectations on data and evaluation and output. Mr Halkett: I think that you do not have to choose. I think in terms of control data of the activities, that is not a position that NESTA would ever really take particularly at the very early stage that we work with these centres, but I think that certainly the process that Clare outlined which needed well designed evaluation data collecting and monitoring need not restrict the day-to-day running of centres and what it does do is build a much, much stronger case for the future. So, in terms of hands on, no, we do not do that, we stay in close touch, we are very interested parties, but what we do is establish evaluation milestones and I think that that is the way to do it. You have to trust, particularly at the early stage, the talented individuals/inspirational individuals who drive a lot of these centres because of their funding backgrounds largely who are very important and you do not want to constrain that too much. Q46 Dr Turner: Do either of you offer business support? Mr Halkett: We certainly help people if they make proposals to us to improve those proposals but, as I said, not in a very in-depth way. Q47 Dr Iddon: We have seen that funding can come from the Government and it can come from trusts but it can also of course come from industry and commerce and they are the people who are very critical of the lack of skills at the moment but they do not appear to be exactly running forward and helping the science centres. I would like Dr Anderson to comment on that view. Dr Anderson: I agree entirely that industry does have a vested interest in supporting science centres and supporting the interest generation in science and technology which they can achieve. At the moment, there is not a tradition of that in Britain or in Europe in general. There is much more of a tradition of that in the United States and somewhat in Canada too. Q48 Dr Iddon: What is the difference? How do the United States do it and Europe cannot? Dr Anderson: Industrial concerns in the United States especially support science centres, they support programmes and they have philanthropic aspects to their operation anyway; it is more of a tradition there than here. It used to be a tradition in Britain in Victorian times. Q49 Dr Iddon: Do you think that we can get that tradition going? Have you any ideas about how we can get industry and commerce engaged? Dr Anderson: I am told that there is a resurgence of it now. At the time when everyone dreamed of a welfare state and industry and individuals were taxed very heavily, it tended to go away, but I think it is building back again now. There was a programme on television yesterday about that and I think that it is happening. Q50 Dr Iddon: Clare or Richard, do you have any comments to make on the involvement of industry and commerce? Mr Halkett: I would certainly make the comment that one of the principles which is good but which is also a problem is that quite a lot of the investment required by centres in terms of core funding is not very sexy; it is not a piece of machinery; it is not a large building. It is quite possible to get capital investment for those kinds of projects but, in terms of the long running and developing a strong core programme of activities, something that is important for the longevity of the centres, then that is normally less attractive in the short term. Reflecting on my time in the States, of course philanthropy is more of a culture there and there are tax breaks for it in a way that there are not necessarily here which does encourage that although corporate social responsibility is encouraging a greater culture. Ms Matterson: I think that our observations are the same. There is some industry sponsorship in science centres but I think that it is tough to get hold of it and it often has strings attached and, if you look into the formal education world, there is a huge amount of money going into education through different companies producing their own resources that go into schools etc which actually often just end up in the bin and are not used, so actually I think that a lot of industry money is wasted in supporting education and science for young people more broadly. Q51 Dr Iddon: It could be argued that these science centres are regional assets rather than national assets. The question that I pose to all of you now, should it be local government or regional government or national government that is supporting these centres and can I also bring in the concept of the Regional Development Agencies because they receive a considerable amount of money to support science in their regions? Ms Matterson: In my sense, it should probably be a mixture of both, that there is a very strong and very clear national agenda around science, there is the science ten year strategy and there is a whole load of elements particularly around the public engagement side that need to be put into place to ensure that that is effective long term and science centres could play a part in that, I think a bigger part in terms of funding than they have thus far, but I think you are absolutely right as well that they are also regional assets and, within the context of the region in terms of how that region sees its science and wanting to develop its science, there is an opportunity there. So, I think there are different roles for both and I think that each needs to make its own decision as to how then it wants to support. Q52 Dr Iddon: How do we strike that balance? Who strikes the balance? Ms Matterson: I think that is for you to decide, not me! Q53 Dr Iddon: Very wise! Dr Anderson? Dr Anderson: I think it is notable that most cities in the UK support their museums very fully. When the science centres and millennium projects started up, I think that the cities were largely assured that the science centres would not be a financial burden, that they were going to be self-supporting, so I do not think that cities in general have tackled that point. I would just say parenthetically that, in the United States where everyone thinks that the rich people pour money into the science centres, they do not, they fight very hard for their money and most of them get some tax-based money from their city or the state and a lot of them get the funds for specific programmes from many federal government offices like the National Science Foundation and the National Institute for Health, the Department of Education etc. So, there is a broad spectrum of sources that they work at very hard. Q54 Dr Iddon: Do you find the people who are working, as you have described, very hard at that spend too much money fundraising rather than running the centres? Ms Matterson: Could I put an image in your head of a three-legged stool. A science centre, I think, is a bit like three-legged stool. It has three things it needs to worry about in order to be effective. It needs to worry about its revenue and its finance and it will do some things that are there to be completely commercial in order to keep its finances on an even keel. It needs to ensure that it has a strong intellectual base, so it will sometimes need to do things which are very strong in content, very strong intellectually, which may not be very, very commercial but it needs to have those in order to maintain credibility in terms of the main science centre. It also needs to be well linked into its community, both in terms of the regional context that we have talked about but also in terms of being a neutral place where the community can come and feel comfortable, and if there is a threat to that science centre the science centre will want its community to come out in support of it. Each of those three prongs has to be even in order for that stool to be steady. The problem that the science centres have had is that they have had to rely hugely on trying to get revenue in, sometimes doing things at the expense, say, of the intellectual base, in order just to keep going. If we are going to have a very strong culture of science centres in this country, we need to make sure that each of them has those three legs and can manage on those three legs and be supported as they move forward. That gives a role for the different components and different aspects. Q55 Dr Iddon: Nobody has mentioned conferencing. Richard? Mr Halkett: I have very little to add to the comments. I would just reinforce Clare's point about the centres not just being an asset to their regions but the regions being an asset to their centres and the way they can tie in, particularly, to industrial heritage. For instance, if you are looking at advanced manufacturing in the West Midlands that would seem to be a particularly useful context for a science and discovery centre to tap into. Q56 Chairman: I am intrigued by your idea of a three-legged stool. The trouble is that somebody has to build that three-legged stool and make sure the legs are all even in order for it to sit carefully on the ground. You have said that should be the job not for this Committee but for Parliament, yet, in our discussions with the centres earlier, their local autonomy they regard perhaps not as paramount but as an incredibly important ingredient for the success of their centres. I do not see from you, yet, where you would see this coordinating function to make sure the three legs are even. Ms Matterson: I think each science centre itself has to make sure the three legs are even, otherwise it will topple over. Q57 Chairman: Would they drive it? Ms Matterson: They need to drive it or it will topple over. It is very clear that when you start seeing a centre which is being driven too far, perhaps, in the revenue context and it really loses its intellectual credibility, it does topple over to some extent, and the community is not there to support it. I think there have been cases of that. Q58 Chairman: Clare, we mentioned earlier the Scottish model, which is an interesting model where in fact the Scottish Executive have come in and said, "We will put some ground rules together to try and enable centres not to deal with their individuality but to have some common purpose across them." Do you see that as a model that is worthy of serious consideration? Ms Matterson: I think it is a model worthy of serious consideration. From my perspective, I would want to think, at a national level, what are the things we want out of these centres and what are the things we want in terms of supporting science and innovation across the UK. You can let them drive the commercial element - so, putting shows on around Bob the Builder, or whatever it might be - to get different groups in. The genomic show that we have just funded we knew would never be a commercial show. But we believe it is important for the UK that there is a show like that and that there is an opportunity for people to go and see it but it will never pull the numbers in like the science of Lord of the Rings or whatever. It is trying to identify which bits we should let the science centres be entrepreneurial about and do for themselves, to keep that leg solid, and for which bit they need support. Because, frankly, often science is not seen as the sexy thing to do, but it is an important thing to do and if it is there and if it is a show that is put on well people will go to see it. Q59 Chairman: Richard, you did not respond to Brian Iddon's particular question about the RDAs. I would have thought you would have something to say on that because of the innovation role which NESTA have. Mr Halkett: I am side-stepping, in the way that Clare did, any idea of percentages or anything like that, but I think that RDAs do have a particular role. In terms of supporting the local system, we do quite a lot of research into the role of cities and the role of regions and the role of leadership structures there that foster innovation, and it seems particularly important that something like this will be linked into that quite clearly. In the past, Bolton TIC has quite a lot of capital funding from the North West Development Agency, so certain ideas have already been involved in the past but, again, on the capital side of projects rather than in the core funding area. In terms of the other areas, that is to be decided, of course. Q60 Dr Harris: Dr Anderson, you have already talked about your effectiveness study, the independent assessment exercise. The Government might say that its interest in doing all the things that science centres do that are valuable in terms of education is carried out through the science and learning centres. They are funding that. That is how they are doing that. Are you aware of any effectiveness evaluation that has been done of science learning centres, compared, for example, to the work you did on the effectiveness of science centres. Ms Matterson: We are in partnership with the Government on the science and learning centre initiative. We put £25 million into that and they put £26 million for the national and regional networks. They do carry out different roles. The science learning centres are specifically to give professional development in science for teachers and technicians, to take science back into the classroom. It is very much geared around formal education in the classroom. There is some interesting work from the University of Seattle, where somebody has mapped out, if you take your 16 waking hours a day, how much time you spend through your lifetime in formal education versus free time. Even for the most time when you are in full time school, it is only 18 per cent of your time that is spent in formal education, so 72 per cent of your time is spent outside of the classroom. Within that 18 per cent there is an even smaller percentage in terms of time spent "doing science". A lot of your waking hours are spent outside the classroom, be they holidays, weekends, evenings, et cetera, and that is where the science centres and museums come in. Q61 Dr Harris: The Government has a plan to get more people studying STEM subjects all the way up. You will be aware of those goals. Although I do not have the transcript, Lord Sainsbury said in an earlier session last year to us that the way it was going to do that and the investment it was making to do that was through the science learning centres. When I was asking about the funding of science centres, he was saying that it was not their plan to fund science centres. Do you know of any evaluation they have done? Could you confirm your view that that is a one-club strategy - and that it is not working or is working to meet their STEM objectives in terms of young people taking it up? Ms Matterson: There is an evaluation ongoing of the science learning centres, but, as I say, it is measuring different things from those of the impact analysis of the science centres because they have different goals. One can say one will just back one horse, which is basically that, but my argument is that it is not sufficient to back one horse. We are absolutely committed to the science learning centre initiative. It is crucially important that teachers are effective in the classroom and part of that development of teachers in the classroom is how then they can best interact with getting the best out of taking the kids out of the school into a science centre. I would say they have different objectives. They do different things with young people. The science learning centres are very much focused on training teachers to be more effective in the classroom and the science centres are about getting kids and their families and their parents into a science environment where they can talk about it informally with their family, with their friends. I think they do different things. Dr Anderson: Could I extend that a little bit. The great problem for getting people into the science stream tends to be in the primary school years. There is a parallel to what has been spoken about in the United States, not so much in Canada but in the United States, where there is a crisis in elementary science teaching. They do not know science and they do not know how to teach science with hands-on methods. In fact, the United States science centres get a lot of funding to teach teachers how to teach science. That is an equivalent. One of the science learning centres, I think, is embedded in a science centre in Britain. Q62 Dr Harris: Mr Halkett and Ms Matterson, in your scheme you have provided ongoing subsidies for science and discovery centres through your initiatives. The Government in its evidence says, "It has always been the Government's view that it should not provide ongoing subsidies for commercially unsuccessful science and discovery centres". Do you accept the implication that you are blundering away your money in some crazy way and they are great custodians? Mr Halkett: In NESTA we have made two investments - of a much smaller scale than the Wellcome Foundation. They have not been ongoing; they have been one-off early stage investments that we have made in two specific centres. I think there is a question around a change in phase and maturity of a science and discovery centre. In the early stages of an initiative like this there is potentially a benefit and a patchwork of funding that is pulled together by entrepreneurial, inspirational leaders. The question is whether, if that were to continue, that is not really sustainable for the next person who is going to be willing to do that kind of job and pull together all these different types of funding. I think there is a question around moving to a new phase. It could be a question of timing. Ms Matterson: Of course we do not want to invest in something which is commercially unsuccessful. Through both the Rediscover initiative with the Millennium Commission and any subsequent funding we have done, we take an awful lot of care in terms of looking at the finances of particularly science centres into which we put our money. Thus far, none of those that we have put our money into have folded or disappeared. But we do believe from a regional perspective that there is a need for people to be able, with their families, to get to a place. Not everybody can come to London to the Science Museum. If you live in Newcastle, it is a very long way to come to London. Q63 Dr Harris: Something struck me about their centres, because if they were commercially successful they would not need funding. Ms Matterson: I think they struggle from day to day. Q64 Dr Harris: I want you to comment on the Government's view that it is not the Government's role, and by implication anyone else's, to subsidise commercially unsuccessful science and discovery centres. The corollary of that is that it should only fund the ones that do not need funding. Mr Halkett: It seems like a very odd sentence to me. I do not know what other government initiatives we would want to apply that test to. Q65 Dr Harris: Indeed. The Army and the Police perhaps! Mr Halkett: Public goods would fall away. Dr Anderson: It is hard to understand why one regards the science centre anyway as a commercial venture. It is fundamentally an educational venture. One or two of them lean very heavily on the more attraction side. By and large they are educational institutions, not commercial ventures. From our impact assessment, that is what the public believe them to be as well. Mr Halkett: If they are uneconomic, that is different from them not being commercially viable. You can have economic impacts that are different. Of course they have said commercially unviable, but if they meant uneconomic that would be different. That might be sensible. Q66 Dr Harris: My final question is to all of you. If the Government were to invest in science and discovery centres, knowing what you do about the aims of government policy, do you think that would be a value for money investment? That is from your experience, the two of you at least, as investors in this field and the third of you as someone who knows a lot about the way these things work. Ms Matterson: If it is a little bit of money into everybody, no. That would be the wrong way to go. One needs to think very carefully, strategically, what you would want to get, and then, through some element of competition, where there is some sort of long-term funding as well linked into that, and through rigorous evaluation and monitoring, and invest and target that way. A little bit trickled into everybody I think would be a waste of money. Q67 Dr Harris: Would the funder get value for money if they did it in the right way? Mr Halkett: If they did it the right way, absolutely. I think the crucial thing to do is to look at the benefits, the logic behind science and discovery centres. The principle is that they can do things by sharing resources and pooling them that individual schools cannot do themselves. Therefore, I think the critical thing to include in the evaluation is in terms of access and in terms of reaching out to all areas of the community to make sure that is not just to a privileged few. I know that the science and discovery centres strive to make that the case but I think that would be critical to the economic argument that could be made. Dr Anderson: Personally, I believe very strongly that such an investment has well paid off, but I do think that in the long term it is much better to have a variety of sources from which science centres can, in a rather entrepreneurial way, find funding for their programmes rather than having one big lump of money coming from one source. One source changes, public policies change, things change. It is like an ecosystem: it is more stable if it is more complex. In the end, it is a more stable situation when there are many different sources to which science centres can turn and they should all be audited sources. Q68 Chairman: The one thing we are struggling with in this inquiry is how do we evaluate the success of the centres? Clearly, in terms of objective evaluation, I think we heard from Ecsite that they would prefer to have an independent evaluation. I thought that was a very powerful statement that was made there. Clearly, it is the criteria on which you judge the success that is the important element. I just wonder, in your view, who should set those criteria. Should it be the centre itself? Should it be the funding bodies? Should it be the Government? Who should it be? Mr Halkett: I think you begin with the end, where you want to get to - and that could be extremely long term - and you move in a logical sequence back to where you are now. There will undoubtedly be local priorities for individual centres, but the overarching goal before them is to encourage engagement in science, technology, engineering and maths in the long term. If you set that, you can then work backwards and establish proxy indicators: involvement at A-level, involvement at GCSE, linkages with local communities, and then you have to package in or access some ideas of quality. There are good benchmarks, that would not be incredibly complex, that could be set to establish this if a formalised programme were set up. Ms Matterson: I think one would need a range of level of objectives that one is trying to achieve. In many respects, it would be useful, if there are key funders coming in, for there to be conversation amongst those key funders. With the national Science Learning Centre initiative, we have agreed and joint objectives with government so that we are not all trying to collect different data, but I think it would be very beneficial if there were some single, agreed data requirement collected across the sector as a whole. I think the impact of that analysis is that the problem was that data is not available at the moment. One needs a mixture of quantitative and qualitative to look at reach, impact and value and then try to set criteria against those three headings. Q69 Chairman: Perhaps I could I ask Peter: that should be a recommendation of this Committee, should it? Dr Anderson: Yes, I agree. They are very good observations made. Chairman: You would support them. On that positive note, where we all agree, could I thank Clare Matterson, Richard Halkett and Dr Peter Anderson for your time with us this morning. Thank you very much indeed. Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Schools and 14-19 Learners, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Ian Pearson MP, Minister of State for Science & Innovation, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MBE MP, Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, gave evidence. Q70 Chairman: Good morning. Could I give a very special welcome to the three ministers this morning, Jim Knight Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Schools in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, Ian Pearson MP, the new Minister of State for Science & Innovation in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Science ---- Ian Pearson: Skills. Q71 Chairman: Skills, sorry. Ian Pearson: But science is extremely important. It runs right through what we do. Q72 Chairman: A Freudian slip in my notes! Finally, but by no means least, a very good friend, Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MBE MP, Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Could I welcome you all and thank you enormously for coming at such very short notice to this one-off session about science and discovery centres. I will start by asking you, Ian, how the science centres fit into the Government's commitment to increasing the STEM skills within the UK. Do they play an important role in that? Ian Pearson: Jim might want to say something on that in detail but I would like to say, as Science and Innovation Minster of ten days' standing, that it is very clear to me, when I look at my brief, that we have made tremendous advances when it comes to investment in science over the last ten years. I think we have seen a step change in our innovation performance in the United Kingdom. Where we perhaps have been weak is that I do not think we have done enough to promote the importance of science. The whole science in society agenda is very important to me and will be for the future. Science and discovery centres potentially are already playing an important role in popularising science, raising awareness. I was totting up, having gone through the Ecsite website, the number of science centres I have been to and the total was 14. They are very different. It is important to recognise that when we are talking about science and discovery centres they can vary from the Eden Project at one end, to Thinktank in Birmingham, which is a fantastic resource and does very well indeed, to some of those based in museums in London and a whole range of projects up and down the country. There is no one particular science centre model. They do contribute in different ways and I am sure individually they will vary in terms of the way they are run and their cost-effectiveness and how they contribute to the STEM agenda and how they contribute to the wider promotion of science agenda. Jim Knight: I was trying to tot up my total as well. Margaret Hodge: So was I. Q73 Chairman: We are not going to have a competition! Jim Knight: I think I got to 11 - it is right that he should be the Science Minister as I did not do as many as him! Obviously science is a huge priority for the Government as a whole and for us within DCSF, the STEM agenda is something that we take very seriously in contributing to that priority and trying to raise the general level of skill and understanding in respect of the STEM subjects. We spend just shy of £174 million on that particular agenda, most of it through schools. The science and discovery centres play an important role in engaging the general public and, often directly, small children, through visits with science in a way that is engaging. In terms of educational outcomes of children, we know the involvement of parents is very important and science and discovery centres are a great place for parents to take their children and together learn more about science. That is great. That is really important. Q74 Chairman: In terms of the reworked objectives for STEM subject development with which you were involved with last year, what is the progress there? Do you feel in any way that the science and discovery centres have played a part in achieving your overall objectives? Are we seeing progress? Are we reversing the trends in terms of A-level physics and chemistry? Jim Knight: We are seeing some progress, yes. We are doing considerably better in biology and psychology. We have improved things significantly in chemistry, in that things are now more stable than they were. We are not seeing the same declines in people studying chemistry that we used to. We continue to have a problem with physics. We still have good numbers of boys studying physics, and all the sciences, including physics, are relatively popular, but we have a persistent problem in respect of girls being engaged with physics. We funded, with Ecsite, this evaluation of the science and discovery centres with what was DTI and which would now come out of Ian's budget, I think. One of the things I will be looking for when that reports in March is whether or not there is evidence that they are having an effect in the numbers of students wanting to study STEM subjects at any level. Obviously if they are doing particular work on particular priorities, like girls studying physics, then I am going to be particularly interested. Q75 Chairman: Did you look at the Scottish model at all when you were looking at evaluating the science and discovery centres to see whether there were lessons to be learned? Jim Knight: Obviously I would hope and expect Ecsite to be looking at that as part of their evaluation. Scotland, as I understand it, has had mixed success. They do some direct funding but they do not fund them all, and there are some centres that have financial trouble, as there have been in England as well. My understanding of the Scottish situation is mixed but different. That is one of the joys of devolution that we celebrate every day. Q76 Chairman: I will bring Margaret in and then come back to you, Evan. Margaret, are the science and discovery centres in your view cultural? Is the main objective of them cultural or is it educational? Where do you see your role fitting into supporting them? Margaret Hodge: I think I am here in somewhat of a supportive role. Q77 Chairman: Have you been to any, by the way? Margaret Hodge: I have not got through the list. I have done about eight or nine but I have not looked at it in detail. I am here in a supportive role. I think our interest comes from a number of areas. One is that some of the science centres are in museums, so I have an interest there because I have responsibility for museums. Secondly, many of them are visitor attractions, and, therefore, with my tourism hat on I also have an interest in them there. Thirdly, as members of the Government we are all interested in promoting the importance of science, so I support my two colleagues in that regard. Q78 Dr Harris: When we had Lord Sainsbury before us last year, he said that the Government, to implement its STEM objectives, was putting money in but it was putting it into science and learning centres. I would be interested to know whether you are aware of any measure or evaluation of the effectiveness of that investment in meeting your objectives, of getting more people studying STEM subjects at A-level, level 6, Key Stage 3 and all those other objectives or whether that is still to be done. Jim Knight: I do not have the evidence at my fingertips on that, Evan, but, if you look at the money, of the £173.6 million that we spend on STEM, £143 million goes directly to schools, there is then £8 million that is spent on science clubs and the remainder is spent on CPD - and obviously a big chunk of the £143 million that goes to schools is also spent on the continuous professional development of teachers. At the heart of improving STEM learning is improving STEM teaching, getting teachers engaged and excited and refreshed about their subject. That is why, with the Wellcome Foundation, we have invested £51 million in these learning centres, one of which, for example, at Bristol, in the South West, works with and as part of a science and discovery centre. So the two can align, but it is very much about trying to deliver that, to get maths teachers, science teachers and engineering teachers re-engaged and excited about the subject. Q79 Dr Harris: The point I am making is: would you be open to the argument that just relying on the CPD side, through science learning centres, in order to meet these objectives might be missing, if there is an equal amount of evidence, an alternative way, which is to excite young people formally and informally through science and discovery centres. That is a possible way of achieving your policy. Jim Knight: I certainly accept that. I accept that in respect of all forms of learning. We have published the Learning Outside of the Classroom manifesto and we have over 400 different organisations signed up to that manifesto to encourage and facilitate more learning outside of school. It might be just outside in the school grounds, but, equally, it is going on trips to things like science and learning centres, because we do recognise that that different form of engagement can work very well. Q80 Dr Harris: Perhaps I could ask Margaret one question. There is a curiosity here, because, in terms of science subjects, there is a massive shortage of young people studying physics and chemistry and maths and things like that, yet the Government does not really give ongoing revenue support to science and discovery centres but your department gives massive support, very welcome support, to art galleries. Is that because we are short of young people becoming painters? Margaret Hodge: I have to say to you, Evan, we do want painters as well. One of the strengths of the UK is our cultural heritage, which I am sure you and I enjoy. We want as much out of the creative industry as we do out of other industries, so I do not apologise for getting money - indeed, I would love to have more to give - to things like the galleries. Q81 Dr Harris: You see my serious point. Margaret Hodge: From our point of view, we support museums and we support galleries. One of the best science centres is in the Science Museum. There is a really good one there. They fund that, I assume, in part, out of their pot. There is an interesting stat that I came across in preparing for today which comes out of the Ecsite review of five centres. They got just under one million children attending the science centres. Forty-three per cent of those went to the two national museums which are supported by DCMS. Directly or indirectly, I think we are playing our role in also supporting science. Q82 Dr Harris: It might be confounded, might it not? If there are kids who can get free entry into a museum which are, generally speaking, less "sciency" and more culture and heritage and all that, and they have to pay to go to a science centre, then it may well be that, because government funding supports free entry into things that are less "sciency", that you might be confounding your aim to encourage young people to go into these important science subjects. Can you see how it might be seen to be unfair? Margaret Hodge: I have to say to you that if you had the museum world sitting here giving evidence to you, they would baulk at the statement that museums are science-free or do not offer a huge range of offering in the sciences. A number of the science centres, I think about one quarter, are in museums. We do not have free entry to all museums, we have free entry to the national museums, and then local authorities and voluntary organisations decide their own charging policy in relation to other museums, but, out of the Ecsite analysis, 43 per cent of the children who attended a science centre went to one of the two big national museums where there is free entry: the Science Museum and the Natural History. Those are the two they went to. Q83 Chairman: They are both in London, Margaret. If you live in Newcastle or impoverished Harrogate ----- Margaret Hodge: I did ask the question, Phil, for example, for the Manchester Museum. I would be interested to know - and I just did not get the stat in time for this morning's appearance - whether there are children who go there as well. Chairman: That would be quite interesting. Q84 Dr Iddon: Thousands. Margaret Hodge: There you are. So it is probably as true of Manchester as it is of the two London museums. I just did not have any stats. Q85 Adam Afriyie: We have been to visit a few of these science and discovery centres. They are fantastic places. You can see a lot of excited young people in them, some aged 13, some aged 18, a lot of whom get quite excited about going into science once they have been there. There is no doubt that they are encouraging that interest. Having said that, in 1985 there were more people studying most of the STEM subjects than there are today, so clearly these science centres have not achieved the goal or have not helped in a great or significant way to achieve the goal of creating more students at A-level or graduates from university in those STEM subjects. Why has there been this failure? Is it that you have not had your eye on the ball? Or is it that it has taken second place to other initiatives? Jim Knight: I think it is largely down to pupil choice. We have a much bigger range of subjects now than we used to. If you look at the increase in the studying of psychology at A-level, for example, it has soared. There is nothing unscientific about psychology but, with more learning institutions offering that subject, choice means that some are going off and studying that and not choosing the traditional sciences. Q86 Adam Afriyie: Your responsibility, surely, as government ministers, where we have a great shortage in those STEM subjects, is to ensure that those subjects are studied, to encourage or to motivate. I am pointing out that it has kind of gone backwards over that period of time. I appreciate Ian's honest assessment that there is work that needs to be done in the area; I am just wondering whether it has something to do with these science centres, the money is going there rather than somewhere else. Why has it gone? Jim Knight: I do not think it has anything to do with the science centres. We certainly cannot blame any decline. Certainly it is starting to level off now as the various initiatives that we are pursuing have an effect. We cannot blame the science centres for that decline. It is certainly not a failing on their part. As you say, there are some absolutely fabulous places for us all to visit. It is more about the development of society and what interests young people now. To some extent, Ian can probably comment more wisely on this than I can, but it is to what extent science employers are engaging with education and getting into schools and showing young people that careers in science are exciting and interesting and not dreary occupations for people in white coats, which people think are not for them and they are pre-occupied by Big Brother and media studies. Q87 Chairman: I am not particularly wanting to go down that road, but Ian you have been mentioned in dispatches so I will give you a quick word. Ian Pearson: I would just like to make the point that we should not forget about the excellence of UK science overall and the fact that we are second only to the United States in the number of science citations per head of population per researcher, or whichever metric you use. It is true that we want to see a greater pull through and more people wanting to complete doctorates in STEM subjects, which is one of the targets we monitor on a regular basis, but, when it comes to the effectiveness of the UK's science base, as the Committee will note, we have very good reasons to be proud of what we achieve here in the UK. Chairman: Thank you for that. Q88 Dr Turner: Could I turn to more practical aspects. We have three ministers lined up here, from three departments, and all of them have an interest in science centres. How are we going to divvy up responsibility for supporting these centres? Is one department going to take responsibility? Are you going to pool resources? What are you going to do? Ian Pearson: You are right to say that we all share an interest in science centres from our respective departments. I think it is right also to recognise that science centres have always been supported not particularly by government but by the Millennium Commission and by others on the basis that they will be financially sustainable. I believe that I have an overall responsibility for science policy. I think it is my role, and I want to do more in it, to promote UK science, within the United Kingdom as well as outside it. To the extent that science centres contribute to that agenda, I think it is fair to say that I am the minister with lead responsibility for this area. I look forward to meeting with Ecsite and discussing the work they are doing on financial sustainability, for instance, and looking at how we can have a more effective way in promoting science in the United Kingdom. Dr Turner: Thank you for that. It is nice to see someone standing up and taking responsibility. Q89 Chairman: Do the two other ministers agree? There was relief going over their faces at that point. Jim Knight: I am absolutely delighted to agree with that. Margaret Hodge: We almost let him come on his own! Jim Knight: This is a model of joined-up government. We will continue to increase the funding for schools and provide them with the resource, if they want to, to visit the centres. Ian will talk to me strategically about what we should be doing across government on this but I think it is right for the Science Minister to take the lead. Q90 Chairman: May I put a rider in here. I think one of the concerns - and this goes back to Evan Harris's question - is that your predecessor but one, Lord Sainsbury, made it clear to this Committee that these were commercial ventures which, therefore, should stand on their own two feet, and if they could not they should go under. That is not really the message you are giving today. You are going to support them if they are delivering on the Government's agenda, be it the STEM agenda or indeed promoting good public engagement with science. You are going to give them vast resources. Ian Pearson: Let me use my own words, rather than have words put into my mouth. Science centres are clearly commercial organisations. They took the decision to establish themselves. They do not exist as a matter of government strategy and policy. Where they have been supported, whether it be by the Millennium Commission or by others, it has been on the basis that they would be financially self-sustaining. That very much remains the case. I was trying to make a broader point in saying that if we are going to have an agenda to promote UK science for the future and we are going to build on the goodwill that is already taking place at the moment, I think we need to take a strategic look at where science centres fit in with this picture. Yes, they are independent organisations but they need to be part of the picture about how we promote UK science. Q91 Dr Turner: Thank you, Chairman, for anticipating my next question. Seriously, I could not help thinking that perhaps the reason why Jim and Margaret looked so pleased and relieved when Ian spoke up was because they thought, "Ah, that means no one is going us to stump up from our budgets to help with financial support of centres." I want to ask you now, Ian, because you have picked up the gauntlet, whether you will be considering the possibility of helping science centres with core funding. Because it is quite clear that institutions like this, which are not commercial ventures, can never be commercial, are not profit making, always have difficulty at one time or another in maintaining themselves because they do not have any reliable core funding. Will you be considering that? Ian Pearson: Firstly, on your point about relief from other ministers that their budgets are not going to be affected, as a government we look far more broadly than just individual departmental costs and budgets. When you are looking at the issue of science, it is right that we look right across government. We should not get tied down in discussions about budgets and which government pot funding comes out of. When it comes to the issue of potential government-funding of science centres, I think it is premature to make any judgment. We have provided some funding in the past. You will be aware of the £2 million that was provided to help a small number of centres to become financially self-sustaining. Most of them, if not all of them, have had support previously from a number of sources on the basis that they will be self-sustaining. I do not accept the argument that they will never be self-sustaining because some of them are already very successful ventures - and we can point to some of them. Some of them clearly have financial difficulties. I say it is premature because I think we need to look at the work that Ecsite is doing. As I hope the Committee is aware, we have funded, jointly, Ecsite, to the tune of £750,000 over two financial years, to look at how centres can be self-sustaining. I would like to think that for three-quarters of a million quid Ecsite is going to come up with a slightly more sophisticated solution than "Give us all a grant". Q92 Dr Turner: Certainly. You have commissioned Ecsite in their review to "demonstrate the impact of science centres and the added value that they deliver." The only reason why I question this is because Ecsite are not exactly a disinterested body and it would be an enormous surprise to anybody if their review did not conclude that science centres did exactly that in spades. Some people will obviously think, "They would say that, wouldn't they, because that's what they do?" Would it not have been an advantage to have had this review conducted by someone independent? If they came back with the same message, great - and it is quite possible - but it is that much more valued and that much more powerful if it is seen to be independent. Ian Pearson: I have confidence that Ecsite will be a professional job and will provide an objective assessment and recommendations to us in accordance with the funding in terms of reference that we set up for the work that we have asked them to do. My officials and officials from Jim's department certainly will want to monitor closely the progress of the project and ensure it is meeting our objectives. Jim Knight: Clearly, we could have gone with an independent source for this, but I would hope it would be the case that Ecsite would understand that people would level exactly the charge that you have done, and therefore make sure that whatever they propose is extremely well argued and extremely well evidenced, more so, perhaps, than an independent consultant being asked to do it because of their vested interest. Q93 Dr Turner: Do you agree that it would be nice to have independent confirmation? Jim Knight: If it is sufficiently well argued and evidenced, and we can see that when we, across government, assess it, then, yes, we are relatively independent-minded people and that may be sufficient. Ian Pearson: If the Committee want to undertake a peer review of Ecsite's work, they are more than welcome. Dr Turner: We are busy enough - and you are not offering us the contract either! Q94 Linda Gilroy: From that I take it that you are expecting Ecsite to come up with a fairly comprehensive analysis of where science centres can draw their funding in future. Jim Knight: The funding that we have provided to date, the £2 million and then this funding, has all been based upon the premise that they should become self-financing. We have put the £2 million in to try and assist with a limited number of centres that were having trouble over the short term, in order to get them to a better long-term position. Similarly, the argument was accepted that we needed to do a wider piece of work to look at science centres as a whole and their long-term financial viability on a self-sustaining basis. Q95 Linda Gilroy: Is there anything implicit in the remit you have given to Ecsite that you have some conclusions why that has failed to happen? Jim Knight: I do not know that there is. Ian Pearson: As a newly appointed Science Minister, one of the things I have to do is sit down with Ecsite. I have read the evidence they have submitted to the Committee and I note the points that they make, but I would like to sit down with them, to take stock of the project we are funding and how it is going, and to take their minds on any emerging conclusions. My understanding is that the project runs until April next year. I think it is right to take stock now as to what direction it is going in. No doubt my officials have been monitoring the progress of the project to date. Q96 Linda Gilroy: How does that fit with the comprehensive spending review? Are there any options in funding, revenue funding, project funding, capital grants, tax breaks? We have heard aspirations about reducing VAT that have been ruled in or ruled out. Ian Pearson: The comprehensive spending review is ongoing. For certain departments and parts of departments it has already been settled. As you will be aware, the science budget has already been set and shows significant growth over the 2008-2011 period. That again demonstrates the importance that the Government attaches to science. In a tough spending round, 2.7 per cent real growth in the science budget is very much to be welcomed. Exactly how that budget is split up is a matter that we will want to consider very carefully over the next few months, particularly as a new ministerial team and with a new structure to the department. With regard to some of the wider questions about tax breaks, they are clearly not matters for the ministers around this table. Q97 Linda Gilroy: When it comes to regional diversity, we have heard a little bit about the role of regional development agencies. How do you see this trying to safeguard regional diversity in the subject mix of science centres to maintain that in the regions? Ian Pearson: Perhaps I can say something about that to start with and then others might want to contribute. I just look at some of the examples from my own region. We have this Thinktank which is based in Birmingham which is being supported by the regional development agency Advantage West Midlands to do work on the Science Cities agenda. It is a really good example about how a science centre can work with an RDA and fit within a regional strategy for innovation. When we are looking at a lot of the science centres, we need to recognise that they are regional or local bodies. I think it right that they fit within a regional strategic framework when it comes to science and innovation. We have regional development agencies which are now well established. They will produce development strategies regionally. Most of them have been looking very carefully at the science base and how universities and business can work more closely together and most of them have also been looking at the role of science and design centres as part of that agenda. I think we do need to see science centres looking in that context and some will fit more easily within it than others. Q98 Linda Gilroy: Perhaps, finally, I could return to the point Evan was making earlier and invite Ian and Jim to comment on it, because Margaret has made her point of view very clear. The figures we have in the briefing are that there is £320 million for museums revenue funding. It would be interesting, I do not know if it might be possible, to get some information on what proportion of that does support science and museums. £400 million goes to the Arts Council. In a three-year period, the equivalent figure for science centres was in the region of £35 million. They are maybe not quite directly comparable, but, given the importance of having a science literate community to understand some of the challenges we face on climate change, on wrestling with issues like MMR and GM foods, do you not think the time has come to try to move progressively towards putting some funding into science centres to support not just the educational programme for schools but general science. Ian, I think you mentioned that in your opening remarks. Jim Knight: I will kick off by saying that there is a balance to be struck here. We choose to give as much money as possible directly to schools so that they then have the resource to buy whatever provision they think is fit for them, rather than giving less money to schools and giving some to the supply side of the market, if you like. There may be a case - and that is something that Ian and I will look at - for saying there might be specific projects coming out of specific centres which would interest us. For example, we have this problem with girls engaging with physics. If centres were to come forward with ways of addressing that with us, perhaps with broadcasters, it would be great to do for physics what Bill Oddie has done for biodiversity. Those kinds of things would have to interest us because they deal directly with our priorities but I cannot see us going into a place whereby we make centres subsidy dependent, particularly those like, for example, the Eden Centre which are very successful. Kew Gardens is a funding line in the Defra budget. There are some that get money from other departments as well. Q99 Linda Gilroy: Would one way of dealing with that be to put that in the hands of children, young students and the families themselves, by perhaps giving something like "books for babies", giving a science enrichment entitlement access to one or more science museums at certain stages in school careers, to encourage them to see that they have ownership of it themselves and they can take it to whichever science museum? That would be a way of supporting the activity and could be linked to some sort of outcome as well. Jim Knight: There are notions of credits, particularly to less advantaged families ---- Q100 Linda Gilroy: And girls? Jim Knight: -- access to educational opportunities out of hours that we discuss and we think about. There was some mention in the Prime Minister's Mansion House speech a few weeks ago of that notion. I am not at the point of ruling anything out but certainly I cannot rule that in right now. Q101 Linda Gilroy: No, but it is something you would be willing to look at. Jim Knight: Certainly. Q102 Linda Gilroy: It is not a solution on its own. Margaret Hodge: There is a huge diversity of funding for these science centres. We had Renaissance in the Regions funding for regional museums and I think the museum in your constituency benefited from that. The Royal Cornwall Museum has a science centre; Enginuity, Shropshire; Manchester Museum - a number of these science centres received funding through that Renaissance in the Regions programme, which was very successful. I think a lot of the museum world has learned from the science and discovery centre movement, if you want to call it that. The interactive exhibits that engage children and young people, in particular, in the whole world of science is something that you increasingly now see in museums. That might create some difficulties for the commercial viability of the science centres, but, in terms of the overall government objective of opening up science to more and more people, it is a good thing. Q103 Chairman: Museum accreditation is based on the quality of the collection. The museum accreditation scheme is well established and really gives both customers and funders real security over the quality of what is happening. Do you think it would be a good idea to apply to science centres on the basis of, for instance, their educational offer? Margaret Hodge: There is nothing to stop a science centre, if it meets those quality thresholds and accreditation rules from applying. Every year the Museum, Libraries and Archives Council accredits new museums. It accredited Plymouth last year, I understand. It accredits them all over the place. There is nothing to stop them. The difference in conception between the traditional science ---- Q104 Chairman: They do not have a collection. Margaret Hodge: They do not have a collection. That has to be part of the accreditation process. Q105 Linda Gilroy: It is possible to have cooperation between the science centre, as in the Plymouth Marine Aquarium, and the museum, and for them to work with each other. Margaret Hodge: Quite. Linda Gilroy: I would conclude by saying the responses you have given suggest that hopefully what Ecsite will come out with is a toolbox from which different science centres will be able to pick appropriate recipes to become more viable in future because the funding stream is almost infinite. Q106 Chairman: I want to come back to you, Ian, because we are running out of time. Ian Pearson: That is perfectly possible as an outcome. I just wanted to add to some of the things Jim has said - because he has rightly focused on our children - when it comes to promoting science. Obviously we want not just to focus on children but families and a wider engagement strategy. You will be aware that research councils are currently in the process of setting up beacons for public engagement. My understanding is that some of those will certainly include science centres, probably on a contracted basis. We have had programmes such as Science Wise, Science Media Centre being set up. The Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report back in December 2006, an expert centre on public dialogue on science and innovation, so there is work that has been going on in these areas. I think the issue for us is how we can most effectively coordinate it and vigorously promote it. That is something that I am very keen to pursue. Chairman: One last question from Brian Iddon. Q107 Dr Iddon: Chairman, in adding value to the school curriculum, science centres can be invaluable. Some have gained money from two features of the old DfES. One is the Innovation Unit and the other is Excellence in Cities money. I would like to ask Jim: do those two funding streams continue to exist in the new department? Jim Knight: The Innovation Unit has been liberated from the department and now floats free. It still receives a substantial amount of funding from DCSF but I think it has now won a contract with the Cabinet Office around engagement with the third sector, for example, so it is working with other departments, apart from just our own, using some fantastic skills and understanding they have around engagement. It might be an organisation that Ecsite should be talking to, given that expertise. As far as Excellence in Cities is concerned, that has largely become the City Challenge money, which we now spend in London, and, starting in April, in Manchester and the Black Country. But it is not a programme in which I have been directly involved. That is one on which Andrew Adonis has been working, although I am now taking on the Black Country Challenge. If I need to correct that, I will drop you a note. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. On that note, could I thank our three ministers, Jim Murphy, Ian Pearson and Margaret Hodge very much indeed. |